AHC: Late Antiquity Status Quo Lasts Until 800

[Lady Visenya]

With a POD no earlier than 608 AD, have the status quo of the Late Roman world last until the early 9th century.

Failing that, until the early 8th.

Is this possible? What would the consequences be?

 

[Alarik Von Erstien]

What exactly do you mean by status quo?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

I'd consider 608 to be post "Late Roman", honestly.

'Late Roman" is ~275 - ~476 (the ends of the 3rd Century crises to the "Fall" of the Western empire. An argument could be made for a transition between 476 and about 500, but the 600s is much to late, but by 500 we're in the early Medieval/"Dark Ages" parts of Late Antiquity in the west, and firmly "Byzantine" in the east,

 

[Lady Visenya]

I'd consider 608 to be post "Late Roman", honestly.

'Late Roman" is ~275 - ~476 (the ends of the 3rd Century crises to the "Fall" of the Western empire. An argument could be made for a transition between 476 and about 500, but the 600s is much to late, but by 500 we're in the early Medieval/"Dark Ages" parts of Late Antiquity in the west, and firmly "Byzantine" in the east,

Please don't play word games when you know what I mean, lel.

What exactly do you mean by status quo?

The Roman Empire as a Mediterranean superpower/largest kid on the block in the "west", Persia existing, that sort of thing. Specifically, the 6th century status quo.

That doesn't mean "No Islam" precisely, so much as the general balance of power remaining the same with more or less the same largest players.

 

[Alarik Von Erstien]

The Roman Empire as a Mediterranean superpower/largest kid on the block in the "west", Persia existing, that sort of thing.

Ahh I see well honestly if your scenario came true then Rome would survive a lot longer than just 800. The time in which Rome fell was the perfect storm of events to cause its fall. So if they were able to get past that and hold together then we potentially could see a United Rome up to 900/1000 AD and if the west did fall the east most likely would survive a whole lot longer as well

 

[Deleted member 147978]

With a POD no earlier than 608 AD, have the status quo of the Late Roman world last until the early 9th century.

Failing that, until the early 8th.

Is this possible? What would the consequences be?

The late Roman World can't stay like that forever you know?
Not when the Germanic Tribes are carving up pieces of the decaying Western Roman Empire and establishing Kingdoms of their own.
The Eastern Roman Empire already uses Greek more than Latin, and they later transitioned to became the Greek Orthodox "Byzantine Roman Empire" in the long run.
Nothing can stay "Roman" forever, especially not during the 5th Century.

 

[Lady Visenya]

The late Roman World can't stay like that forever you know?
Not when the Germanic Tribes are carving up pieces of the decaying Western Roman Empire and establishing Kingdoms of their own.
The Eastern Roman Empire already uses Greek more than Latin, and they later transitioned to became the Greek Orthodox "Byzantine Roman Empire" in the long run.
Nothing can stay "Roman" forever, especially not during the 5th Century.

I'm more referring to the mid-6th century status quo. Ie: close to the ass end of Late Antiquity.

 

[Alarik Von Erstien]

The late Roman World can't stay like that forever you know?
Not when the Germanic Tribes are carving up pieces of the decaying Western Roman Empire and establishing Kingdoms of their own.
The Eastern Roman Empire already uses Greek more than Latin, and they later transitioned to became the Greek Orthodox "Byzantine Roman Empire" in the long run.
Nothing can stay "Roman" forever, especially not during the 5th Century.

I think she’s asking what would we expect to happen if the west either didn’t fall, the barbarian invasions didn’t happen, or the west pulled a China and a nation came in and reastbilished the western empire and then did some intermarrying with the eastern empire.

 

[Lady Visenya]

I think she’s asking what would we expect to happen if the west either didn’t fall, the barbarian invasions didn’t happen, or the west pulled a China and a nation came in and reastbilished the western empire and then did some intermarrying with the eastern empire.

That is an interesting thread idea in its own right. As a separate idea I've been trying to come up with a way for a rump WRE to survive as essentially a western counterpart of the rump ERE of the late 7th and 8th centuries. Though that isn't the topic of *this* thread.

 

[Deleted member 147978]

I think she’s asking what would we expect to happen if the west either didn’t fall, the barbarian invasions didn’t happen, or the west pulled a China and a nation came in and reastbilished the western empire and then did some intermarrying with the eastern empire.

The west wouldn't have fall if Majorian lived to see the light of day with his policies, other than that the Germanic Chieftains did as they pleased once the Western half had collapsed.

 

[osnowyo]

With a POD no earlier than 608 AD

If we're taking 608 as the absolute earliest point, I would probably say Priscus getting a lucky break in the siege of Caesarea in 611. Retaking the city and taking Shahin's army out of the equation would have meant that the Byzantine-Sassanid war would have gone nearly a decade without any decisive gains for either side. At that point there's a reasonable chance that some sort of peace agreement would have been reached and the war would have slowly sputtered out like so many Roman/Persian conflicts. Without the devastation and war exhaustion that occurred in the latter part of the war, I would argue that it would be unlikely the Islamic conquests could have occurred the way they did. Without that threat, there's no reason that the Byzantines couldn't have carried along much as they had done for the past couple centuries for at least another 100 years.

 

[Alarik Von Erstien]

If we're taking 608 as the absolute earliest point, I would probably say Priscus getting a lucky break in the siege of Caesarea in 611. Retaking the city and taking Shahin's army out of the equation would have meant that the Byzantine-Sassanid war would have gone nearly a decade without any decisive gains for either side. At that point there's a reasonable chance that some sort of peace agreement would have been reached and the war would have slowly sputtered out like so many Roman/Persian conflicts. Without the devastation and war exhaustion that occurred in the latter part of the war, I would argue that it would be unlikely the Islamic conquests could have occurred the way they did. Without that threat, there's no reason that the Byzantines couldn't have carried along much as they had done for the past couple centuries for at least another 100 years.

Could also allow them to turn there attention and much greater resources than OTL and grab back Italy from the lombards. Maybe even over time start a reconquest of Gaul

 

[Lady Visenya]

If we're taking 608 as the absolute earliest point, I would probably say Priscus getting a lucky break in the siege of Caesarea in 611. Retaking the city and taking Shahin's army out of the equation would have meant that the Byzantine-Sassanid war would have gone nearly a decade without any decisive gains for either side. At that point there's a reasonable chance that some sort of peace agreement would have been reached and the war would have slowly sputtered out like so many Roman/Persian conflicts. Without the devastation and war exhaustion that occurred in the latter part of the war, I would argue that it would be unlikely the Islamic conquests could have occurred the way they did. Without that threat, there's no reason that the Byzantines couldn't have carried along much as they had done for the past couple centuries for at least another 100 years.

That works.

Could also allow them to turn there attention and much greater resources than OTL and grab back Italy from the lombards. Maybe even over time start a reconquest of Gaul

I mean, I think securing Italy will be a long time work in itself. There's also the increasingly loose hold on Africa.

 

[Zireael]

or the west pulled a China and a nation came in and reastbilished the western empire and then did some intermarrying with the eastern empire.

The WRE pulling a China would actually make an awesome TL <3 <3 wink wink

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

With a POD no earlier than 608 AD, have the status quo of the Late Roman world last until the early 9th century.

Failing that, until the early 8th.

Is this possible? What would the consequences be?

No Islam/Arab conquests, I think. These permanently cut off much of the Middle East and North Africa from Roman rule, and thus Roman cultural influence.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

No Islam is probably your easiest route.

Having some sort of long-term peace between the Romans and Sassanids helps - lets the Romans try and reconquer more of the old WRE.

 

[Chercha]

Yeah, no Islam would probably be the way to go, without it the Arab invasions would end up a lot like the Germanic invasions, with only Syria and Mesopotamia (the Aramaic speaking areas) liable to become Arabised, while Arabs in the rest of the places they settle assimilate like the Germans did in Southern Europe. Without Islam, the Turks likely end up assimilating later on as well, which means that by the XXIst century we'd have made to 100 Greco-Persian wars at least; a historical rivalry to make England vs. France look like a back alley brawl.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

A bit similar to what osnowyo proposed

Heraclius wins the battle of Antioch in 613.

It's a bit difficult because Heraclius is still a new commander, Sharbaraz is one of the veterans of the Persian army, apart from being a rather gifted commander and Heraclius in the 620s is very different from Heraclius in the early 610s, but not impossible.

Now, if Heraclius wins decisively enough to force the Persians to withdraw east of the Euphrates or at least force Sharbaraz to halt his advance and fall back temporarily to reorganise his army, then the Byzantines have more time to organise their defence and counterattacks. Philippicus would also benefit from this, as he might be able to exploit this temporary problem of the Persians to advance even deeper into Armenia, thus forcing Shahin to cover an even greater distance through the rugged terrain of western Armenia and more quickly, resulting in his army being even more disorganised and exhausted when they finally reach the Byzantine army. Perhaps Philippicus, with a little bit of luck, manages to crush the Persian army.

Now Khosrau II is in trouble, as his northern flank is exposed. He could get into "house cleaning" mode and demote/banish/execute Shahin for his defeat, which would deprive the Persians of one of their more competent commanders. I could also see him ordering Sharbaraz to redeploy his army to cover Armenia and Media as quickly as possible, especially if Philippicus repeats Heraclius's OTL campaigns in the area to a lesser extent and seems to be poised to strike at Mesopotamia. If Khosrau has been insisting on the speed part, perhaps Sharbaraz might resort to a forced march, which, given the longer distance involved, would most likely end up with his army in worse shape than that of Shahen's, thus allowing Philippicus to score a second victory.

Now Khosrau is in a dire spot, as he has to face two Roman armies while his own army is rather disorganised. Heraclius crosses the Euphrates and starts reconquering the cities and forts the Persians had captured between 604 and 611. Khosrau is forced to agree to a peace treaty that restores the pre-603/604 status quo.

Now, this is the best case scenario for the Byzantines; a more likely one is perhaps the following: Philippicus defeats Shahen, Sharbaraz is recalled and ordered to defend Mesopotamia, Khosrau raises another army to cover the passes from Armenia and Media. Heraclius has some trouble evicting the Persians from northern Syria and fails to cross the Euphrates. Meanwhile, Philippicus fails to do much more in Armenia and is forced to retreat westwards due to logistical troubles. In the end, the two sides conclude a peace treaty (or, more likely, a mere truce), in which the Persians make some territorial gains.

Post war: in the best-case scenario, the Romans have basically recovered their ground. They still suffer from the problems from the reign of Phocas (an empty treasury, divided populations etc) but things are slowly improving. The army's morale has been boosted by these recent victories and Heraclius can proceed with certain military reforms of his more easily. The empire's richest provinces are left unscathed by the war (except for some parts of Syria), which means that restoring the empire's financial health is easier, while trade routes that IOTL were closed by the Persian occupation are still open, meaning that it l will be easier for the general economy to recover. Some minor details of these changes;

• Continued control of Egypt allows Heraclius to resume the distribution of free bread to the population of Constantinople (IOTL, he was forced to levy a special tax of 3 gold coins per recipient in order to import the needed grain in 618 and ultimately ended the whole practice).
• The supply of raw materials, particularly of silk (which was either imported or produced in Syria is continues, meaning that a large part of the empire's manufacturing and trade doesn't enter into steep decline and instead manages to to recover, improving the overall state of the economy
• The import of precious metals, particularly gold, is much easier than OTL, meaning that the emperor doesn't have to debase the silver coins and limit the issuance of solidi
• the aristocracy, particularly the Senate, don't gain ground at the expense of the emperor's power and prestige, as it happened during the mid 610s, meaning that the emperor is in a better position to enact reforms and revitalise the Roman state.

If the Persians are busy doing some house cleaning in the late 610s and early 620s, and then have to face Khazar and Turkic raids, then Heraclius may be able to turn his attention to the Balkan peninsula and return to Maurice's policy of actively engaging the Avars. With a better and more powerful imperial army and much more money at his disposal, he may be able to create trouble for the Avars, inciting more Slavic tribes to revolt and pressing both Slavs and Avars back to the Danube. Sooner or later, the Avars would find themselves under growing pressure, as the Empire would continue to foment unrest among their vassals and undermine their influence. They might decide to try to strongarm the empire to back down, but, given the better position of the empire ITTL, such an attempt would most likely end in disaster for the Khanate. Therefore, by the mid 620s, the empire is in a rather good state for the first time in almost 20 years, with one of its two major foes neutralised and the other busy elsewhere.

In the more realistic scenario, the situation is more akin to what happened during the reigns of Justin II and Tiberius II, with constant low-level warfare between the two sides happening a few years after the truce, as both empires would have to face trouble elsewhere (the Romans in the Balkans and secondarily in Italy and North Africa, the Persians in the Caucasus and Khorasan). However, the empire is still in a much better place than IOTL.

 

[NedStark]

Could also allow them to turn there attention and much greater resources than OTL and grab back Italy from the lombards. Maybe even over time start a reconquest of Gaul

Conquering Gaul and/or Hispania is guaranteed to be a doomed and pointless effort.

As for Italy, conquering Southern and Northeastern Italy is totally feasible, the Empire just needs enough peaceful time. Northwest Italy is harder, especially Lombardy.

 

[Alarik Von Erstien]

Conquering Gaul and/or Hispania is guaranteed to be a doomed and pointless effort.

As for Italy, conquering Southern and Northeastern Italy is totally feasible, the Empire just needs enough peaceful time. Northwest Italy is harder, especially Lombardy.

True it most likely isn’t going to be the easiest of most profitable thing in the beginning to conquer them, but when has that ever stopped Empires?