Byzantines move to Italy

Webp.net-gifmaker.gif


Recently re-discovered this two-year old post of mine and decided to make a small gif out of how I remember imagining how things might go.

The state allegedly founded by Romulus and Remus has gone through so many mutations and transformations throughout time, some of them incredibly gradual, that it's become a favorite pastime of historians and political thinkers to debate whether this or that arbitrary cut-off point is more valid than the others in describing its various phases.

In fact, the only one they agree upon is the first, the moment when Rome abandoned its King and became a Republic. Regarding everything afterwards, putting two historians in the same room will illicit at least three separate opinions.

In short, the state grew from a minor village barely controlling its surroundings, to a small-ish city dominating central Italy, to a medium-sized city dominating most of the peninsula, to a reasonably large city dominating most of the western Mediterranean, having swallowed up Carthage's Empire, to a huge metropolis (fed by the fertile fields of Carthage and Egypt) dominating all of the Mare Nostrum and western Europe, its laws, roads, legions and coins stretching from Scotland to Iraq.

Gradually though, through a combination of plague, climate change, migrations and civil wars, the western portions of this Empire came to be dominated by Germanic peoples, which, fusing with the local Romanized populations and their culture and systems, gave rise to the modern nations of Europe.

The city of Rome meanwhile gradually lost its political and economical importance, which shifted to Constantinople, as well as enjoying a steady decline in population.

The East meanwhile was nearly lost as well, were it not for multiple triumphs outside the walls of Constantinople snatching victory form the jaws of defeat. Its greater wealth and urbanization though allowed the eastern portion of the state to live on, and eventually to consolidate in the largely Greek-speaking areas of Anatolia and the southern Balkans. Italy too remained partially dominated for several centuries, although thoroughly wrecked by the effort to take and then keep it. The Arab Muslim conquests meanwhile robbed the Empire of its African and Levantine possessions, whilst Slavic migrations lead to the loss of most of Thrace and Illyria.

Thus reduced to its Greek core, the Empire soldiered on for several centuries, until a combination of increasing Slavic power in Balkans, a new wave of Turkic migration in Anatolia and naval and economic dominance of Italian city-states reduced it from the status of a great power to a collection of an ever dwindling number of fragmented territories. Even Constantinople itself was wrecked by this new onslaught, and, although re-taken from the “Latin Empire” three decades afterwards*, never again regained its dominating position.

The loss of most of the state’s last Anatolian and, to a lesser extent Greek possessions, meant that it was no longer even a significant regional power, instead being forced to rely on tribute and diplomacy to try and stay alive, always trying to maintain a balance of power between the power of the Turks on land and that of the Italians at sea.

By the 15th century, the state had become reliant on the goodwill of Catholic nations, and began a slow, arduous process of accepting Papal supremacy. This worked out rather well, as for a full century, the Capital managed to resist the periodic Turkish siege taking place every 10-20 years.

Towards the end of the century though, Turkish strength had simply grown too much, and no amount of lucky breaks, diplomacy or western reinforcements were going to save Constantinople. Recognizing this, the then Emperor concluded a deal with the Turkish Sultan, handing over the city in exchange for being allowed to take its dwindled population to his remaining territories in Greece in peace.

Following this, the state was reduced to being a mere vassal of Venice, which gave it another good century of life in the Aegean, until Venetian power declined with the advent of new trade routes in the Atlantic. Turkish conquest followed shortly, although this did not mean the end of the state. On the contrary, the state’s ruling dynasty had spent great efforts, for most of the previous century, to acquire, through papal favor, marriage or inheritance, bits and pieces of land in southern Italy and Sicily.

Although a mini-migration of sorts towards Sicily took place in the aftermath of the Turkish conquest of Morea, it was not enough to alter the ethnic make-up of the State’s new lands. By the end of the 17th century, most of the elites were bi-lingual at best, as use of the Italian language continued to permeate into the lives of the ruling class.

Although acknowledging at times suzerainty of either Spanish or Austrian monarchs, the ruling dynasty never lost its actual grip on power in the peninsula’s south for the following two centuries. Fortune had it that it was the first to hop on to the nationalist bandwagon once the new ideology gained traction, meaning that by the middle of the 19th century, the ruling dynasty saw itself ruling over a re-unified Italy in theory and slaves to the new liberal elites in practice. Towards the end of the century, the city of Rome itself came to be ruled by the state, the first time since the reign of Emperor Leo III in the 8th century.

Three world wars, two revolutions and one failed referendum to abolish the monarchy later, the Imperatore e Basileo continues to sit on his throne in his palace in Rome, occasionally attending the odd interview, charitable event or inauguration of large public works, whilst his ministers face scandals of corruption and bunga bunga parties on an almost daily basis.

So, how plausible is something like this?
 
It's an interesting and fun scenario, but I have trouble seeing any Byzantine dynasty that willingly handed over Constantinople to the Muslims staying in power.
 
What about Montferrat merging with Sicily via the marriage of Maria of Sicily, the Montferrat palaialogos are claimants to the Byzantine Empire and Mallorca.
 

Deleted member 97083

Excellent idea. I like that it bridges the medieval world with 19th century nationalism + industrialization.
 
It's an interesting and fun scenario, but I have trouble seeing any Byzantine dynasty that willingly handed over Constantinople to the Muslims staying in power.
Agree. Closest thing you can get, is that after emperor dies in battle or walls are breached, defenders negotiate surrender with besiegers: inhabitants are allowed to pack themselves onto ships and go into refuge to Morea, and Turks loot the empty city. So inhabitants aren't slaughtered or sold into slavery as per OTL.
 
Roger Crowley asserts (I can't remember what he bases this on) that the attack of Constantinople very nearly broke, if it wasn't for the wounds of Giustiani and the Kerkoporta, there could have been a ceasefire, or even a peace treaty.

Now, if that leasts to an additional Crusade, great. If it leads to civil discord, better.

However, what COULD happen, which actually fits the OP is Pope Nicholas agreeing to grant Emperor Constantine a small piece of territory in Italy, likely in exchange for some measure of co-operation, enforced unionism, and LOADS of shiny stuff from Constantinople (as in statues). The plus side for the Pope is that he can essentially have the Byzantines be a boogeyman.

It isn't ideal, but the Byzantines having an outpost in Italy means that if they lose the Morea they at least have something to retreat to. It could lead to tight Italian-Morean interaction economically.
 
Question: Would the Eastern Roman Empire still end up being called "Byzantine" ITTL ?

Possibly? It is only a historians term referring to the relocation of Constantinople. Like Ming/Tang dynasties for China.

(Also, it was the Roman Empire, it reclaimed the title of Western Emperor when Julius Nepos died).

Heck, this could be a big historical turning point, with Mystras gaining importance as the Imperial Centre, and Constantinople being important as the choker on the east. Mystrian Empire? If the Empire recovers enough it could enter a period known to historians as the Second Byzantine Period.

All of which relies on the Romans being destroyed. They'd certainly refuse to call themselves Byzantines. They'd probably insist on Periods. The Principate, Dominate, Thematic, Exarchic, etc. Describing how the Empire worked. If the Empire changed to a very merchant-loving approach, it could become known as the Burgherate for example. Depends on what happens. (It could be known as the Sicilian Period in my scenario, like the Latinokratia/Frankokratia). In fact, a good term before this point could be the Turkokratia. I think they even used the term.
 
Have the Byzantines marry into one of the italian heiresses.
Why on earth would an Italian state/councilors/royal family prefer a powerless Turkish vassal to some other Italian heir, or a French nobleman, or hell even a Spanish or German one, for one of their daughters? Firstly the Byzantines are basically heretics to the Italians and vice versa, there is no benefit to be had from a marriage in that quarter, not even with regards to prestige, the pope wouldn't like anything like that unless the Byzantine royal family accepted his supremacy (unlikely).
 
Top