Exarchate of North Africa holds out

Okay so in the seventh century the Muslims swept Egypt and eventually reached Spain.

What if the Byzantines in North Africa had held out?

Was this possible? If so could it be a stable Christian foothold in the dar al Islam? And for the Byzantines a strategic outpost in the western Mediterranean.

How long if fortified and supplied could they hold out?
 
First butterfly is Islam doesn't go West of Tunis, so no Andalusia, no Muslim berbers, no Muslim Sahel, and so on.

Byzantine Italy is also much better off without the Arabs able to invade out of Tunis, in fact the Byzantine position in the Mediterranean is better overall. Sicily, Mallorca, and Sardinia are retained, the Exarchate of Ravenna/Italy does better, Crete is less likely to fall (which also improves the wellbeing of coastal Greece and Anatolia). The Empire lilely recovers earlier and reaches late Makedonian era borders (plus Africa, Sicily, Ravenna and Venice) by the 10th century or so.

The Visigoths are still a house of cards so I expect the Frank's would take advantage and expand into Catalonia or the like.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I suppose it could hold out, but the littoral is outflank-able through all its Sahara desert frontiers.
 
One problem is that the term "dark" ages applies to the 7th century because we know so little about what happened.

We know that the Byzantines held onto Carthage for most of the century and then lost it, which seems to have caused some political upheaval in Constantinople.

We don't know the circumstances of them losing it or how holding on to it past 700 would have worked.

Once thing discounted in these discussions is revolt. The Byzantines had to decentralize so much that there was the problem of far flung parts of the empire breaking off or revolting, either gradually such as with Venice, or openly and suddenly as with the Anatolian themes and several Sicilian revolts. The central government prioritized for obvious reason getting the Anatolian themes under control and were willing to let the western outposts go if they had to.

So there is a good chance of a surviving Excharchate breaking off, but of course it makes a huge difference to have Christians controlling North Africa instead of Muslim. Assuming the breakaway entity remained Christian. It could be that they did revolt and then convert, given how little we know about the situation.

If North Africa remains Christian, Muslim Spain and the Muslim Sahel get butterflied away, as does disunited Medieval Spain, and the Christian North Africa continues to play an important cultural part in Christiandom as a whole. So this is a big event that we know very little about.
 
Well, IOTL, the Exarchate DID break off, before paying tribute during the first (of 3!) invasions. My personal PoD is that rather than declare independence, the Exarchate needs to unify more Berbers around it earlier. It might mean more Berberisation (which isn't a problem), with the end result being the creation of a tighter, stronger military force that can stop the invasion - if the invasion was ~50,000, a force of 60-70k should be enough to stop and then counterattack to retake Tripolitania.

During that defensive campaign, they need to contact the Empire to have assistance, for a counterattack. A combined Romano-Berber invasion from the west, with full-force naval support from both the Empire and Exarchate fleets could well be enough to take advantage of the rebellions in Egypt during Uthmans later reign to recapture Egypt.

That shifts the burden of being the "Flank" in the Romans war for existence against the Caliphate to Egypt - ensuring that Africa only has to hold out against Spain.

At which point, holding the region seems more than possible to me, it just relies on an accord between the Romans and Berbers. Perhaps a settlement that the Exarch isn't an Imperial appointee (or just an appointee), but elected in some way by representatives of each city and each loyal tribe. Either that or they select a pool of candidates for the Emperor to choose. Either way it is some resistance to Constantinople in terms of power over choice, but if gives the Berbers a stake in the Exarchate, which could be enough to reconquer the Atlas Mountains and stabilise the Exarchate as a long-term force. After which, in a twist of history, puts the Exarchate in position to dominate the Western Med by sea. That might lead to rampant piracy, or complete control over the sea lanes (which... there is a fine argument to if that is different).

Whether it breaks away or not comes down to how onerous Constantinople is. Berber forces to reinforce Egypt can only happen so much, and supporting invasion of Italy can only happen so much. Asking for them to retake Spain - no deal, at best a support fleet/protecting logistics.

So yeah, you need the Exarchate to not be the front-line in two warzones, it needs the Berbers, and a hands-off approach. At which point it isn't the "Breadbasket of Rome", but the "Western Fortress"
 
Top