Earliest possible destruction of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire?

I know that this is something of a blasphemous question given how many Byzantophiles there are on this forum, but how early could the Byzantines/ERE have been destroyed?
 
Quite early - the first point that comes to mind is Heraclius never coming to power and turning the tide in the Byzantine-Sassanid War. He basically had to reconquer the entire empire east of the Bosphorus. Quite easy to have the Sassanids win that war and break the Byzantines/ERE.
 
Quite early - the first point that comes to mind is Heraclius never coming to power and turning the tide in the Byzantine-Sassanid War. He basically had to reconquer the entire empire east of the Bosphorus. Quite easy to have the Sassanids win that war and break the Byzantines/ERE.
One could argue that Heraclius was the reason why a collapse during the Byzantine-Sassanid War took place at all.Prior to his war against Phocas,the fighting against the Sassanids was limited to the borders--all the major conquests of the Sassanids took place well into his reign.
 
I know that this is something of a blasphemous question given how many Byzantophiles there are on this forum, but how early could the Byzantines/ERE have been destroyed?
The first opportunity would have been in the Vth century. With enough instability in Eastern Romania (no Battle of Adrianople might be a good PoD, if counter-intuitive and not that obvious), and Persian victories making them able to take the prosperous eastern provinces trough a series of war (altough I don't see Sassanids being able to take them all, due to their own border issues), you might end up with a destabilized Eastern Roman state.

IOTL, the reason why it survived the Vth century, and was able to pull an anti-Barbarian politic, was that it could count on its own strong fiscal resources and unraided areas. ITTL, the Sassanian stronger threat would not only make these areas poorer or lost, but would increase the dependency of the Eastern Roman state onto Barbarian foedi and military polls. From this, there is no particular reason why what would remain of Eastern Romania wouldn't decompose as in the west, forming Barbarian kingdoms more or less equivalent to what existed in Francia (for what matter the Moesian or Anatolian region) or Ostrogothic Italy and Vandalic Africa for the rest, as much romanized while, there, it would be an hellenic romanisation.

Another possibility, which was mentioned, would be the fall of empire under Heraclius. But it wouldn't be as much a destruction of the Eastern Roman state, than a relocation.
It would be even likely that Sasanians wouldn't directly annex Constantinople but turn it into a Romano-Greek client state at least for a time. The regions they wanted to directly takeover were the most prosperous of the Roman Empire : Syria, Egypt, southern Anatolia. The rest suffered still from consequences of the IVth/Vth centuries, and had to deal with Avars.

ITTL, the Roman Empire would be likely in an equivalent situation than IOTL after Arab conquests : meaning significantly weakened and pushed out of Asia, but not broken and still able to recover while it would probably retain a large part of its balkanic regions (notably Greece and Epirus).
The most likely relocations would be either in Africa (as planned by Heraclius IOTL) or Sicily (planned by Constans II IOTL), with the Empire still controlling the larger part of Italy. In short, something really close to Eleutherius' claims, meaning a "Central" Roman Empire in the VIIth century.

Africa could provide with a similar situation than IOTL Thrakia, were Slavs are replaced by Berbers, and with the benefit there's no big players pushing Berbers to the coast.
 
Last edited:
What about this: Attila captures and sacks Constantinople after the earthquake of 448 A.D. The eastern court moves either to Nicomedia (or perhaps to Thessanolica, to stay in the European side and in contact with the west), but only after paying an exhorbitant ransom. Through the rest of the century, the Germanic and Steppe peoples overrun the Balkan provinces (like the Avars and Slavs did IOTL), thus effectivelly breaking the Roman power in Southern Europe (likely in the wake of the fall of the Hunnic kingdom, as it allowed for the ascension of the Heruli, the Ostrogoths and the Gepids). The successive invasions of the Migration Era will focus on the east instead of on the west, further destroying the ERE, a scenario only aggravated by internal issues (if you think this is implausible, remember, for example, that until the eve of the fall of the WRE, Ricimer was still playing his cards with dethroning and elevating emperors).

On the other side, the further erosion of Roman power allows for greater Sassanid advances. If Persia annexes Syria, the Levant and Egypt like OTL, then we leave the ERE as a rump state in Asia Minor. If the WRE fails to restore after the reign of Valentinian III (which would need a miracle, IMHO), then there will be no "reconquest", and it is only a matter of time before the Sassanids give the coup de grâce, likely in the 6th Century.
 
Have Constantine start building Constantinople, but then decide to stop and rebuild it somewhere else, like the Nile Delta.
The imperial court was set in Byzantium (rebuilt and rebranded as New Rome) because it was close to the main military fronts of the Empire (namely Illyricum and Syria, which were pressured by Barbarians and Persians). It wasn't the only city with these benefits, and other imperial courts and capital were set depending on the contemporary threats and the ability to dispatch directives and resources (Milan, Ravenna, Triers, Paris, Arles, Nicomedia, Sirmium, etc.), but Constantinople really enjoyed a strategiical-political emplacement that fit imperial needs.
Nicomedia was, admittedly, another good choice, but Alexandria was a bit too far from the Danubian front to be really plausible as a late imperial capital.
 
What about this: Attila captures and sacks Constantinople after the earthquake of 448 A.D.
It would probably look like the sack of rome in 410, as you implied, meaning a relatively ordonned plunder looking more like a forced and harsh tribute, than "blood, death, vengence".

Now, even weakened by the earthquake, the walls remained a really big obstacle for anyone if they were correctly manned.
Which allowed the walls to be not only repaired but completed by outer fortifications in mere 2 months.
I don't think it would give nearly as much leverage for Huns to breakout the fortifications (and let's not even speak about Hunnic siege capacities) which is why Atilla eventually never really went for Constantinople IOTL, and why Theodose eventually choose to move a large part of balkanic army within the city after the Roman defeat at the River Utus.

You'd need a PoD with a catastrophic failure of Imperial authority early on in Constantinople, IMO, to allow the city to fail before Attila.

That said, while not overly obvious, we could see a TL where Attila manages to make a bet by arriving before Constantinople's authorities manage to fill the planned reconstructions and threatening enough the city (more trough fear rather than real power to do so) to recieve a big tribute and concessions (probably the same than he obtained in 449, that said).

But giving Theodosius was more or less murdered for being far too conciliating with Barbarians...I doubt it would recieve much support, so while it's less implausible than Atilla taking over the city, it's still asking for inner troubles as a second PoD to really work.

I don't think it would destroy the Empire, even with a relocation, as Eastern Romania enjoyed a better geostrategical position than its western counterpart, especially at this point.
Eventually, Hunnic strategy was less, like the other Barbarians, to carve out a foedi and monopolize the imperium on these regions at their benefit, than your usual steppe empire policy of plundering and clientelize everything in sight if it was worth it. The IOTL concession of a border south of Danube representing a week-day move was less a tentative to swallow up the ERE than making such plundering and tributary the easier, for exemple.

In this perspective, you could have Balkanic peninsula being raided at will, as long Eastern Romania does control the wealthy Syrian and Egyptian regions, it would stand.

Not that it wouldn't have consequences, especially a really important crisis about imperial legitimacy and authority, but while it was really a problem with Honorius and Valentinian's death because it was only one factor (if leading one, IMO) of the political crisis, ERE would survive this as most of its non-European provinces would be fine, and ERE still have a strong fleet to prevent anyone to really cross the sea even in the Bosphorus.
If Huns were managable by an WRE barely able to walk on its own legs, it was certainly so for ERE.
 
Last edited:
Top