Justin the I catches a barbian Arrow

[Ace_General]

Now, Im sure most people here familar with the late roman empire, early byzantium are familar with Justinian, the eastern roman emperor who tried to restore the roman empire and actually was somewhat successful according to most history

But with this timeline, lets say Justinians uncle and patron, who was born in the balkans and came to constantipole as a soilder and advenuterer dies in miltary service and never take the throne and justinian stays a balkan peasant

Im asking what would happen if Justinians devastating wars of reunification of Italy(The gothic regime was stable and in theory the gothic king was the eastern emperors repersentative though in reality ranged from friendly to neutral) and of North Africa. Also, what would of happened if a more able emperor than Justianian didnt sign needlessly expenisve and wasteful peace treaties with the Persians.
Another thing that would happen without justinian in the picture is that the new emperor probably wouldn't try to hold more church councils and found the roman state religon(the orthodox church) and alieniate the western(Eventually catholic) and eastern churches

If you really look at it, what really destroyed the city of rome itself and italy and spain + africa to a lesser extent was not the barbarian invasions of the 5th century, but really justinians wars of unifcation

So what happens from then on with a stable eastern roman empire, a rather friendly and independant italy under theorodroics successors, and a rather stable vandal N. Africa

[jermagon]

well the borders of the Eastern Roman empire will remain the same, the empire economy will flourish because Justinian simply spent all the money on his wars and to bribe the tribes and gain their loyalty, and Italy will rise again under the role of the Romanized Ostrogoth.
the 610-628 Roman-Persian war will never happened thus both the empire will be in good position making the future Arab conquest hart to achieve.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Defintely put a damper on the arab invasions. Dont think Justinian could have foresaw that as a likely consequence for his wars.

But even if the arabs were able to expand into Egypt and farther into North Africa they might meet a challenge with the Vandals.

[Antigenes]

Difficult to say what effect Ioustinianos actually had on the western conquests. What exactly were the Emperors supposed to do with that colossal Anastasian surplus and sexy new army anyway? Even a series of extensive building projects couldn't soak all that cash up. Besides, invading Italy and Africa was a nice way to solve several problems at the same time.

In my view, if you don't want the ERE going after the West, you need to mess with the fiscal and military foundations of those wars, instead of changing the life of one man - albeit a very important man - who may or may not have been the key factor in going to war.

[Athenian Alexandros]

The Arabs would have faced a much more stable byzantium and persia and may have been defeated. Islam would not be as major a religion as it is and both byzantium and persia would prosper. Friendly Ostrogothic Italy would provid a solid and safe frontier and the vandals would have kept their dominance in n. africa. They may or may not have eventually gotten better relations with byzantium. Europe would possibly not fall into the dark ages and thrive in germano-roman kingdoms. The church may not have split and the pope would have remained a bishop of rome and not command such power over the west.

[Ace_General]

The Arabs would have faced a much more stable byzantium and persia and may have been defeated. Islam would not be as major a religion as it is and both byzantium and persia would prosper. Friendly Ostrogothic Italy would provid a solid and safe frontier and the vandals would have kept their dominance in n. africa. They may or may not have eventually gotten better relations with byzantium. Europe would possibly not fall into the dark ages and thrive in germano-roman kingdoms. The church may not have split and the pope would have remained a bishop of rome and not command such power over the west.

The whole dark ages/middle ages/feudal system thing was well underway in northern europe as the franks by the 500's pretty much had europe north of the pyrnees and alps locked down

[Antigenes]

The Arabs would have faced a much more stable byzantium and persia and may have been defeated. Islam would not be as major a religion as it is and both byzantium and persia would prosper. Friendly Ostrogothic Italy would provid a solid and safe frontier and the vandals would have kept their dominance in n. africa. They may or may not have eventually gotten better relations with byzantium. Europe would possibly not fall into the dark ages and thrive in germano-roman kingdoms. The church may not have split and the pope would have remained a bishop of rome and not command such power over the west.

"Friendly Ostrogothic Italy"? lolwut

Also, I don't think you understand why the Papacy had the authority and influence it did. If anything, the Byzantines retarded that influence, they didn't permit it to expand.

[hellheaven1987]

Ostrogoth would probably overran by Lombard, anyway. In the end, the guarantee of "friendly Italy" is very questionable.

Overall, it is difficult to say since the last Romano-Persia War has little to do with Italy and North Africa itself; if Emperor Maurice got murdered Sassanid would still jump on ERE.

[G-Megas-Doux]

The main problem with this question is that Justinian I was an important part of the reign of Justin I being the most trusted and chief advisor who helped shape policy. Secondly Justinian ruled for a long time and experienced many changes in the political climate. Perhaps the most difficult would be the shortage of available subjects for conquest due to the plague that was noteable during his reign.

Your first question should not be that a more able Emperor would be in charge and how well would they have done but who would have lead the Empire had the wife of Anastasius not promoted Justin and another person attempted to take the throne?

If we look at the end of the 5th Century we can see some problems that the preceding Emperors in the East had to deal with and we can see that politically the East was unstable and requiring that firm hand and stability which was brought by the family of Justin. I sight that even here we have the notorious riots in Constantinople during Justinians reign that nearly deposed him.

I dont think that the choices of Justinian to attempt to re-establish Roman rule in former provinces were necessarily bad as in the 3rd Century the Empire had disintergrated quite a way and it was reconstituted effectively enough in the later part of the century. His one problem was that despite some able generals of reasonable loyalty the infrastructure was not in place to defend Italy and the Balkans whilst defending the Middle Easter borders and still expecting to expand. What was required was to only fight one opponent at once something that was becoming increasingly difficult as the preasures were showing.

Can it be argued that it was a failure of Byzantine diplomacy that increased these preasures? It is possible however diplomacy has its short falls by how one is perceived by others before the diplomacy begins and what goals another group have.

The main hopes for reconquest might have been to reignite the feeling of unity in the west and continue the expansion however with no available manpower in the East and little in the West nor a central government in Rome to bring loyalty it was going to be difficult to maintain. Still not impossible depending on the quality of Generals and diplomatic ablility with the Lombards who conquered Italy later.

Ultimatly the Eastern Romans lost much of what they had due to internal weakness of a government that faced multipal opponents who were united and had a clear target however this was all after Justinian I.

[Athenian Alexandros]

The whole dark ages/middle ages/feudal system thing was well underway in northern europe as the franks by the 500's pretty much had europe north of the pyrnees and alps locked down

Well if you remember, the Byzantines had pretty much destroyed the vandals and ostrogothic realms. These kingdoms tried to base their rule on roman culture hence'' germano-roman kingdoms'' and may not have slipped into the dark ages and become a civilized settled people.

[Athenian Alexandros]

"Friendly Ostrogothic Italy"? lolwut

Also, I don't think you understand why the Papacy had the authority and influence it did. If anything, the Byzantines retarded that influence, they didn't permit it to expand.

I actually think that you dont understand the papacy rising to power. There were bishops for the great cities of the empire, the pope was originally the one for rome and at one point each one excommunicated the rest. I know the one in constantinople and emporer tried to limit the pope , but i meant that maybe they could have more cultural influence over the church in the west and limit the pope. The papal states emerged only because of lack of authority in italy. Had the ostrogoths remained in control, there would be no room for a strong papal state.

[Antigenes]

I actually think that you dont understand the papacy rising to power. There were bishops for the great cities of the empire, the pope was originally the one for rome and at one point each one excommunicated the rest. I know the one in constantinople and emporer tried to limit the pope , but i meant that maybe they could have more cultural influence over the church in the west and limit the pope. The papal states emerged only because of lack of authority in italy. Had the ostrogoths remained in control, there would be no room for a strong papal state.

Papal temporal control had relatively little to do with papal religious authority in Western Europe. Take the Three Chapters controversy of the sixth century, an appropriate starting point. Basically, in order to force a compromise with the anti-Chalkedonian prelates of Syria and Egypt, Ioustinianos attempted to ban the so-called "Three Chapters", three writings made by supporters of Chalkedonian orthodoxy that, according to the anti-Chalkedonians, were basically Nestorian heresy. Pope Vigilius disagreed (took some balls, since he was the Emperor's "guest" in Constantinople at the time). As per Wood (in Chazelle and Cubitt, 2007), the Papacy had enough muscle to force virtually all of the Gallic bishops to take the Pope's line against the Three Chapters. And this was in the 550s, before Gregorius I, when the Papacy really started making things happen.

The popes already had a significant amount of weight to throw around even before the Western Empire fell. It's fair to say that a lack of centralized authority may have messed with things in Italy, but I doubt it. Caesaropapism as it was in Byzantine territory was intimately connected to the need to mediate among the Pentarchy over the issue of acquiescence to Chalkedon, and later caesaropapism evolved out of Zenonic and Ioustinianic practice in attempting to solve schisms without reference to religious councils and so forth. The Papacy won't really be connected to that controversy without Byzantine control over Italy, even if the Ostrogoths, Lombards, or whomever does establish some kind of stable semi-centralized authority in the peninsula. It wasn't a simple "temporal rulers kept the uppity popes down" situation at all.

[Athenian Alexandros]

Papal temporal control had relatively little to do with papal religious authority in Western Europe. Take the Three Chapters controversy of the sixth century, an appropriate starting point. Basically, in order to force a compromise with the anti-Chalkedonian prelates of Syria and Egypt, Ioustinianos attempted to ban the so-called "Three Chapters", three writings made by supporters of Chalkedonian orthodoxy that, according to the anti-Chalkedonians, were basically Nestorian heresy. Pope Vigilius disagreed (took some balls, since he was the Emperor's "guest" in Constantinople at the time). As per Wood (in Chazelle and Cubitt, 2007), the Papacy had enough muscle to force virtually all of the Gallic bishops to take the Pope's line against the Three Chapters. And this was in the 550s, before Gregorius I, when the Papacy really started making things happen.

The popes already had a significant amount of weight to throw around even before the Western Empire fell. It's fair to say that a lack of centralized authority may have messed with things in Italy, but I doubt it. Caesaropapism as it was in Byzantine territory was intimately connected to the need to mediate among the Pentarchy over the issue of acquiescence to Chalkedon, and later caesaropapism evolved out of Zenonic and Ioustinianic practice in attempting to solve schisms without reference to religious councils and so forth. The Papacy won't really be connected to that controversy without Byzantine control over Italy, even if the Ostrogoths, Lombards, or whomever does establish some kind of stable semi-centralized authority in the peninsula. It wasn't a simple "temporal rulers kept the uppity popes down" situation at all.

I realize that it wasnt that simple. I only meant that an ostrogothic ruler may not have tolerated the pope unless he tried to be like Charlemagne and use the pope as a tool to establish legitimate rule over christian subjects. I did feel like your post had alot of research in it but Im talking about the late 400's before major control was established.

[Antigenes]

I realize that it wasnt that simple. I only meant that an ostrogothic ruler may not have tolerated the pope unless he tried to be like Charlemagne and use the pope as a tool to establish legitimate rule over christian subjects. I did feel like your post had alot of research in it but Im talking about the late 400's before major control was established.

Well, what does "may not have tolerated the Pope" even mean, in terms of what (say) a ruler of a stable Ostrogothic Italian state would have actually done?

[Ace_General]

delete

[Athenian Alexandros]

Well, what does "may not have tolerated the Pope" even mean, in terms of what (say) a ruler of a stable Ostrogothic Italian state would have actually done?

The popes had a history of challenging the rulers of europe with their power over the church. Charlemagne used them to gain legitimate rule over Christian subjects. A ostrogothic ruler may not have allowed the popes to tell them how things should be done. I cant really see a powerful barbarian warlord bowing to a church official unless he consented to it for political or pious reasons.