What if Justinian Had Restored Rome? (Alternative History)

Justinian, the last man to believe that the lights of Rome could claw their way back Westword, would go down as one of the greatest what-ifs in history. What if he had succeeded in restoring Rome? Today, I answer this question.

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

Since this video is gaining a little traction I think I should address one thing. Catholicism and Greek orthodoxy weren't two distinct entities. There were differences between how the Byzantines and Rome did things, differences which were very important to the people at the time, but none the less they were still one religion. However, I believe that in this scenario there would still be a split in the church as catholicism is formed by the pope most likely based in Paris. Thank you for watching and have a great day!

[@Sion879]

I would disagree. The pope would stay in Rome because at least the rulers of the area are Christian. I think there would be more theological discussion between Rome and Constantinople. The pope isn’t independent so it’s a lot less likely that there is a great schism in 1054. So it would most like end up as a blend of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

[@wg5560]

There is a possibility that the pope would have reverted to being one of the 7 sees.

[@vacantmemes]

The problem pointed out was that you had a lot of the conflicts happen before 1054 which is a rough date for the great schism.

[@Butter_Warrior99]

"The Dream Restored"- A dream we still dream.

[@stormlord1177]

Invictus romanus gloria

[@italianguy1273]

Restauratio imperii

[@Crawedfish]

he didnt fail, he just died before realising his true dreams

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

Meh, I feel like he got pretty close in the middle of his reign but following the plague and loss in the war with Persia the dream was no longer in reach. Though he still did quite well considering what he had at his disposal.

[@dr.manofculture1492]

God damn it, Dane.

[@horatiuscocles8052]

Stuka Von Dannevirke

[@Crawedfish]

@@horatiuscocles8052 Stuka Von Dannevirke

[@horatiuscocles8052]

@@Crawedfish Stuka Von Dannevirke

[@reagan_pereira_]

Justinian: I want to bring back the greatest empire in history and keep my empire stable for centuries to come Plague:Im about to end this man's whole career

[@Colbcolb2321]

But if the Byzantines manage to hold north Africa that means no Moors in Spain. No Moors no Battle of Tours. No Battle of Tours Charles Martel dosen't become the most powerful man in the realm. That means he dosent put his son Pepin on the throne, and Charlemange never becomes Emerpor.

[@sadiqahmed4143]

Even better Rome stronk

[@cybernetix_1440]

Maybe an alternate Battle of Tours would take place where the Romans seeked to reconquer Gaul and destroy the Franks only to lose to Charles Martel when they arrived at Tours.

[@sto_karfi842]

Yep and the Duke of Aquitaine becomes the stronger man in west having restored much of Roman ways back to Gallia and with proper support from the emperor with would probably become the next exarch having almost the entire Gaul and much of Spain as his domain.

[@kaiser7013]

The perfect world doesn't exi--

[@jbtheb-un4ks]

I love the Byzantines but sadly they don't last in this time line and abolish catholicism

[@JTL1776]

Super underated channel great video man.

[@altiris6874]

I do not believe Charlemagne would've invaded Italy or atleast not be declared Roman emperor as there's no reason for the pope to call Charlemagne to restore order in Italy. Otherwise nice video & I liked that you changed the maps around.

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

I definitely see your point there. Also, Thank you!

[@ReplayButtonsReaper]

also in that case betrothal between their dynasties most likely will not be canceled. (It failed due to political conflict over italia/lombardia) If marriage would have happened then there could have been possibilty of full restoration.

[@vherox3826]

Catholicism wouldnt even exist in this timeline lol. The church would still be chaledonian with the pentrarchy at its top. Plus by the time of charlamane catholicism didnt even exist. Only the western rite which was controlled by the patriarch of rome aka the pope existed to which due to geography charlamane was loyal. In this timeline italy is byzanzine so there would be no transfering of the empire as the popes would most likely be picked by the emperors especially as the See of Rome is the most important one

[@darthimperious1594]

I will agree that the Plague of Justinian was the primary reason Rome failed to maintain control over Italy and failed to repel the rise of Islam. I also have to say that my disagreements below are not meant to imply I did not enjoy your video. I actually loved it. You picked out the one Point of Divergence that I feel was the most important in the fate of the Roman Empire. But as with all Alternate History, there are points worthy of discussion, so those are below. I don't think the split in the church will occur quite as it did historically, however. While the Pope (then the Patriarch of Rome) would still have theological disagreements with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, the primary reason behind Charlemagne's invasion of Italy was that the Pope was left undefended by the Romans due to their staggering losses throughout the preceding century. If Rome still had control of Italy and had successfully repelled the invasion by the Lombards, which I believe still would have happened, then while the theological disagreements would continue, the Patriarchate of Rome would remain well within the control of the Roman Empire, and no invasion of Italy by the Franks would have occurred, at least under the circumstances you go into. I can definitely see the rise of a Pope of Paris (or similar city in the Frankish Empire), but this would not necessarily lead to invasion of Italy, as there is no Pope in Rome to defend from the Lombards, and the Eastern Orthodox church (then called the Chalcedonian Church) was not considered so heretical as to justify a holy war. Still, Charlemagne was ambitious and a highly successful ruler, so he may decide to invade under different pretenses. My final disagreement with your timeline is the Rise of Islam. I completely agree that it would still happen, however, I believe the Caliphate would not have rashly invaded a Roman Empire at the height of it's strength (relative to the Original Timeline of course). I believe that they instead would have invaded the much weaker Persian Empire and conquered that first. Once the Persians were subjugated, they would then turn towards the Romans. I also feel that having the resources of the freshly conquered Persians would make their conquest of the Levant and Egypt far more plausible, as in your timeline, it just doesn't make much sense. Rome had considerable garrisons in Syria due to the ever present threat of the Persians, and the area would likely have even more of a military presence, as there was currently ongoing religious turmoil in the region regarding the nature of Christ. This religious turmoil was one of the reasons the Caliphate was able to conquer the region so quickly, as the people originally welcomed them as liberators from the oppression of Rome (Oh how they would come to regret that decision). In this new timeline, however, Rome wouldn't be stretched so thin and so would likely have had even more troops in the Levant to maintain order, making the invasion by the Caliphate even less likely to succeed. But if the Caliphate had conquered Persia first, and maybe coincide it's invasion of the Levant and Egypt with the Romans busy elsewhere, such as with the Franks, Visigoths, or Lombards, then I can see the Caliphate making the gains you describe. Hell, I'd even say they stand a chance of getting further towards Tunisia and capture Libya. I do agree that once Egypt was lost, the Romans would throw everything they had at ensuring they kept Tunisia, as those were the two breadbaskets of Rome, and the loss of both would be as catastrophic as it was in the original timeline.

[@Killerbee_McTitties]

You bring up some great point but I have a question for you. You mention conquering the Persians first would give the caliphate a boost that would make their conquests of the Levant and Egypt more plausible. My question is as follows. The Persians or Sassanids themselves were an empire on the backfoot, severely strained by the conflicts with Rome over the centuries and they would likely be in even worse shape if Eastern Rome itself wasn't in shambles. Do you really think the resources the Caliphate would have gained from the Sassanids, would be enough to put Rome on the backfoot for a while and coquer such massive territories? As a revitalized empire, besides resource availability, mindset would also change for the Romans, potentially leading to different approaches to warfare, maybe even pre-emptive action against the Caliphate while its fighting the Sassanids. Better the devil you know than the one you don't. What do you think? I've gotta admit I'm super biased on this.

[@darthimperious1594]

@@Killerbee_McTitties I don't see the Roman's being very successful if the punch the Persians at the same time as the Caliphate. Sure. They might get some concessions and loot, but Rome wasn't interested in trying to hold that territory. Rome was more interested in the West at this time and reconquering the lost provinces. I am betting they would do what Rome was so good at: wait and let their enemies destroy each other. I can totally see them striking the Caliphate immediately after they exhaust themselves against the Persians in an effort to "put them in their place", and likely leave additional garrison legions in the Levant and Egypt, but I still see the Caliphate emerging as a significant power, albeit not nearly to the scale that we saw in the original timeline. As for helping the Persians against the Caliphate, I won't dismiss that possibility entirely. There is merit to that plan; as you said, the Devil You Know. The main reason why I doubt they would, however, is that the Roman's would likely be preoccupied with the West, either in reconquest or recovery, and therefore be unable or unwilling to help the Persians. They also would likely distrust the Persians and so be wary of any calls for help.

[@Killerbee_McTitties]

@@darthimperious1594 I don't see the Roman's fighting alongside the caliphate against the Sassanids either, much more likely for them to wait it out and swoop in to finish off the victor or at least try to position themselves in a way that allows them to influence the redistribution of conquered territory, though from what I know, the caliphate likely wouldn't accept that. preoccupied in the west as in holding back the Franks or what do you mean exactly? The Rashidun Caliphate originated almost a century after the Lombard invasion of Italy and there is a decent chance of the western borders being secured by the time they appear, especially if the two churches manage to mend their schism. Or do you think the caliphate might catch Rome off guard while it's busy reconquering Iberia?

[@darthimperious1594]

@@Killerbee_McTitties I agree with your assessment of Rome waiting and fighting the weakened winner completely. That was Rome's style through the ages. And yes, the Lombards would either be beaten back or would not have invaded at all in this alternate history. I'd expect Rome would be preoccupied with either finishing the reconquest of Iberia from the Visigoths or perhaps pushing into Gaul, which at this point would the the Frankish Empire. Beyond this, it starts to get hazy. Beat back one barbarian horde, and two more seem to spring up. Behind the Frank's are the various Germanic trips, with the Saxons likely being the strongest, and then theres the Dacians and Norse. There will likely still be a Viking Age later on, but if the Roman Empire is still intact, the Vikings will likely avoid them, as they were no stranger to fighting off barbarian raids.

[@ammarhaziq919]

Italy and Iberia were huge burden for Byzantines to keep, they are seperated by sea and located very far from Constantinople and they can be easily invaded by huge army from the north in modern france and germany, Italy always attacked from the north since very early roman era, gaul always imvade italy from north, hannibal attack them from north, the only reason gaul stop attacking italy in 1st century because the whole of Gaul nations were conquered by Ceasar, but can Byzantines reconquest the Charlamagne lands ? charlamagne empire were divided because they stop expanding, if byzantines still pose a threat they will probably united to fight a common enemy, unless Byzantines can conquer frankish kingdoms like Ceasar conquer Gaul, it was very unlikely to happened i guess, Ceasar himself were very lucky at some moment and almost lose his life and his entire campaign fighting a divided and backward/uncivilized gaul tribes, but against a united Frankish army who already adapt the roman warfare ? so the fall of Italy and Iberia is just inevitables.

[@Rick-dt9mv]

It is because of the plague that we cannot call Justinian the "world's second restorer." On the other hand, I believe if I had followed the course, the conditions for the reconquest of both Gaul, Britain, Raetia and the Noricum would have been met.

[@chrishaapala7997]

He ultimately failed, but came damn close to doing, he did make the Mediterranean a Roman lake again

[@julez2106]

Sooo underrated this channel, such a shame, hopefully more people discover your sublime content!

[@misty7345]

facts

[@Augustus...]

"that man failed"-those words hit really fucking hard

[@wambutu7679]

That was done well. A very good question. Thank you.

[@sriharshacv7760]

I still feel that he is one of the coolest emperors as he battled uphill. Caesar, the coolest Roman general didn't face disease and a real empire(such as Persians). Not saying that he couldn't handle but it would be safe to say that the probability of his failure reduced because he didn't encounter the systemic obstacles Justinian faced. Also Caesar's enemies while savage were facing a highly confident Roman army led by a charismatic general. It would be common sense that Rome's neighbors caught up with some of the Roman tactics by the time of Justinian. While Caesar is undoubtedly rated above Justinian, the latter remains a great man.

[@TheDrumstickEmpire]

Been looking for something like this! Have a subscriber!

[@sagittariusa7662]

Justinian is the reason why Rome fell. Rome actually was still Rome when Odoacer took it. He even portrayed himself as a subject of the Eastern Roman Empire. Eastern Rome replaced Odoacer with the Ostrogoths, which in turn were just another subject of Rome. It was with the invasion of Lombards that things change, but the Lombards were only able to do such a thing because the Eastern Romans devastated Italy so much in their war with the Ostrogoths and the Roman People who supported the Ostrogoths.

[@ElpatitoCuakHD]

Ultra underated channel. High quality and aweosme topics

[@poweeceldran310]

Let's just say Justinian closed all borders of the empire and had people with the plague sent to the Sassanid Empire.

[@Baccanaso]

And Frankish kingdom too

[@sadiqahmed4143]

Okay that will work

[@nobledictator2906]

My name is Justin and I agree with this message

[@adge5182]

4:32 It hurts that Romans conquered all Iberian peninsula, except the place I live in 😢.

[@flaviusstilicho397]

Justinian was too late to restore the Roman Empire, it should’ve been Stilicho, Aetius and Majorian who should’ve restored the west, he should’ve stopped at North Africa

[@alessandrogini5283]

Yes.. Possibile, also made alexander severus more luckilier

[@diamondinthesky4771]

The one proble I have is the Charlemagne part. Catholicsm and Orthodoxy were still united as "Chalcedonian" at this point in history, and in this timeline it's doubtful that a schism would occur. Therefore even if Charlemagne still existed and became King of Francia (It's possible but the manner in which that happens would be ENTIRELY different from our timeline) he's very unlikely going to have the bishop of Rome crown him as Roman Emperor when the Roman Empire is still strong and stable.

[@Reckless-02]

that romano/byzantine soundtrack in the back is really cool goes along well with the video 👍🏼😎

[@smokeymoe3977]

Orthodox Roman Empire... sounds GREAT

[@lsthero5863]

It exist a popular point of view wich says that justinian send Belisarius to the Vàndal Kingdom in order to seize some territories to legitimize his governments, but Belisarius conquered all the kingdom, which put in motion his plan to restore the western half of the empire. But this point of view puts the start of the intention of restore rome in the victory of Belisarius.

[@theicelandicnationalist2.023]

If you delete the entire year of 536 those dreams would be realistic

[@Butter_Warrior99]

One idea I think you should've mentioned is lineage. That is very important.

[@patrickcummins79]

The music is Fucking Awesome

[@Kiddo5010]

Damn right, its called Synphoniaci

[@tannerdoyle7535]

Great video keep it up

[@mountainman679]

Another underrated channel that’ll grow to become successful. You sir got my support and my sub.

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

Thank you! It definitely means a lot!

[@fridayyy.2102]

@@ThatAnnoyingAmerican You'll become verified trust me

[@miguelinop]

There is only one issue with this timeline The reason Charlemagne invaded Italy, was because of the Lombards screwing the pope who was still under byzantine "protection". So Charlemagne replaced the byzantines as protectors of the pope. Leading to more separations with rome But if the byzantines held into Italy, there wouldn't be an excuse for Charlemagne in the first place to invade. And either declares war on a less battered empire or would focus on germania more (even on bretain)

[@schroederscurrentevents3844]

This is what everyone wants to see

[@tvre0]

Although unlikely I like to think this would happen

[@StephanthePelted]

probably Justinian would firmly hold Rome and force all Christians outside his empire to acknowledge to Byzantine church authority (probably via a council) or risk being denounced like the Chaldean/Nestorians in Persia back during the Council of Ephesus.

[@sriharshacv7760]

Any way I liked the analysis. Just subscribed.

[@saadiqsobers4628]

This is hi-key fire, long live Justinian and the Romans.

[@spacelemming4493]

Aurelian: "Pathetic"

[@Retotion]

Wish this was real 😭😭😭

[@user-qe5by9dz6o]

wtf why am i packing my stuff up to move to this timeline

[@mathiass1999]

We will need to all reunite again if we wish to stand the test of time.

[@Kiddo5010]

Indeed

[@temujanradari1105]

Like the video, but not a fan of the blank canvas screen.... keep the maps up or something!

[@Christian_Sannino]

Best scenario

[@motivationallizard6644]

I see one huge problem with this timeline (aside from the whole no Byzantine civil wars) and it’s that the Catholic Church simply wouldn’t exist for Charlemagne to crown himself. The Catholic Church largely formed out of its isolation from the emperor and its closer proximity to Western Europe where it held influence over its Christian population. If Justinian reconquers Italy then the pope would be stumped in any of his attempts to claim political power and the 5 patriarchates would be forced into their original status quo. That means no Catholic Church and Justinian could use his position as emperor to try and assert authority over all of Christendom, just as the holy Roman and Byzantine emperors did in our own timeline only this time it’s much more legitimacy with a United church. Their would still be conflicts over iconoclasm and the filoque clause though that you can’t really gloss over.

[@unisangalaxystudio]

This needs part 2 Roman Empire with mongol Empire then medvil ages.

[@maciejkamil]

Interesting scenario, never saw this before.

[@Antonio.S]

That damned plague man

[@CrunchyNorbert]

plague; plague ruined rome in 2nd C, 7th C, 14th C; if the entire culture could have somehow adapted to apocalyptic diseases we'd all still be speaking Latin/Greek

[@siyacer]

Wonderful

[@choudhery1989]

One thing you missed out. Byzantine civil wars. They did more harm than any outside enemy. Even if Justinian was successful I wouldn’t be surprised if these civil wars tore those dreams down

[@cheeminthao6535]

He did restore Rome.

[@Icantstop850]

We forgot about the part where Mongolia destroys rome

[@dansanders9121]

You really need to choose better background music, it was very hard tto pay attention

[@thegreatrediscovery3496]

If not for that plague, Justinian would be remembered as the greatest Roman Emperor of all time, perhaps even greater than Augustus.

[@kingkj5567]

What happened to the new world?

[@Szycha8412]

this music make me fear :)

[@CaptainGrimes1]

I think you don't factor in roman civil wars or Emperors not trusting their generals

[@johnloman4164]

Is that really as much of an issue after Justinian codified Roman law? I think your argument holds ground but I don’t remember civil war being as prevalent in the Byzantine empire.

[@YugoMapper]

Bro has to change his name into unique american

[@Ali-bu6lo]

If the great Roman-Persian war of 602-628 is butterflied away I see no reason for Persia being so weak to be conquered by Arabs.

[@proactiveomnipresentvessel6569]

i could be possible the plague never spread from accounts of the first infected coming from a very isolated village in Egypt so yea its possible

[@ishmaellove7614]

Why does the Caliphate still conquer Sassanid Persia, but not the Byzantine Empire. Would they too not be at full strength?

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

The Romans would have just smashed them, so they’d still be weak in this timeline. Also, Rome still gets smacked pretty hard. I just believe they’d be able to reconquer at least most of the lost land as well as defend their most important regions.

[@bobbystclaire]

What interest me would be evil how I would it affect Britain? The Mycenaeans did not allow Rome to exist?

[@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle]

*Roman. They were Roman. "Byzantine" was a Renaissance retcon. Sorry can't finish the video hearing that constantly

[@alex_zetsu]

You sure Justinian could have restored Rome before the government wandered too far from its roots? If United States was reduced to California at some time in the future and some guy managed to restore the territory of the county but by then Chinese replaces English as the main language, I'd say the soul of USA had long died by the time it was "restored."

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

The culture of the Empire had definitely already been morphed. This restored Roman Empire would be dominated by the Greeks culturally. It wouldn’t be a prominently Latin empire like it’s past.

[@alex_zetsu]

@@ThatAnnoyingAmerican I kind of figured this would be the case.

[@octaviantimisoreanu5810]

I don't see how it would be possible for the eastern Romans to restore all of the Roman empire. They were lucky to even have taken back Italy, Northern Africa and Southern Spain. I very much doubt Justinian could have taken back all of Spain, Gaul and Britain.

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

I agree with you. If you watch the video I never go that far. I think them taking control and holding down the Mediterranean is reasonable because the Sea would act as a connector.

[@sadiqahmed4143]

What about south Gaul and Aragon

[@connorstephens4354]

Goddamn I wish

[@toddbradshaw4936]

What if i didnt take a crap

[@AFNick]

The great Schism didn’t happen until 1054. So it makes no sense that Charlemagne would fight Byzantines in a sectarian conflict.

[@morillosky]

Licet arma vacent Cessenque doli Sidunt ipso pondere magna Ceditque oneri Fortuna suo Como decia mi compatriota Lucio Anneo Seneca en su obra Agamenon

[@misty7345]

pog

[@eccoeco3454]

Catholicism, or modern eastern orthodoxy for that matter, didn't exist at the time of Charlemagne, all christianity was still united (and would nominally remain so until much later, without a Power vacuum to fill the pope would have no reason to turn against the emperor of Costantinople who, on his part would probably have continued the practice of enthroning compliant roman pontiffs

[@rodster5978]

Yo based timeline

[@neimenovani7256]

But i mean, he was roman empurour, only thing u can sey if he concured whole rome

[@tsepzz4742]

Great video but why the creepy music..

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

Thank you! Its some traditional Roman Music

[@mireksawa1457]

👍

[@AImeria]

DOPAMINE

[@rosemcdaniel3029]

Justin wolde be a god?

[@TheStarcoMarco]

Don't worry. United States were Modern Day Roman Empire since the Government Official Buildings in Washington like Capitol Hill, White House, Washington Monument, etc were similar to Roman/Greek Structures.

[@malarobo]

They are fakes

[@eternal_riftz8801]

They fake copies because americans have no good structures

[@md6584]

Keep dreaming. Roman empire was in direct conflict with Sassanid Empire for more than 150 years and what did they do? Almost nothing 😂😂😂 If Justinian could restore Roman Empire, Khosrau II would be more careful to invade Roman Empire and their war would be not last long so both Empires would be stronger than the real time when Muslims invaded them. Big Empire could present big army and also bigger problems from northern parts of Europe to far east Persia.

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

👍

[@thatromanguy1906]

Are you dumb? 😂😂😂🤣 Khosrau ll wasn't even the sha during the time of Justinian learn some real history before being negative

[@SuperResnick]

You don't really give any in-depth explanation of these events and I don't think I am convinced how the Romans could have held Africa.

[@memezoffuckery3207]

Islam would have never risen had Byzantine economy remained stable and trade continued along the western Arabian coast. There was a period where the Byzantines succeeded in almost making a along lasting peace treaty with the Persians, but then the wrong ruler got killed and the new ruler of Persia started a devastating war that weakened both empires tremendously. The Persians were so close to conquering the Byzantines but then the Byzantines called upon their barbarian Christian allies up to the north to push the Persian invaders way from the capital. The war left a huge power vacuum, and the anarchistic arid wasteland region of Arabia (once a region of proxy wars where both superpowers Byzantine and Persia funded certain tribes to attack the other tribe) was susceptible to a new power. *The* *Cult* *of* *Muhammad* There were many cultist and false prophets contesting for control over the region, but once the main economic centers of Mecca and etc were under the control of a specific faction, it was all over. And the p-wordphile barbarians had their way.

[@eternal_riftz8801]

Those were turks who invaded the sassanid and they were not christians but tengrism

[@K.Pershing]

@@eternal_riftz8801 he isn't talking about the turks. They wouldn't show up for another 400 years but the various varingians,slavic and other mercenaries in the caucasus

[@storms_lair2123]

If the plague never hit the giant Persian army would crush belasarious at Jerusalem

[@storms_lair2123]

@Δημήτρης Ο Δημήτρης but he always had some advantage he even admitted he had no way to win but hw would die fighting for Rome anyway

[@ThatAnnoyingAmerican]

@@storms_lair2123 it definitely would be an interesting debate to be had. You could say this scenario is what if the plague never hit, and then the Romans decisively crushed Persia.

[@storms_lair2123]

@Δημήτρης Ο Δημήτρης yet he had an advantage somehow in his words he admitted he could not win

[@blockie9706]

Justinian the great🇦🇱 Constantine the great🇦🇱

[@rest1tutor693]

Justinian the Failed

[@yacinemaamardine364]

Even if they couldn't defeat the Muslims

[@rickyyacine4818]

They could Byzantine and sasaniad war from 602 ad to 628 ad was disaster weaken both empire and theador brother of Heracles was complete dumb fool general

[@TheAncientMysteriesBeckon]

A joke of an Emperor, nothing compared to the greatest like Augustus, Aurelius, Hadrian, Julian.