Byzantines Conquer Rome in the Late 11th~Early 12th century

What if the Byzantines were able to reestablish rule in Latium and Southern Italy during the late 11th century or early 12th century, what would happen to the East-West schism? would this unite Christianity again?
 
Which schism? If you make a reference here to the one of 1054, it was void of sense and was almost entierly political, not religious.

In fact, it was used a posteriory by papacy to legitimize the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, but it was so meanlingless before that the excommunication and anathem acts made by the Patriarch weren't findable when the Basileurs wanted to make peace with the pope.

For papacy, Byzantines were maybe lonny christians, with weird liturgy and rites, but thet totally were considered as christians and not heretics.
 
Which schism? If you make a reference here to the one of 1054, it was void of sense and was almost entierly political, not religious.

In fact, it was used a posteriory by papacy to legitimize the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, but it was so meanlingless before that the excommunication and anathem acts made by the Patriarch weren't findable when the Basileurs wanted to make peace with the pope.

For papacy, Byzantines were maybe lonny christians, with weird liturgy and rites, but thet totally were considered as christians and not heretics.
So when did Orthodox and RC really split?
 
So basically the real West-East Schism and the Avignon schism was just a hundred years more or less apart?

Yes, even if it's for really different reasons, and if the separation of West/East was more gradual (even with the sack of Constantinople).
It indeed not really helped to reinforce the papal legitimacy, if it didn't radically challenged it.

More interestingly, the fact a crusade finished to fight Christians maybe helped to make a crusade in christian lands (as a planned objective) against Catharism. So i suppose that is still a link between 1204 and the Great Schsim, as this crusade as other things of the same era seriusly challenged the authority of pape before the rise of royals power.
 
For this to happen, you must butterfly the Seljuks away, and keep the Levant, Iraq and Persia a mess of unstable, feuding Sultanates and Emirates, first of all. Only with a massive reprieve in the East, and a very competent and long lasting dynasty on the level of the Macedonian Dynasty could you possibly see the Byzantines holding on the Southern Italy, and perhaps prising Northern Italy away from the Holy Roman Empire.

You'd need a POD of perhaps from the end of the reign of Basil, around thereabouts, at latest.

Whatever happens, there must be NO Manzikert or the aftermaths of that debacle equivalent in TTL. Possible.

The only question is who is the German Emperor- I'd think a Byzantine Rome might well trigger a vigorous response if the Holy Roman Emperor is resonably secure on his throne. On the other hand, if the HRE is in a state of protracted civil war, then there is a distinct possibility that a Byzantine strong in the East might just be able to push up to the Alps over the course of the 11th and 12th Century.

One things for certain: no Crusades.

Furthermore, the prospects now are much better. Should the Byzantines manage to secure hegemony in the Po Valley, by this late stage, I can hardly conceive of a rerun of the Lombard invasion (unless somehow, we have an earlier, stronger French Monarchy, or the HRE develops on the same trajectory as France or England.) Of course, there could be an Italian Wars analogue just as easily in the 16th century thereabouts, if the Byzantines score a poor run of rulers. On the other hand, with a POD of 1000+, it's conceivable that the Byzantines would be as big a player in the European balance of power as the Ottomans were in OTL.
 
Last edited:
How bout if Basil has a male heir of similar skill to him? That would probably help quite a bit in ensuring the continued strength of the empire and that stuff like the disaster at manzikert dont happen.
 
For this to happen, you must butterfly the Seljuks away, and keep the Levant, Iraq and Persia a mess of unstable, feuding Sultanates and Emirates, first of all. Only with a massive reprieve in the East, and a very competent and long lasting dynasty on the level of the Macedonian Dynasty could you possibly see the Byzantines holding on the Southern Italy, and perhaps prising Northern Italy away from the Holy Roman Empire.

You'd need a POD of perhaps from the end of the reign of Basil, around thereabouts, at latest.

Whatever happens, there must be NO Manzikert or the aftermaths of that debacle equivalent in TTL. Possible.

The only question is who is the German Emperor- I'd think a Byzantine Rome might well trigger a vigorous response if the Holy Roman Emperor is resonably secure on his throne. On the other hand, if the HRE is in a state of protracted civil war, then there is a distinct possibility that a Byzantine strong in the East might just be able to push up to the Alps over the course of the 11th and 12th Century.

One things for certain: no Crusades.

Furthermore, the prospects now are much better. Should the Byzantines manage to secure hegemony in the Po Valley, by this late stage, I can hardly conceive of a rerun of the Lombard invasion (unless somehow, we have an earlier, stronger French Monarchy, or the HRE develops on the same trajectory as France or England.) Of course, there could be an Italian Wars analogue just as easily in the 16th century thereabouts, if the Byzantines score a poor run of rulers. On the other hand, with a POD of 1000+, it's conceivable that the Byzantines would be as big a player in the European balance of power as the Ottomans were in OTL.

Northern and Southern Italy both have distinct identities at that time, is it just possible for the Byzantine to regain southern italy, sicily and latium and ignore the rest with just a POD of 1100 AD?
 
Northern and Southern Italy both have distinct identities at that time, is it just possible for the Byzantine to regain southern italy, sicily and latium and ignore the rest with just a POD of 1100 AD?

Define "distinct" indentity.

Furthermore, the northern italy never considered the south as foreigner, and many expeditions were made to ensure the south would never been too much alienated regarding strategic and mercantile interests. (Hence the papal expedition against Normans)
 
Doesn't Isaac's Empire involve this, at least in the first version?

Old Rome really isn't worth the trouble. Even if the Germans don't really care.
 
Define "distinct" indentity.

Furthermore, the northern italy never considered the south as foreigner, and many expeditions were made to ensure the south would never been too much alienated regarding strategic and mercantile interests. (Hence the papal expedition against Normans)
Language and Culture, but more on the Language, Northern Italy is closer to France than to Southern Italy, in fact Southern Italy was largely Greek at one point.
 
Last edited:
Language and Culture, but more on the Language, Northern Italy is closer to France than to Southern Italy, in fact Southern Italy was largely Greek at one point.

The linguistic difference is far far less important between Latium and South than between Rome and Lombardia.

For the "largely" greek, no. Even at the byzantine period, the greek settlement was really both ancient (no greek byzantine settlement worth of mention) and really limited to some coastal portions.

For the more close to France than South Italy...No. Seriously, don't be fooled by the "Gallo" part of Gallo-Italian thing. French language is really distinct from all the latin languages, and even the occitan that is the more close is really really distinct from it.

I don't say you had an italian unity in the XII. But the south was not essentially different from the central Italy, economically, linguistically or even institutionally.
 
For the "largely" greek, no. Even at the byzantine period, the greek settlement was really both ancient (no greek byzantine settlement worth of mention) and really limited to some coastal portions.

It was limited, but not especially ancient- a lot of the Greek community of the tenth and eleventh century was, I believe, descended from refugees who had fled the Balkans in the seventh century. I know that Calabria was a lot more Greek than Apulia was, though both obviously were loyal to the Emperor.
 
It was limited, but not especially ancient- a lot of the Greek community of the tenth and eleventh century was, I believe, descended from refugees who had fled the Balkans in the seventh century. I know that Calabria was a lot more Greek than Apulia was, though both obviously were loyal to the Emperor.

Well, i don't know which scale you're using, but VII is ancient when we talk about early XII. Not antic, even if many of these greek (or semi-hellenized balkanic people) settled places with an strong antic greek population (as Calabria, or Sicilia). And as an ancient and relativly isolated settlement, it was already much reduced by latinophone advence of IX century.
 
Top