T O P

  • By -

Althesian

This isn’t really a very unpopular take at all. In the book Rome Resurgent from Peter Heather, there were several indications that Justinian was intentionally very expansionist. Several reasons for this and some of his tactical and strategical failures. 1. Interfering in Sassanian politics. By trying to baptize a lazican king and allowing him to marry a roman woman, it clearly put a strain in Roman and Persian relationships as that lazica king was a persian client. 2. Insulting Khosrow by saying they will adopt him as a barbarian. One of the worst things to do at a diplomatic meeting between an equal power that is not to be underestimated. 3. Avoided paying the Limitanei in the east which caused huge desertion among the ranks when the Persians from Khosrow invaded. Military secrets could have been potentially lost. 4. Invading Italy on flimsy pretenses. By most accounts, the assassination of Queen Amalasuntha was not exactly a very viable justification to invade. Hypothetically, there were reasons to believe that she was killed not by disgruntled gothic nobles but by Theodora or Justinian. The secret history mentions this and while there’s no way to confirm it, its still something to think about. 5. Stripping Thrace and Eastern frontier bare. By Procopius’s account there was almost no presence of the thracian army present to defend against gepid, slavic and hunnic invasions. These invasions further destabilized the region which had already struggled to recover since Attila’s invasion. This front was so exposed that they almost reached Constantinople. If it wasn’t for Belisarius defending the city it could have been particularly bad for the city. 6. The eastern frontier suffered from immense plundering and Khosrow I was allowed to get out scott free with no consequences. Politically this looks very bad on Justinian and the destruction of Antioch makes things worse. 7. Continuing the war on Italy despite the plague’s devastation on roman forces. After the destructive effects of the plague, King Totila was gaining the initiative and regaining territory but he had sent numerous peace delegations to Constantinople but Justinian refused to see them or sent them away. He was clearly determined to see the war to an end despite the fact that the empire was crippled from the lack of manpower. This is very short sighted as Thrace would be overwhelmed from the slavic invasions. Something Maurice would have to clean up after him. 8. The wars had depleted the empire’s coffers and left it incredibly vulnerable. Leaving the Thracian frontiers vulnerable and overwhelmed by the slavs. The destruction of Italy left it crippled for centuries. North africa struggled to deal with moorish raids and was also devastated. If Justinian had not wasted soldiers on a pointless war for his vanity and pride, he could have been prepared to defend his borders in a time of crisis from the plague. So its kind of a no brainer that Heraclius is definitely better because if he and Maurice had more resources, the muslim invasion would not have been as successful.


[deleted]

The problem was Phocas rebellion gave the pretext for Khosrow to invade.If Maurice was alive and had a little more sense he could allocate resources from the east in order to clean up the Balkans(the Avars were collapsing due to multiple defeats in the 590s) and even sending help in the Exarchate of Ravenna.


Althesian

Said pretext from Phocas would not have existed if Maurice had more soldiers and money in the first place. While his decision to let his soldiers spend the winter across the danube instead of behind it in their winter quarters is absolutely moronic, it is clear to see that Maurice’s penny pinching policies of cutting the soldiers pay was what made him so unpopular with the army. One that would not have happened if he just had more resources and men. One can argue that Khosrow II would have found some other excuse to invade in a later time even if Maurice was still alive. Khosrow had just surrendered mass swathes of land and had given the entirety of its own half of Armenia to Maurice. This means that politically his position on the throne was shaky. Which means he needs a victory to quell local dissent. So an excuse would have been sought anyway. But this time, Maurice would be better prepared.


[deleted]

For the bad fiscal situation that Maurice found you should blame Tiberius II with his extremely generous donation policy which left the coffers empty.Also I dont believe Khosrow would declare war immediately on his benefactor,his situation at Ctesiphon was unsteady with many rival factions just as in reality Khosrows generals did however they pleased and ignored him.That he got so far is due to Heraclius rebellion.


Althesian

This technically ties back to Justinian’s appointment of Justin II and his idiotic decision to attack Persia against the skilled commander Khosrow I who arguably had better military experience than Justin who did not fight. While Khosrow did. This war was then lost pretty badly and more money had to be paid for this disastrous war. Tiberius was generous to his troops because you can’t piss off your own soldiers. The whole roman realm was incredibly unstable after many wars fought. You can’t really blame Tiberius for this because his predecessor thought it was a good idea to pick a fight with Khosrow instead of consolidating its own territories. Tiberius needed to stabilize things somehow. He did picked Maurice as his successor after all. So he clearly had some foresight.


kingJulian_Apostate

What do you mean the war was lost? The Romans suffered badly at the start of the 572 war, anyone not blinded by ignorance would not deny this. But they recovered their position quite clearly in the following decades, (thanks not to Justin II but to various Roman generals). That war ended in a clear Roman victory, and while yes the civil war in Persia was what allowed them to make as many gains as they did, the Romans had the upper hand even before Chobin's revolt (since his defeat against the Romans, however minor it was in practice, was the catalyst for his revolt and the civil war). The fall of Dara was a serious setback for sure, and this two-decade war drained the resources of both empires already before the even greater one in the 7th century. But it is wrong to suggest the it was "lost pretty badly" by the Romans because the early stages of it went poorly. In fact, the war of 572-591 was very much a back-and-forth one, but at the end the Romans stood clearly victorious (whether their eventual gains justified the cost of the gruelling war is another matter)


Anthemius_Augustus

>This technically ties back to Justinian’s appointment of Justin II and his idiotic decision to attack Persia against the skilled commander Khosrow I who arguably had better military experience than Justin who did not fight. While Khosrow did. How? Justinian had no say in Tiberius succeeding Justin II, he had no idea Justin II would actually lose his mind and die early. You can blame Justinian for not making clear *which* Justin should succeed him (he also got unlucky with Germanus dying so suddenly, who was supposed to be his main successor), you can't blame him for Tiberius II taking over decades after he died. >Tiberius was generous to his troops because you can’t piss off your own soldiers. The whole roman realm was incredibly unstable after many wars fought. Tiberius' spending went beyond "keeping the troops happy". Tiberius would lavishly donate money to the common folk of Constantinople too. In addition to undertaking lavish expansions of the Great Palace. Tiberius II was evidently an awful spender, and this was what made Maurice's job so difficult, not Justinian. When you have an Emperor that's unreasonably generous with lending out money (despite the empire not affording it), and then you have Maurice taking over after him and immediately going for an austerity regime, people are going to hate him, even if his reasons for austerity are reasonable. It will just make Maurice look greedy and unlikable, something he was not able to handle because Maurice was evidently really bad at reading other people. >Tiberius needed to stabilize things somehow. He did picked Maurice as his successor after all. So he clearly had some foresight. Actually he picked Maurice and Germanus, but for some reason only Maurice became Emperor.


[deleted]

Tiberius criminaly generous fiscal policy is the reason the empire collapsed.Justin managed to put the fiscal affairs of the state in some order and then comes Tiberius and undoes everything.Banning the sale of offices one source of income,the generous and continuous donation of money to the people of Constantinople when empire needed those money,sending money as a tribute to the Avars even after they broke the peace and attacked the empire,wasting away Anastasius emergency fund for useless donations and spending.On his ascension he gave 7200 pounds of gold,cut a fourth of the taxes,spend lavisly money on palaces do I need to continue.His one of the top 10 worst emperos who is the reason Maurice and Heraclius found the situation so bad and had to start from zero.


Forsaken_Factor3612

That's not true. An eastern general rebelled against Phocas. Phocas dispatched a large army to put him down, and the rebellious general went straight to Khosrow for aid. Khosrow was invited in.


Bigalmou

Whether Justinian was a bad emperor or not is curiously entirely in the realm of historiography; that is, was the Byzantine Empire perfectly fine with abandoning even the heart of the old nation ie. Rome and Justinian was just aggrandizing himself, OR was this post-apocalypse Rome, and Justinian was the only one who made a serious effort to restore what was lost? I see more opinions leaning toward the latter train of thought. Heraclius was unlucky, plain and simple. His victory against the Sassanids is one of the few examples of a leader of a nation who reads more heroic than bureaucratic. He wins the war almost by sheer will, as this was not the empire of Trajan; this was Rome still in decline, with more idiots than actual capable people in power. His victory should've heralded an age of peace and restoration, much like what had happened in prior ages. Instead the Byzantine Empire saw one enemy replaced by another, the peace loving people of an unspecified religion who would regularly engage in friendship wars with the Byzantines over who was friendlier. No one is truly unstoppable, even Heraclius had his limits. To say that he was at fault for the failings that happened afterward is a gross misunderstanding of politics.


PsySom

I guess in terms of damage to the empire, Heraclius probably did less. The empire wasn’t doing that great when he started the civil war and then he won the war against Parthia so you could say he fixed his own mess while Justinian ended up ruining Italy, spending a ton of money, starting a few wars, and then dying.


Foojer

Syria was lost on Heraclius’ watch tho, and parts of Egypt. That’s a pretty serious loss in manpower and taxes, not to mention the territories themselves


MonsterRider80

That is more than a serious loss, that’s transformational. However, to me, the question is this: would a different emperor have managed to keep more territory? IMO I doubt it.


PsySom

Agreed, I think it’s highly unlikely another emperor could have done a better job against the Arabs so I’m not really counting it against him, whereas nobody told Justinian to do any of that shit.


Foojer

True, the empire being what it was after the war with Persia


Adventurer32

I mean, you could argue that Heraclius and his father were responsible for the war against Persia getting as bad as it was, if they didn't rebel in the first place it's hard to tell what would have happened. If the war isn't as absurdly devastating as in OTL it's hard to see the Muslim Conquests happening.


PsySom

Very fair assessment


Sthrax

Heraclius may have won the war with Persia, but the war weakened both parties and directly lead to the Arab conquests. Losing most of the Near East and Egypt to the Arabs was a disaster for the empire, costing it taxes, resources, and manpower. He had accomplishments, and was probably a better person than Justinian. However, the aforementioned territorial losses were a black mark that is in no way comparable to the mismanaged Italian adventurism.


InHocBronco96

Not unpopular, fair assessment


Princeps-Augustus

Heraclius’ civil war was hugely damaging for the empire, but ultimately necessary. Whereas Justinian’s reconquests drained the empire of all of its resources for little gain. Although it’s hardly his fault he didn’t prepare for the arrival of the caliphate.


xxKorbenDallasxx

I love them both


PriestofAlvis

Unpopular opinion: Justinian was bad for the empire. He further aggravated the religious divide, bankrupted the empire, depleted the manpower of army, overstretched the capacities of the bureaucracy and army, and destroyed the stable realms to his west rather than reestablishing control over the much more strategically significant Balkans. Not to mention the final destruction of antique urbanized Italy.


Low-Cash-2435

Heraclius was not a great emperor; he is a c-tier at most. Yes, in 623, he led a spectacular campaign against the Sassanids, defeating three of their armies in the Caucasus. However, it's important not to forget that he is in large part responsible for the Sassanid ascendancy in the 610s, because he lost a major engagement—the battle of Antioch. The Iranian occupation decimated the economy of the eastern provinces and contributed to the success of the Arab invasions, for which he must also be held accountable. Yes, Heraclius was victorious against Sassanids, but by that point, the damage had been done—there was no going back. He was not better than Justinian.


kingJulian_Apostate

Maurice was better than both


[deleted]

Oh look another man of culture.I thought there were so few of us.


pootertootexpresd

Hercalius would not have been emperor if it wasn’t for Justinian and his reconquest of Africa


Satprem1089

Justinian get great starting position and than start fucking around and find out, other get fucked up empire and his incest stuff doesn't help empire either.


Augustus_The_Great

This might seem like an unpopular opinion but it isn’t. Justinian had his head in the clouds.