Byzantium without Constantine

Hey all, I'm new here and had a question.

1) What if Constantine had not chosen Byzantium for his capital? How would the city develop?

2) Where would Constantine have made his capital then?
 
Hey all, I'm new here and had a question.

1) What if Constantine had not chosen Byzantium for his capital? How would the city develop?

2) Where would Constantine have made his capital then?

Any number of places, which would have been really, really bad for the Empire. Because it goes away by the end of the reign of Heraclius.
 
But would the changes brought on by the new capital meant Heraclius would govern or even that Islam would explode?

I'm not sure how moving the capital to a less defensible and less economically critical location would make it LESS likely that Islam would explode.

Presuming a series of wars with Persia is more or less inevitable based on previous history, eventually the Romans were likely to lose one big. They could survive losing big because their city was absolutely unassailable due to a very specific combination of natural and artificial defenses. The other leading cities of the time were less defensible. I'd pick Antioch as a good bet for Eastern capital (IIRC, it had been used that way before) but that is way too close to Persia. Anywhere in the Balkans would have been taken by Huns or Avars before the Persians or Arabs got to it.

Obviously, you can hand wave all the butterflies you like, but the Empire in the East was surrounded by enemies for most of its existence. For much of its existence, it was incapable of stopping a determined attack onto its soil from at least one of those enemies. Repeatedly, invaders got *almost* into the city, but were stopped cold by the defenses. If it wasn't Arabs, it would have been someone else.
 

Philip

Donor
I'm not sure how moving the capital to a less defensible and less economically critical location would make it LESS likely that Islam would explode.

It would. Setting a POD several centuries before the establishment of Islam virtually guarantees that it will never arise.

Presuming a series of wars with Persia is more or less inevitable based on previous history, eventually the Romans were likely to lose one big.

I don't think this is a given. New Rome, wherever it ends up could be easily overrun by Germanic or Hunnic forces long before the Persians ever get there.

I'd pick Antioch as a good bet for Eastern capital (IIRC, it had been used that way before)
It is doubtful that Constantine would. He chose a small city that he could rebuild in his image for a reason.

but that is way too close to Persia. Anywhere in the Balkans would have been taken by Huns or Avars before the Persians or Arabs got to it.
Note that this might not be a concern for Constantine. Look at Diocletian's chooses for capitals -- being far away from the enemy doesn't seem to have been a major motivation in his selection.
 
Ahh, thanks for clarifying that. So it seems that the choice of Byzantium was a perfect storm for Constantine?

Was there any possibility of choosing an island for the capital like Cyprus?
 
It would. Setting a POD several centuries before the establishment of Islam virtually guarantees that it will never arise.

I don't think this is a given. New Rome, wherever it ends up could be easily overrun by Germanic or Hunnic forces long before the Persians ever get there.

It is doubtful that Constantine would. He chose a small city that he could rebuild in his image for a reason.


Note that this might not be a concern for Constantine. Look at Diocletian's chooses for capitals -- being far away from the enemy doesn't seem to have been a major motivation in his selection.

I don't see point the first, but it seems to be a philosophical belief rather than a major point. If the Arabs don't get conquest-crazy, someone will sooner or later. There's always a "boom" tomorrow, as a wise woman once said. I figure Germans, Huns, whomever, would be most likely to get at a new capital in Balkans. Antioch, or Nicaea (good choice if you want a less well known city than Antioch), or even Smyrna, my bet would be on the Persians. At any rate, I see the impacts as being in the category of changing patterns of commerce/trade to center more closely around the new capital. Byzantium would be a trading port, of course, and probably a fairly wealthy one. Geography almost guarantees that.
 
What about Nicomedia? It does not have quite the strategic location of Constantinople (Byzantium), but it had previously been used as an imperial capital.

Constantine himself resided there for a number of years, and I believed he died in the city as well. If he had been a bit more distracted by military affairs or religious intrigues the capital might have just stayed there.

Granted this would probably not entail Nicomedia being refounded and renamed by Constantine as a "Second Rome" as it was already a large city.
 
Or make the city in Crimea, which is a very strategic location with natural defenses and have it create the same walls as Constantinople except
instead of Thrace it is located in Crimea which if defended properly is a strategic location from which it becomes a tough nut to crack....
 
How about Alexandria? Important city, good trade connections, not terribly close to Persia...many of the same benefits of Alexandria, including religious authority...It's a little fringe, but at least it guarantees the consolidation of Roman power in Egypt.
 
Crimea is much too far away from the main centres of action, in my opinion, to be a capital. Also, I don't think there's any cities that could be improved enough to host the imperial capital.
 
How about Alexandria? Important city, good trade connections, not terribly close to Persia...many of the same benefits of Alexandria, including religious authority...It's a little fringe, but at least it guarantees the consolidation of Roman power in Egypt.

And Just maybe if a roman emperor is born in egypt they might even see why the egyptions are so angry at them.
 
well if I remember correctly both Sirmium and Nicomedia were capitals in the eastern side during the tretarchy. Constantine would probably know this and choose one of them since both were closer to the troubled borders that Rome.
 
well if I remember correctly both Sirmium and Nicomedia were capitals in the eastern side during the tretarchy. Constantine would probably know this and choose one of them since both were closer to the troubled borders that Rome.

If the eastern roman's took there capital to the east they might take more of a drive towards defeating those dang Persians.
 
Isn't General_Finley's Sailing From Londinium based on this hypothesis? Even though Constantine establishing a powerbase in the Western Empire is slightly implausible...
 
Top