History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

Kyriakos said:

He also managed to bankrupt the Empire, which led to the collapse of the northern border to the slavic tribes.

I have read people claim (never read stuff on Justinian) that any success was down to other notables around him (eg Belisarios, Theodora etc).

He did have Anthemios and Isidoros build the plan (and carry it out) for the Hagia Sophia, though.

Click to expand...

That's Justinian the Great. Justinian II was a separate emperor of the Heraclian dynasty.

Talking about "Western Empire" in the reign of either Justinians is strange, though. I guess it could be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to Ostrogothic Italy in the case of Justinian I, but what it could refer to when talking about Justinian II? To whatever remained of Byzantine Italy c. 700?

Masada said:

Yeah, I know that. But as a mono-casual explanation it isn't a particularly bad one nor frankly is it the first time I've heard it invoked.

Click to expand...

Oh, I absolutely agree. It's a perfect mono-casual explanation. Of whatever.

Whose arguing that?

Arakhor said:

That's Justinian the Great. Justinian II was a separate emperor of the Heraclian dynasty.

Click to expand...

Oh ok, then i better be leaving i guess

Masada said:

Whose arguing that?

Click to expand...

No clue. Nor would I know what a 'mono-casual explanation' would be. But anywho, I'm all in agreement.

LOL An accidental troll due to a serious brain fart.

I MEANT to type Valentian III.

From what I read, it might be more of a scenario in which Valentian resists the manipulation of Maximus to murder Aetius, and perhaps even turns Maximus and his powers for the ends of Valentian. History shows that Maximus was very good at machinations, but not capable enough to inspire against the Vandals (even ran away when allies didn't materialize). Part of the question is if Valentian had ruled continuously with full support, would the morale of Rome be higher and resistance to the Vandals stronger? Would Valentian have had the support of the Eastern Empire to arrive in time for the defense of Rome? Would the Vandals even have had a casu belli against Rome if Valentian was in power? Might it just be a period of state-craft through political marriage between the Western Roman empire and various tribes?

Shacassanach said:

Got any good what ifs for Valentian III Justinian III or other late Roman Empire emperors?

I was thinking...what if Valentian III was a consensus builder instead of power hungry. If he avoided provoking his own assassination, as a unifying leader, would it be unreasonable for the Western Empire to eke on? It seems to me that by his in-fighting for total control, he set in motion political chaos that only sunk all chances of Western Rome surviving.

Click to expand...

Given the high likelihood of getting unattractively shuffled off the mortal coil if you happened to be a Byzantine emperor, I simply assumed you meant Justinian II rather than III.

He would have had to be extremely impressive to reverse the processes that had led to the empire's collapse, not least the effective reduction to nothing of the state's ability to project power into its territories. Aetius only beat back the Huns by the skin of his teeth, and within a few years of Valentinian's death the Vandals had sacked Rome itself.

Flying Pig said:

He would have had to be extremely impressive to reverse the processes that had led to the empire's collapse, not least the effective reduction to nothing of the state's ability to project power into its territories. Aetius only beat back the Huns by the skin of his teeth, and within a few years of Valentinian's death the Vandals had sacked Rome itself.

Click to expand...

Is it not fair to say that with Atilla's death, the Huns aren't the biggest of Western Rome's problems though? Also the Vandals seem open to political marriage. It seems the casu belli of the Vandals is to gain the political marriage they were promised. That's about half of Rome's enemies accounted for.

Ideally, Valentian in firm alliance with Aetius without Maximus stirring the pot, would be a stable government with a capable military leadership, engendering morale in the Empire, probably with the additional advantage of being endorsed by it's political ally in the Eastern Roman empire. That government still has to sort some kind of pecking order out with the other neighbors Visigoths (remain allies) and Franks (later on).

Also if political marriage is the tool (an act of union maybe?) what might that due to relations between Eastern and Western Rome (would they break? would a 'barbarian'-Western Rome enter into a cold war versus Eastern Rome?). I can envision a kind of act of union between invading tribes and Rome, a lot earlier than the HRE, and possibly antagonizing the Eastern empire. Perhaps a Vandal-West empire slowly amalgamates with the Franks and Visigoths in between periods of frictional border war, leading to a version of the HRE well before Charlemagne?

But then I wonder what sort of political power the Pope will have if the political authority of the Emperor isn't trounced by invading tribes.

Flying Pig said:

He would have had to be extremely impressive to reverse the processes that had led to the empire's collapse, not least the effective reduction to nothing of the state's ability to project power into its territories. Aetius only beat back the Huns by the skin of his teeth, and within a few years of Valentinian's death the Vandals had sacked Rome itself.

Click to expand...

I think this is being a little too pessimistic given Majorians successes like four years after Rome was sacked. Just to recap: Majorian defeated the Vandals under Genseric in Italy; defeated the Visigoths drove them out of Hispania and bought them to heel; defeated the Burgundians and took back the Rhone Valley; smashed the Suebi; and negotiated favorable terms with Genseric to cap it all off. His achievements were such that even Gibbon liked him: [Majorian] presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species.

Masada said:

I think this is being a little too pessimistic given Majorians successes like four years after Rome was sacked. Just to recap: Majorian defeated the Vandals under Genseric in Italy; defeated the Visigoths drove them out of Hispania and bought them to heel; defeated the Burgundians and took back the Rhone Valley; smashed the Suebi; and negotiated favorable terms with Genseric to cap it all off. His achievements were such that even Gibbon liked him: [Majorian] presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species.

Click to expand...

We do then have to confront the fact that the Western Empire collapsed within fifteen or twenty years (depending on which measure you use) of Majorian's death. In other words, even a character like him could only defer the empire's problems rather than fix them. It's notable that he reduced the tribes that he defeated to federates rather than directly Roman territory: even in the best of times, Roman authority in its traditional heartlands was only indirect, and Gaul only needed recapturing because the Gallic aristocracy felt strong enough to simply refuse to recognise the emperor. His death shows the fundamental conflict at work: the senatorial, 'barbarian' and naturalised aristocracies had too much power for the empire to be able to work effectively, but no emperor could reduce their power without risking his own safety.

Well sure. It did. But two decades is still a long time in politics. Africa was just two decades gone. And the crisis itself wasn't that much older. I also accept that the West didn't work that well. But I'm not sure if that means it couldn't have been saved. Personally, I think Anthemius was the last throw of the dice and that was only scuttled by dumb luck. Now does that mean I would expect a full restoration of the Empire had the dice been thrown right? I'm not sure. I think the resulting Western Empire would have been diminished and smaller. But diminished and smaller was still possible. It happened in the East with the Komnenians. I also think Justinian's conquests show that it was possible for the East to leverage its strength in the West with good effect. So I don't think the model of a restoration through Majorian or Anthemius sans Cap Bon was impossible nor do I think it was particularly unlikely either.

I think it depends what level of success you're going for, but certainly a recognisably Roman state in Italy with federate groups outside professing their loyalty was on the cards. I just don't think that direct Roman control over anything like the same area was possible.

Sure. But I think that sort of success when sustained would have facilitated the growth of direct Roman control. The rogue foederati (for want of a better term) weren't that strong in absolute terms and were allowed to survive because their troops could be drafted into the Roman army to make up for manpower/funding shortages. Any measure of stability, and given that one of our scenarios envisages a reconquest of Africa, would tend to solve that issue. At which point the foederati could be properly subjugated. Anways, I think we can conclude that broadly speaking we agree: structural issues were the main issue; with a bit of luck a restoration on diminished terms was possible; and that Anthemius or Majorian or whatever represented the last throw of the dice. Where we disagree seems to be the probability of this going off. You seem less confident in the odds than I do.

Masada said:

I also think Justinian's conquests show that it was possible for the East to leverage its strength in the West with good effect. So I don't think the model of a restoration through Majorian or Anthemius sans Cap Bon was impossible nor do I think it was particularly unlikely either.

Click to expand...

Two things: Justinian's Western expansionism overstretched the Eastern resources to the point that they could barely hold back the Sassanians (not to mention the Arab armies). And with the loss of Africa the West lost its last main tax base. So I'd say that was a bit of a point of no return for the West. The gain of bits of Africa, Italy and even Southern Spain didn't weigh up against the loss of the populous provinces of Syria and Egypt. So instead of showing 'sure the East can do it', it merely showed that the original division was a sensible thing.

That wasn't the point though. The point was that it was possible for the East to intervene in the West in a decisive fashion which makes Cap Bon's failure look less like an inevitability and more like a case of bad luck. I'm also a bit lost as to how Justinian's campaigns which were forty years in the past had much to do with the final war against the Sasanians?

We've passed the magic 1000-post milestone, so please carry on the discussion in the new thread.

Moderator Action: Thread closed.