Could Justinian Have Re-united The East And West?

[barca]

So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.

15104[/snapback]

 

What do you mean by "exhausted". Constant warfare was a way of life with the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Romans of the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars didn't seem to suffer from "exhaustion". In fact, they appeared to come back stronger after each defeat. After the Punic Wars, they showed even less evidence of "exhaustion", defeating one eastern opponent after another.

 

I would think that a prolonged peace would be more hazadous than constant warfare. They would become complacent and lose their competitive edge.

[DanM]

So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.

15104[/snapback]

 

What do you mean by "exhausted". Constant warfare was a way of life with the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Romans of the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars didn't seem to suffer from "exhaustion". In fact, they appeared to come back stronger after each defeat. After the Punic Wars, they showed even less evidence of "exhaustion", defeating one eastern opponent after another.

 

I would think that a prolonged peace would be more hazadous than constant warfare. They would become complacent and lose their competitive edge.

15111[/snapback]

 

Exhausted means that they had no more internal sources of manpower or money to tap. Persia had occupied most of the eastern provinces. While a constant state of warfare was common for decades at a time, it did not involve all of the provinces on such a massive scale. Generally speaking, widespread looting and sacking of Syrian and Egyptian cities for decades at time was not the rule. Mespotamia and portions of the Balkans were constant battlefields and that is why these reasons were not significant sources of money or manpower.

 

Also, to compare the late Imperial period to the Repubican period is to compare apples to oranges. The Romans who bounced back from successive Punic defeats at the hands of Hannibal bears little resemblence to the Empire that held the name several centuries later. The Republican Romans were patriotic, homogeneous and united politically. The late Empire was a diverse mixture of races, religions and cultures.

 

And once again, it really came down to the money issue with the Roman's Arab allies. If those guys had been paid, then I seriously doubt the Islamic raiders from deep in Arabia would have been able to plant their flag in Syria. So its hard to see how a Rome that was poorer after a constant state of warfare could have possibly been better equiped to keep its Arab allies happy.

 

And the issue of the Islamic invasion of Syria would have been much more unlikely if the Syrian people were happy with Roman rule. If they had not spent so much time as a battlefield or if the Romans had been able to ease up on their taxes for a period so they could recover, then its highly likely they would not have opened their arms so widely to the Moslems.

 

This isn't a purely military matter. Its a matter of military issues mixed with cultural, administrative, religous and political. Its not just a matter of doing a headcount for each army and comparing equipment, tactics and the fighting qualities of the soldiers involved. You can win a battle that way, but its hard to win and hold such a big area with such a small number of men unless you bring the other factors into play.

[barca]

Also, to compare the late Imperial period to the Repubican period is to compare apples to oranges. The Romans who bounced back from successive Punic defeats at the hands of Hannibal bears little resemblence to the Empire that held the name several centuries later. The Republican Romans were patriotic, homogeneous and united politically. The late Empire was a diverse mixture of races, religions and cultures.

 

15113[/snapback]

 

We all believe that the Romans of the Republic were more patriotic and united than those of the later empire. One can thank Livy for painting an idealized portrait of Republican Rome--much like modern day politicians talk about "traditional values."

 

I'm not sure about the Republican Armies being all that homogeneous. At Zama, Scipio had to rely on the defection of the Numidian cavalry to tip the balance in his favor. At Cynoscephalae, Flamminius used Greek allies to help them against the Macedonians. At Magnesia, it was Eumenes who played a critical role.

The later Republic frequently Gallic Cavlary to flank their legions, since they were considered superior horsemen.

Crassus used Gallic Cavalry in his disaster at Carrhae. He would have fared better if he had increased his allied cavalry by accepting the offer to include Armenian Cavalry in his expedition against the Parthians.

Caesar recruited Gauls (Gallo-Romans) into his legions, and he was able to train them in the Roman way of war.

[DanM]

But the legions of the Republic were of a homogeneous group of men. They were the same culturally, religously and were much more patriotic.

 

The auxilluary forces were augmentations of an army that was essentially Roman. The Imperial armies were anything but a closely united group. Isurians, Armenians, Thracians, Germans, Arabs, Persians and a host of others all mixed together more like mercenaries than anything else. There was no ideological or cultural center to hold the men of the Imperial armies together as there had been with the Republic.

 

Also, the pay and discipline were very different in the later days than the early ones.

 

Yes the Republicans were able to augment the Roman army with foreign elements, but the Imperial army was little more than a patchwork of foreign elements. See the differnce? It wasn't until after the Arab conquests when the Empire was reduced to Asia Minor and parts of the Balkans that the troops became a more united and cohesive mix of men. Still, its hard to look at this as progress since it required the amputation of Syria and Egypt to accomplish it.

[george]

SCENARIO WHERE MUSLIMS ARE DEFEATED.

 

It is clear that the western Conquests of Justinian did not bring prosperity and overal good for the Empire. The only thing Justinian and Belisarius achieved was the exchaustion of the East and the a slaughter in the West.

 

BUT, if Justinian instead of following the Roman dream West, went to full scale war with Sassanid Persia and subsequently conquered it, then his empire would have becomed unchecked and his borders as safe as they were during early Roman Expansion.

 

If Byzantium conquered Persia during the Justinian age then the Muslims would have no chance against the full might of the imperial armies. It would be a hard fight, but at the end it would have concluded to the extinction of the Muslim Arabs.

 

Persia plauged Byzantium for centuries after Justinian, lowered population and economical growth, it was a true sickness for the empire.

The only reason why the Arabs managed to spread so fast and conquer so many territories so fast was because of the weakness of both Persian and Roman empires after the Romano-Persian war of Heraclius.

______________________________________________________________________

 

SOME THINGS ABOUT THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE.

 

It is clear that Eastern Roman ways of dealing with a threat was very diferent than the ways than the Western Roman ways.

 

A typical classical Roman goverment during the classical ages, if it became threatened by another nation, it mobilized huge armies and crushed it to the ground without any economical considerations. The Eastern Roman Empire though because of all its wealth, became accustomed into bribing its enemies most of the time in order to delay devastation. What the Eastern Roman Empire did though wasnt protecting its people, but delaying the inevitable and strengthening the enemy's resolve and power. If the Eastern Roman Empire has Western way of dealing with threats then Persia would have been conquered in a second, along with most of Eastern Europe, instead of bribing and playing it defencive.

[DanM]

Once Choroses was firmly established upon the Persian throne, there was absolutely nothing Justinian could have done to conquer Persia. The Persian Kingdom was only vulnerable when it was ruled by a weak or unpopular King.

 

The opportunities in the West were due to the opportunities created by those kingdoms as anything else. And much of the reason they proved so costly was due to strategic mistakes made by Justinian.

[george]

Chosroes wasnt on the Persian throne during Justinians time.

Plus the Eastern Roman Empire was by far the most powerfull entity of that time period. If the entire Empire concentrated on the annihilation of the Persians then it would emerge victorious.

 

It is clear that Justinians military power was immense. He was conquering in the West, fighting Barbarians in the north and defeating Persian incursions in the East. I think Justinian could destroy the Persians easily.

[DanM]

Chosroes wasnt on the Persian throne during Justinians time.

15156[/snapback]

 

Yes he was. I rechecked my sources before I responded here to make sure I did not make some mistake. Chosroes, the favorite son but not the eldest son of Cavades rose to the throne in 531 AD and stayed on the throne until 579 AD. And the guy was an absolute stud. In my humble opinion he was one of the finest Persian kings of his era.

 

Plus the Eastern Roman Empire was by far the most powerfull entity of that time period. If the entire Empire concentrated on the annihilation of the Persians then it would emerge victorious..

15156[/snapback]

 

Not really. It was all the Byzantines could do to hold their own against the Persians. Even the great Belisaurius had mixed success against the Persians.

 

Simply put, the Roman troops of Justinian's era were of uneven quality and I would put the commanders in the same category. Belisarius was exceptional. Sittas and Mundus were very good, but both died too soon. Germanus was solid, but not of the same quality as the three previously mentioned. Of the rest, none was all that special.

 

Not to mention the fact that the geography of the fertile crescent makes such a total victory as you suggest highly improbable. For most of their history of conflict, the Roman-Persian wars consisted of raids from secure fortress cities of either side along the Mesopotamian front.

 

It is clear that Justinians military power was immense. He was conquering in the West, fighting Barbarians in the north and defeating Persian incursions in the East. I think Justinian could destroy the Persians easily.

15156[/snapback]

 

Justinian was able to conquer the west because of inherent weaknesses in the kingdoms of the west and because he had an exceptional military leader who did amazing things even though Justinian did not trust him enough to give him a free hand.

 

The Vandals should have been able to beat the army of Belisaurius. It was only due to a series of very odd choices by Gelimer (the Vandal King) that Belisarius was able to win such a complete victory with such a small force.

 

Ditto for the Goths. If they had been ably led, then th Romans would have not been able to take Italy.

 

I think you completely overestimate the material strength of the Roman Empire at the time of Justinian. To even win the temporary gains in the west, he had to (1) pay incredible subsidies to the Persians for the "eternal" peace and (2) weaken the balkans defenses to the point where the area was virtually defenseless against barbarian raids.

[Tobias]

Exactly. It was very lucky that Justinian managed to bring about the conquest of Italy and north africa. The fact that Justinian had little trust for the loyal Belisarius is indicative of the times to come. Emperors would not feel completly safe on the throne and distrust and disloyalty would rip the government apart into constant civil war.

[barca]

A typical classical Roman goverment during the classical ages, if it became threatened by another nation, it mobilized huge armies and crushed it to the ground without any economical considerations. The Eastern Roman Empire though because of all its wealth, became accustomed into bribing its enemies most of the time in order to delay devastation. What the Eastern Roman Empire did though wasnt protecting its people, but delaying the inevitable and strengthening the enemy's resolve and power. If the Eastern Roman Empire has Western way of dealing with threats then Persia would have been conquered in a second, along with most of Eastern Europe, instead of bribing and playing it defencive.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that last comment, just ask Crassus, or better yet, ask Surena

 

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/surena/surena.php

[Tobias]

Precisely. You can't tell me that if the Byzantines had the strength and thought themselves capable enough they wouldn't have conquered the Persians. The Sassanid Persians and the Later Eastern Roman Empire were of around about equal strength, with variations to up and down in the balance until the arabs. But neither had such an advantage over the other as to be able to conquer it. As well, a classical roman government didn't do too well against Hannibal intially did they?

To the Eastern Empire, i'm sure that a reasonably equal neighbour to their east was preferred, as a lot of the byzantine's trade came from the east.

But i wonder off topic slightly. Justinian could not have united east and west. It was not economically or militarily viable. All of the reasons supporting this i have said above.

[DanM]

The only possble chance the Romans of the 5th and 6th centuries would have had to defeat the Persians would have required two things happening at the same time.

 

First, they would have needed a military commander on par with Belisaurius or Heraclius to have complete control of the army and no pressure along the European front. Second, they would have needed a period of relative instability within the Persian Empire. Either a civil war over a disputed succession, a weak and unpopular king or a widespread invasion like those of the White Huns along the eastern flank of the Persian Empire.

 

The Persian Empire was a patchwork of fiefdoms and principalities. As such, it required the firm hand of a strong monarch. Otherwise, it had great difficulty mobilizing its resources. Think of the 16th or 17th century Polish Kingdoms and I believe you will have a good idea of what the Persian Empire would have been like without a strong King.

 

Only if the Romans were ably led by a united military command in a period of relative peace on other fronts and facing a divided Persian army could they possibly hope to win a crushing victory. Even then, its highly unlikely they could muster the manpower to hold their gains unless they could win the loyalty of enough Persian nobles.

 

It all comes down to the material strength that could be mustered by the Empire at this time. Any strategy that does not take these limitations into account is little more than wild fantasy.

[trajen777]

I don't believe so. Even after Heraclius' victories against the Persians, the armies (of both the Byzantines and the Persians) were exhausted. They could not hold back the flood of people, united under the word of Mohammed. I don't believe that even a rebuilt empire could have held them off, not one so recently rebuilt anyway.

15097[/snapback]

 

If the west had been reunited under my alternate scenario, I think the answer is yes. The Persians were only able to take Syria, Egypt and a very large part of Asia Minor because of the weakness brought upon by Justinian's search for glory. He exhausted the empire.

 

Without this drain on manpower and finances, it is very likley that the eastern front would have held and the Roman/Persian conflict would have remained one of raids and periodic siege warfare around upper Mesopotamia. If this happened, then the people of Syria and Egypt would have likely been far less unhappy with their Roman overlords and the Arab tribal leaders would have been far less likely to have gone unpaid by their Roman benefactors.

 

Don't forget that Islam was only able to hold Syria and Egypt in the early years because of the active aid of the citizens of those regions. Also, its important to note that Heraclius, as a measure of economy for his nearly bankrupt treasury, had stopped paying his arab allies who were monphysite Christians. Without the unhappiness and ultimate change in allegiance of Rome's Arab allies, it is also highly unlikely that the arab raiders from the interior could have held Syria or even beaten the Roman forces there.

 

The Moslem conquest was a very delicate business in the early years. Many things had to go right for them all at the same time for it to work so it would be very easy to create a believable alternate timeline where it did not work.

 

So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.

[Tobias]

Er, Trajen777, you seem to have merely quoted DanM and a quote of myself, what is the point of that post?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

After reading info on Justinians campaigns, I've finally comed to realize how much an effect a plague or an outbreak of diseases can have on an empire. Thus, I believe Justinian no matter what, could not combat it. And so he lost taxpayers and most importantly,couldn't find any soldiers, which now he had to rely on the barbarians for recruitment. We know how that turned out when the Western empire experimented with that option.

Off topic, does anyone think that it was really dirty of Heraclius when he attacked the Visigoths on a sunday when they were at mass during the Hispanian campaign.

Edited November 12, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus