It was well known that following the end of the last Byzantine-Persian war, they were both incredibly weak. Byzantium had very little control over its provinces outside of Anatolia, the best troops of North Africa had gone with Heraclius and never came back, and the province of Egypt was being riled up by a charmless Cyrus whose every move seemed to worsen his position. Therefore, without the invasions of the Arabs, how would Byzantium have done?
It is quite likely that if Cyrus was not replaced, and considering Heraclius' push for Monothelitism he likely would not have been, the Egyptians would have revolted. The question here, then is would they have won? Egypt had no real concrete army and most of Heraclius' military men were either Armenian or North African. Would they have been able to ride on sheer zealotry and the charisma of such men as Benjamin?
Syria also comes into play. While Palestine was fairly Chalcedonian in its belief and Syrian coastal towns were similar, the countryside and inland towns such as Damascus are firmly Jacobite. The Persian invasions caused much of the mobility and richer merchants, the main Chalcedonian base of Syria, to flee to Anatolia and Constantinople. With them gone, was the Jacobite support base large enough and the Byzantine army weak enough for a strong rebellion to have happened? Would they have joined Egypt or pushed for independence on their own terms?
There is also the matter of North Africa to consider. It was practically a marginal border province by the time that the Byzantines had taken it due to the collapse of the trade of Red Slip and most Mediterranean trade in general, and though Carthage had some construction and vitality left, the countryside was practically empty except for a few peasants, likely descendants of the Carthaginians and Roman settlers, surviving. The Greek elite that was left mostly followed Heraclius to Constantinople and Berber encroachment and eventual fall seemed imminent; Leptis Magna fell them to during the events of the Persian war.
Finally, there is the matter of Italy and the Balkans to consider. The Former has to deal with angry Lombards who are Arian and hostile, and certainly not fascinated in the primacy of the pope, and the latter is ringed by Slavs who have exploited the Empire's weakness and Avars who nearly felled the walls of Constantinople. Considering the Empire's instability and frailty after the Persian wars, would they have been able to survive and brave the invasions that would likely follow or would they have cracked and the Slavs and Avars would pour in? And what of the Bulgars, who were coming into the region at this time?
Thus, the question becomes: Will the empire have the resources and strength under the latter years of Heraclius to rein in the provinces, counter rebellions, and keep the whole thing stable? If not, where and how would it fall? And once Heraclius dies, will the whole thing go to hell?
Yes, I am probing for a planned timeline which I am mapping out.
It is quite likely that if Cyrus was not replaced, and considering Heraclius' push for Monothelitism he likely would not have been, the Egyptians would have revolted. The question here, then is would they have won? Egypt had no real concrete army and most of Heraclius' military men were either Armenian or North African. Would they have been able to ride on sheer zealotry and the charisma of such men as Benjamin?
Syria also comes into play. While Palestine was fairly Chalcedonian in its belief and Syrian coastal towns were similar, the countryside and inland towns such as Damascus are firmly Jacobite. The Persian invasions caused much of the mobility and richer merchants, the main Chalcedonian base of Syria, to flee to Anatolia and Constantinople. With them gone, was the Jacobite support base large enough and the Byzantine army weak enough for a strong rebellion to have happened? Would they have joined Egypt or pushed for independence on their own terms?
There is also the matter of North Africa to consider. It was practically a marginal border province by the time that the Byzantines had taken it due to the collapse of the trade of Red Slip and most Mediterranean trade in general, and though Carthage had some construction and vitality left, the countryside was practically empty except for a few peasants, likely descendants of the Carthaginians and Roman settlers, surviving. The Greek elite that was left mostly followed Heraclius to Constantinople and Berber encroachment and eventual fall seemed imminent; Leptis Magna fell them to during the events of the Persian war.
Finally, there is the matter of Italy and the Balkans to consider. The Former has to deal with angry Lombards who are Arian and hostile, and certainly not fascinated in the primacy of the pope, and the latter is ringed by Slavs who have exploited the Empire's weakness and Avars who nearly felled the walls of Constantinople. Considering the Empire's instability and frailty after the Persian wars, would they have been able to survive and brave the invasions that would likely follow or would they have cracked and the Slavs and Avars would pour in? And what of the Bulgars, who were coming into the region at this time?
Thus, the question becomes: Will the empire have the resources and strength under the latter years of Heraclius to rein in the provinces, counter rebellions, and keep the whole thing stable? If not, where and how would it fall? And once Heraclius dies, will the whole thing go to hell?
Yes, I am probing for a planned timeline which I am mapping out.
