No Plague of Justianian

[Emperorofliberty]

What would a timeline without the occurrence of the Plague of Justinian look like? How powerful would Rome be? Or would it crumble regardless?

 

[Alane1]

Hmm that would likely have a large number of effects, the plague effectively made it nigh impossible to fight off the Islamic invasions of Byzantine Territory in the middle east, the Lombard invasion of italy and Africa, it also threw Gaul into chaos and is a suspected in being a major player in helping in the Anglo-Saxon conquest. If there is no plague the Arabs and the bombards would have been forced to face an enemy who instead of being extremely weakened with decimated forces would have a large manpower pool and active military forces to throw into the defense of the empire. The Anglo-Saxons might also had a harder time taking over whats now England.

The east Romans likely would have still had to deal with issues while fighting off invasions as the Vandals, goths, Egyptians and west Romans all pretty much didn't view the east Romans as their favorite people. Beyond that it is hard to say nothing about the East Roman Empire's decline was predetermined and they bounced back from a number of things that by all rights should have finished them.

 

[Hykal94]

Or would it crumble regardless?

Click to shrink...

Rome will fall because all empires fall at any point in time. A better question would be "how longer would it last"?

Probably not very much longer. If the plague did not happen, the Sassanids would also last longer. That would mean the conflict between the two empires would just continue on. Neither two will be able to dislodge the other and when both empires tire each other out, the Caliphate will come out Arabia and take control as it did in our timeline.

There is an 80 year time period between the plague and the rise of the Caliphate; the plague's effect on the populace would already die off at that point, considering Khosrau II and Heraclius were able to raise tens of thousands of soldiers to fight each other.

 

[Alane1]

I'd have to disagree, it keep Justinian conquests from being held and reincorporated into the empire causing the western Core of the empire form being restored to the empire. If the plague hadn't happened Justinian conquests would have succeeded in retaking Africa, Spain and Italy for the empire which means the empire would have far large pool of manpower which would have made better placed in resisting the Arab invasions.

There is the fact that Justinian plague itself killed an estimated 25 million people, that sort of population lost isn't recovered from quickly even in a century and that's excluding any deaths that was caused by the famines that came with the plague caused by a lack of farmers to harvest crops because the plague ripped though the countryside as well as the cities.

edit: correction 25 to 50 million or around 13 percent of the estimated world population at the time perhaps more dropped dead from it all in Europe, Africa and the middle east.

More that mean a quarter of the eastern med's population were killed just by the plague, not the famineit caused in its wake but the plague it self. In the capital itself 40 percent of the population of Constantinople died.

 

[Cetashwayo]

There is an 80 year time period between the plague and the rise of the Caliphate; the plague's effect on the populace would already die off at that point, considering Khosrau II and Heraclius were able to raise tens of thousands of soldiers to fight each other.

Click to shrink...

The cities of the Mediterranean littoral did not easily recover from the plague, and we know this was the case because the Persians were deporting people from the half-empty cities of Syria to fill the emptied cities of Mesopotamia. What was of course more important was the war with Persia, but there's no indication that it would have occurred at the same time.

The Caliphate's expansion was fairly circumstantial and based itself around these events. I suppose you could construe that to a bit of divine assistance.

 

[Droman]

The cities of the Mediterranean littoral did not easily recover from the plague, and we know this was the case because the Persians were deporting people from the half-empty cities of Syria to fill the emptied cities of Mesopotamia. What was of course more important was the war with Persia, but there's no indication that it would have occurred at the same time.

The Caliphate's expansion was fairly circumstantial and based itself around these events. I suppose you could construe that to a bit of divine assistance.

Click to shrink...

Allah hu Akbar, kafirs.

*nods*

 

[Eliar]

The cities of the Mediterranean littoral did not easily recover from the plague, and we know this was the case because the Persians were deporting people from the half-empty cities of Syria to fill the emptied cities of Mesopotamia. What was of course more important was the war with Persia, but there's no indication that it would have occurred at the same time.

The Caliphate's expansion was fairly circumstantial and based itself around these events. I suppose you could construe that to a bit of divine assistance.

Click to shrink...

Nah I prefer to think of it as extreme human idiocy. It is not the first time a pair of superpowers decided to explore a brave new border of moronic ineptitude and settle accounts once and for all right on top, during and after a superplague after all

 

[Hykal94]

The cities of the Mediterranean littoral did not easily recover from the plague, and we know this was the case because the Persians were deporting people from the half-empty cities of Syria to fill the emptied cities of Mesopotamia. What was of course more important was the war with Persia, but there's no indication that it would have occurred at the same time.

The Caliphate's expansion was fairly circumstantial and based itself around these events. I suppose you could construe that to a bit of divine assistance.

Click to shrink...

Even if Justinian was able to conquer Africa, Spain and Italy, can the empire actually hold it?

Belisarius left men in Africa in control and they revolted in mere months. Who's to say men left in Italy and Spain wouldn't revolt soon too? Even if manpower was an issue (and it totally is), it would mean a stretched Roman Empire facing down not only the Persians but also rebellions in the Western part of the empire. It would mean more or less fighting on two fronts, and Heraclius already had that problem what with fighting the Sassanids and leaving Constantinople at the mercy of the Avars.

If the plague did not happen, the empires will still exhaust themselves as they did, and the Caliphate will have a slightly harder time displacing both of them.

 

[Alane1]

Even if Justinian was able to conquer Africa, Spain and Italy, can the empire actually hold it?

Belisarius left men in Africa in control and they revolted in mere months. Who's to say men left in Italy and Spain wouldn't revolt soon too? Even if manpower was an issue (and it totally is), it would mean a stretched Roman Empire facing down not only the Persians but also rebellions in the Western part of the empire. It would mean more or less fighting on two fronts, and Heraclius already had that problem what with fighting the Sassanids and leaving Constantinople at the mercy of the Avars.

If the plague did not happen, the empires will still exhaust themselves as they did, and the Caliphate will have a slightly harder time displacing both of them.

Click to shrink...

More like the Caliphate would have a vastly harder time expanding beyond the Arab Peninsula its quite possible the invasion of Egypt and into the imperial lands in Africa might completely fail and the Persian empire might well survive the initial onslaught with some territorial loses. Such lands might be lost later over the centuries but it would not be the relatively easy conquests that Arabs originally had.

Keep in mind both sides would have vastly larger pools of manpower to draw on for their wars so its more likely they would stop before exhausting themselves to deal with other issues esepically once the Avars start invading. It also seriously doubtful that the west Romans, goths and vandals would spend plus years launching periodic uprisings once the east roman conquests were secured the first time unless the east Romans went out of their way to alienate them.

Given that even with possible invasions or raids such as those of the Lombards or other groups in its western teritories its more likely the Empire would far better off even facing Avar and Arab Invasions because it would be able to draw man and supplies from regions not threatened by either and in greater numbers so things like the Empire not being able to supply forces to the Governor of Egypt who then decided to surrender likely wouldn't happen.

Beyond that if the plague doesn't' happen and the western core of the empire is indeed secured back into the empire its unlikely there would be a east-west religious schism or a Holy Roman Empire for that matter as the Papacy would not need to turn to the Franks for help to fight of the lombards and they would also be securely in the power of the empire which would also insure the empire's influence over the parts of western Europe not under its direct control.

Edit: Also its unlikely the crusades would have ever happened.

 

[Cetashwayo]

Even if Justinian was able to conquer Africa, Spain and Italy, can the empire actually hold it?

Belisarius left men in Africa in control and they revolted in mere months. Who's to say men left in Italy and Spain wouldn't revolt soon too? Even if manpower was an issue (and it totally is), it would mean a stretched Roman Empire facing down not only the Persians but also rebellions in the Western part of the empire. It would mean more or less fighting on two fronts, and Heraclius already had that problem what with fighting the Sassanids and leaving Constantinople at the mercy of the Avars.

If the plague did not happen, the empires will still exhaust themselves as they did, and the Caliphate will have a slightly harder time displacing both of them.

Click to shrink...

I don't really know what this has to do with the invasion, though, this has to do with Justinian. The main problem that the Sassanid and Byzantine Regimes faced is that over the course of many years they had both developed themselves int far more centralized and strong states with large armies. But that worked against them in a situation where they exhausted one another, because in lieu of more local control, there was simply no time to pick up the pieces.

The greatest examples of resistance to the Arabs in Persia after Qadisiyyah were from the local lords, like that of Khuzestan, not from the armies of the Shah. Byzantium did better, but what is often missed is that at the time of the Arab invasion effective Byzantine control over the Levant and Egypt was fragile at best. Now, I am not saying that it is inevitable that the Arabs would be defeated, but part of what made this centralized arrangement fragile was the plague, by damaging especially cities and towns, which acted as a center of Byzantine control in the region. Cities were absolutely essential to the effective administration of the empire.

All of this is of course somewhat speculative, based on the idea that Islam would even emerge in the same manner after the plague.