I, Belisarius

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Belisarius becomes Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire and manages to extend it into the Eastern and Western Gothic kingdoms during the Gothic War and later, briefly bringing much of the former Western Roman Empire under Byzantine rule; could a "Second Rome" have emerged out of the ashes of the first?

Belisarius was one of the foremost soldiers of his time and is sometimes called "The Last of the Romans." In 559 his military career came to an end with a defeat of the Bulgars. In 562 he stood trial for corruption in Constantinople. Belisarius may have been undone at the hands of his former secretary, Procopius of Caesarea, who had a long standing hatred of Belisarius and his wife, Anatonia. However, he was eventually pardoned and restored to favor in the Imperial court.

Beliarius is a major character in the classic alternative history novel Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague De Camp, where Martin Padway finally convinces the General to lend his impressive skill to the Gothic cause. In OT, Belisarius and his "Partner," Justinian, died within a few weeks of another in November, 565.

 

[Philip]

How does he become emperor? A coup? Justinian dies early? Accepts the Ostrogoths' offer?

 

[AmericanCataphract]

Belisarius becomes Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire and manages to extend it into the Eastern and Western Gothic kingdoms during the Gothic War and later, briefly bringing much of the former Western Roman Empire under Byzantine rule; could a "Second Rome" have emerged out of the ashes of the first?

Belisarius was one of the foremost soldiers of his time and is sometimes called "The Last of the Romans." In 559 his military career came to an end with a defeat of the Bulgars. In 562 he stood trial for corruption in Constantinople. Belisarius may have been undone at the hands of his former secretary, Procopius of Caesarea, who had a long standing hatred of Belisarius and his wife, Anatonia. However, he was eventually pardoned and restored to favor in the Imperial court.

Beliarius is a major character in the classic alternative history novel Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague De Camp, where Martin Padway finally convinces the General to lend his impressive skill to the Gothic cause. In OT, Belisarius and his "Partner," Justinian, died within a few weeks of another in November, 565.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that simply changing the man in charge is going to enable the Byzantines to keep their Western acquisitions. The plague of 541 will still kill almost half the population, which will weaken the economy and the manpower base for a future war. If the Byzantines concentrate too much on holding the West, they'll be weak against the Sassanids, and the Muslims as well when they show up. IMO, the idea to take Italy and Spain was one of the main reasons the Byzantines grew weak in the long run. So no, I don't think Belisarius will be able to re-establish the Roman Empire in the west permanently, even though it would be neat if he could.

 

[Philip]

The plague of 541 will still kill almost half the population

Holding Italy before the plague arrives helps mitigate it. The plague did not reach Italy for some time. Italian taxes can help compensate for the initial loss of taxes in the East.

If the Byzantines concentrate too much on holding the West, they'll be weak against the Sassanids,

It is a matter of timing. IF the Gothic War is decided quickly rather than dragging on for 20 years, things would work out much better for the Romans. Two opportunities to end the war by 540 stand out in my mind. Had either Narses cooperated with Belisarius or had Belisarius accepted Witigis's offer to divide Italy, the Romans would have a been in a much better position to repel the Sassanids. In either case, the key is a soft control of the West that allows the Goths become a source of mercenaries rather than a drain on manpower.

and the Muslims as well when they show up.

A PoD in the mid-Sixth Century makes it unlikely that Islam would have arrisen as it did OTL.

IMO, the idea to take Italy and Spain was one of the main reasons the Byzantines grew weak in the long run.

They idea to take Italy was not the problem. The problem can be found in the poor execution of the war. Had the war been concluded quickly, say by 540, the expedition (much like the Vandalic War) would have paid for itself.

The invasion of Spain was rather oppertunistic and did not require much in the way of Roman resources.

So no, I don't think Belisarius will be able to re-establish the Roman Empire in the west permanently,

I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons.

 

[danielbd]

What about the Avars, Slavs and the Bulgars? they cannot be butterflied away by the POD and they were as much of a threat to the existence of the empire as were the Muslims or the Sassanids. And even if Islam is butterflied away, there would still be an increasing threat coming from the peninsula, since no Islam does not necessarily mean no Arabs raiding, invading, ocupping Roman lands to a degree.
I really do not think holding on to Italy would benefit the empire in anything except the very very long term. A weak Gothic kingdom (as ITTL) would make Northern Italy exposed to German or Frankish invasion, after all the Franks did invade Italy during the war and were stopped only by disentery and other diseases from going south. So... it would still complicate things and a Roman standing army would need to be placed in Italy at a time when the enemies of the Empire became more numerous and dangerous.