A Report to the Emperor

Etos Kosmou 6140

To His Radiant Clemency Flavius Herakleios Augustus, Basileus of the Romans:

May the Holy Trinity, Creator, Saviour, and Inspirer, guide all our deeds and protect our souls now and in the hour of our deaths!

Your servant humbly submits the report of his activities in the diocese of Egypt and Arabia. Your commander enforcing the restoration of Roman rule to that region was plagued by bandit raids upon the supply columns. Under Your Majesty’s will, he dispatched a force of light horse commanded by your humble servant to resolve the matter.

The chief of the bandits was a Arab, by the name of Mouamet, who had made himself predominant in the area by an inexorable cruelty and savagery. Having conquered the town of Iathrivos, from there he had recently established himself in the town of Makoraba, from whence his raiders preyed upon the locals and upon travellers indifferently.

Such was his godless fanaticism that it was easy to find local guides who would aid in preparing an ambush. I regret to say that many of them were the contemptible Jews, for whom Mouamet and his ruffians had contrived a great hatred.

When the gang of robbers led by Mouamet went forth to capture this great Roman caravan, they were cut to pieces by the Avars of your Majesty’s force, with great slaughter amid the Arabs. Mouamet was, as it happened, taken alive.

The army then proceeded to Makoraba and stormed the town. The locals were of little worth, and any who made resistance were easily slain. As for their vile leader, he was castrated, disemboweled, blinded, and impaled in the public square.

Interrogations of the surviving locals revealed that Mouamet had proclaimed himself a prophet, and composed a book of many blasphemies, heresies, and lies which he asserted had been given to him by his false god. Many copies of this were confiscated and burned in a great pile before the gibbet of the bandit. It was also necessary to destroy the pagan temple that Mouamet had established, taking care to crack the very stones of the despicable place with fire and vinegar, as Hannibal did in the early days of Rome.

The heads of Mouamet’s principal lieutenants were removed and placed on stakes before his corpse, while the surviving population of the town, including some dozen women who one and all claimed to be his widow, were driven into the wilds, they being worthless as slaves.

The goods of the Makorabans, such as they are, were confiscated to the imperial fisc. Some small part of the Roman property has been recovered, it appears that much of the plunder of the bandits was employed in recruiting more to their vile chieftain’s following, or in the purchase of slave women.

Thus a petty but irritating impediment to Your Majesty’s rule has been expunged. I remain, Your Sacred Majesty’s humble and insignificant servant . . .

[NOTE: To be reproached, reduced in rank, and dispatched to the Ister frontier. He used the singular personal pronoun.]
 
So . . .having absorbed this, what do you people think a continued truce between a now-exhausted Byzantium and Persia without any barbarian interlopers would be like?

The Heraclian dynasty would, of course, have its family problems, and probably sputter out soon. However, Maurice (if he is not butterflied away) or alt-Maurice, will have greater resources, and can continue to rebuild and improve the army. Eventually the Lombards can be subdued and Italy confirmed in the empire.

Which means that no thinly-Romanized Frankish regulus can be named Augustus of the West.

As for the Persians themselves, one can see an eventual breakup of the kingdom (so many of the Sassanid emperors were deposed, especially in the later empire) and its replacement by another steppe people. Only this time not inflamed by a desire to make the entire world submit.

Any other thoughts?
 
I know not how to respond to the scenario but Major Major, you indeed are a treasure of SHWI, to be praised alongside Jared and Faeelin as those of the old school who so charitably grace this board with your presence.

That is one helluva OP.
 
I laughed out loud when I read the final line. If the empire can spend time consolidating its hold on italy, it will certainly become a key player in western european politics, and may be able to retake more of the west some time in the future.
 
Thank you one and all.

There have been so many Islam-triumphant postings to the board of late, I thought I might do something to the contrary. Cut off the head of the serpent while is it still in its nest, as it were.
 
So . . .having absorbed this, what do you people think a continued truce between a now-exhausted Byzantium and Persia without any barbarian interlopers would be like?

The Heraclian dynasty would, of course, have its family problems, and probably sputter out soon. However, Maurice (if he is not butterflied away) or alt-Maurice, will have greater resources, and can continue to rebuild and improve the army. Eventually the Lombards can be subdued and Italy confirmed in the empire.

Which means that no thinly-Romanized Frankish regulus can be named Augustus of the West.

As for the Persians themselves, one can see an eventual breakup of the kingdom (so many of the Sassanid emperors were deposed, especially in the later empire) and its replacement by another steppe people. Only this time not inflamed by a desire to make the entire world submit.

Any other thoughts?

Major Major

One small problem in that I think your got your dates confused.;) Maurice was deposed in 602 I think. It was the civil wars and Sassanid invasion that lead to Heraclius's rise to the purple.

The empire is still very weak after the war with the Sassanids and the resultant taxes make it even more unpopular in Syria and Egypt. Doctrine disputes gravely weaken it. Hence probably that there will be another wave of wars and revolts so quite possibly the centrifugal forces will win out.

Steve
 
Major Major

One small problem in that I think your got your dates confused.;) Maurice was deposed in 602 I think. It was the civil wars and Sassanid invasion that lead to Heraclius's rise to the purple.

The empire is still very weak after the war with the Sassanids and the resultant taxes make it even more unpopular in Syria and Egypt. Doctrine disputes gravely weaken it. Hence probably that there will be another wave of wars and revolts so quite possibly the centrifugal forces will win out.

Steve

Thanks for the correction. Now how did I get them turned around?

I was reading Lost to the West by Lars Brownlow, an interesting if slender history of Byzantium, and what struck me about it was how the Empire kept on reviving, but from further down every time. So when the Heraclids sputtered out, there's be someone after not long. Only this fellow would have Syria and Egypt to draw on, not to mention only facing a weakened Perisa.

And Mouamet would be a pile of bones being picked over by desperate jackals in a ruin . . .
 
Interesting PoD. Eager to read more ...

As for the Persians themselves, one can see an eventual breakup of the kingdom (so many of the Sassanid emperors were deposed, especially in the later empire) and its replacement by another steppe people. Only this time not inflamed by a desire to make the entire world submit.

I wouldn't call the Persians a "people of the steppe" (although the vegetation in significant parts of their realm might support you).
Do you think the Turkic peoples would be less expansive if not being Muslims?
I don't think so, as the (similar) Mongolian expansion took place without Muslim conversion ...
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Maurice was deposed in 602. Heraclius took the throne in 608 after his cousin seized Egypt. The strife in the empire allowed the Persians to make great gains. By the time that the Persians returned the territory to the Romans, a whole generation grew up without knowing Roman rule.
 
Top