Byzantium without the Arab Conquests

What of the Lombards in Italy? After all, the Pope isn't the only danger there.

I think it's more likely than not that attempts will be made to integrate the Lombards into the imperial system, rather as happened IOTL with the Ghassanids- though I certainly wouldn't rule out an attempt at full scale reconquest, which could perhaps be doable. I would say, though, that Constantinople is more likely in the still relatively cash-strapped 640s to attempt to encourage conversion to Monothelitism amongst the Lombards, in exchange for imperial subsidies and titles.

... Which could become interesting for the Papacy, having to defend (what it sees as) "pure" Chalcedonianism from Arian aggressors with the presumably very lukewarm support of the Monothelite Empire. This could certainly set up Italy for an interesting three-way religious conflict here.
 
Interesting. Now, the most important thing of all in Byzantium in the mid-term: Heraclius' Succession. I believe he had sons in OTL, but they died relatively quickly. It's quite important, as the succession could make or break the Byzantine Empire internally. They will likely need a strong emperor to follow up on Heraclius and while as you said the loss of the core regions of the Empire is unlikely, there could be serious trouble in areas such as North Africa, Italy, and the Balkans.

Were Heraclius' sons men of stature or particular intelligence?
 
The Berbers in North Africa were essentially on both sides. You had Berbers in the coastal cities who mixed in with the urban areas as merchants or poor laborers and you had Berber Kingdoms on the Roman Frontier which were at nominal Client Kingdoms mostly through trade and diplomacy. The Moors pretty much pestered everyone following the growing disorder of Roman rule and may have been shifting in to fill the political, social, and economic voids the Romans, Vandals, and Romans were creating through this time period (invading, economic decline, etc).
 
Were Heraclius' sons men of stature or particular intelligence?

Constantine III seems to have been- he was certainly popular, but, as you say, he took ill and died a few months after his father, leaving an uneasy tripartite regime made up of his stepmother (and cousin!) Martina, Martina's eldest son Heraclius II and his son Constans II. The former two were deeply unpopular because of the incestuous nature of the marriage between Martina and the elder Heraclius, and were soon deposed by an Armenian general named Valentinian, with Constans II becoming Emperor. That Constans was a precocious child, twelve years old upon taking the throne, who was a decisive and determined man throughout his reign, and who won several victories over the Arabs, ultimately forcing them to pay him tribute. He also campaigned with some success against the Sclavenes.

Now, assuming a 630s POD, this could very easily go differently. There are plenty of the Heraclian line around, but only Constantine III and his children are especially popular. Martina and her children will be safe for as long as Heraclius is alive (the marriage was apparently a very close one), but afterward, I think she'll definitely struggle to hold support for very long.

The best case scenario for the Empire, IMHO, is to have Constantine III succeed his father late in the 630s, avoiding Heraclius' descent into madness and ending his reign on a high. Constantine could be a popular and inoffensive caretaker Emperor for a decade or so, and eventually pass the throne on to his son who will be several years older than he was when he took the throne IOTL.

That said, I suppose a best case scenario isn't necessarily the one most interesting to write about...
 

nomisma

Donor
Sorry for Interrupt the discussion. I wonder about the development of the province administration if the empire had not been invaded by the Arabs.
Would the Empire develop into something similar OTL theme system in this scenarios? It seems that the Empire have trend to strengthen the provincial authority since Justinian I.
 
Sorry for Interrupt the discussion. I wonder about the development of the province administration if the empire had not been invaded by the Arabs.
Would the Empire develop into something similar OTL theme system in this scenarios? It seems that the Empire have trend to strengthen the provincial authority since Justinian I.

The very short answer is- no. "Themes" were not "provinces" as is traditionally understood until some time after Heraclius' death- perhaps as late as the reigns of Leo III and Constantine V. Prior to that, they just happen to be a region in which the field armies (Latin Comitatenses, Greek Thematikoi) were based. Without the withdrawal of the field armies into Anatolia in the 640s as happened IOTL, we won't see the development of OTL's Thematic system.
 
What religion were the Berbers? I don't think all of them were pagans, but at the same time I doubt they were Catholics either.
 
You name it. At the time of the arab conquest, there were christian, jewish, and pagan tribes.

Catholics and Donatists too. Most, especially those who lived on the frontier or beyond the borders, were Polytheist. Traditionally their beliefs reflected relations with their neighbors having Egyptian, Punic, Greek, and Roman elements added into their beliefs. Tanit, the mother goddess, and Baal-Hammon were the most popular. The Egyptian Goddess, Neith is said to be of Berber origin.

I am in the beginnings of recreating their religion.
 
Catholics and Donatists too. Most, especially those who lived on the frontier or beyond the borders, were Polytheist. Traditionally their beliefs reflected relations with their neighbors having Egyptian, Punic, Greek, and Roman elements added into their beliefs. Tanit, the mother goddess, and Baal-Hammon were the most popular. The Egyptian Goddess, Neith is said to be of Berber origin.


Ah, alright, I thought it was something like that. Thank you.
 
Catholics and Donatists too. Most, especially those who lived on the frontier or beyond the borders, were Polytheist. Traditionally their beliefs reflected relations with their neighbors having Egyptian, Punic, Greek, and Roman elements added into their beliefs. Tanit, the mother goddess, and Baal-Hammon were the most popular. The Egyptian Goddess, Neith is said to be of Berber origin.

I am in the beginnings of recreating their religion.

Sounds really interesting stuff! :)

One small nitpick- I think for this period, it's probably better to use "Chalcedonian" rather than "Catholic", given numerous Christian denominations at this point were all still quite openly calling themselves "Catholic". Chalcedonian is a more precise term, and, IMO, just sounds cooler than plain old Catholic. :p
 
Sounds really interesting stuff! :)

One small nitpick- I think for this period, it's probably better to use "Chalcedonian" rather than "Catholic", given numerous Christian denominations at this point were all still quite openly calling themselves "Catholic". Chalcedonian is a more precise term, and, IMO, just sounds cooler than plain old Catholic. :p

Then what would we call the Chalcedonian church of Constantinople? Melkites?
 
Then what would we call the Chalcedonian church of Constantinople? Melkites?

Melkites are Chalcedonians, but Chalcedonians are not Melkites. Ha. Much as Jacobites and Copts are both Monophysites, but neither represents the entirety of the Monophysite community.

For the purposes of the seventh century, "Chalcedonian" means any and all religion that accepts the definition of Christology laid out at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There are varying degrees of heresy away from the Chalcedonian line- furthest and worst are the Arians, with Nestorians nearly as bad. Monophysites and Chalcedonians (aside from extremists) tended to view one another as basically Orthodox but somewhat lost along the way and in need of gentle (or sometimes firm) guidance. That's what made Monothelitism possible- the doctrinal gap isn't too wide at this point, though it had been getting worse ever since Justinian's day.

I'm not an expert on the Donatists, but from what I've read, they were basically Chalcedonians who challenged the established setup of the Church as it existed in North Africa. Could be wrong!
 
I'm not an expert on the Donatists, but from what I've read, they were basically Chalcedonians who challenged the established setup of the Church as it existed in North Africa. Could be wrong!

The main jist of the Donatists is that they viewed those that co-opted with the Roman Polytheists as traitors and unfit to be in a Church of 'Saints'. They hated Constantine and the Roman Emperors. Essentially, it was a separate church from Rome.
 
Top