How long could the Byzantine Empire hold on to Southern Italy and Sicily?

Okay, lets assume Basil II lives long enough to take Sicily in 1025. Or maybe (but less likely) George Maniakes succeeds in taking it in 1038. Either way, by the mid-eleventh century, the Catapanate of Italy and Sicily are under Byzantine control. The question is, how long could they keep it.

Keep in mind, while it may be under their control, it probably isn't firmly under Imperial control, and you will have to deal with restless Italians, Lombards, Normans, and possibly Arabs. There are also the Germans/Italians to the north, and North Africans to the south. And of course, all of the problems back home. Still, could they keep it? And if so, what would be the effects?
 
Okay, lets assume Basil II lives long enough to take Sicily in 1025. Or maybe (but less likely) George Maniakes succeeds in taking it in 1038. Either way, by the mid-eleventh century, the Catapanate of Italy and Sicily are under Byzantine control. The question is, how long could they keep it.

Keep in mind, while it may be under their control, it probably isn't firmly under Imperial control, and you will have to deal with restless Italians, Lombards, Normans, and possibly Arabs. There are also the Germans/Italians to the north, and North Africans to the south. And of course, all of the problems back home. Still, could they keep it? And if so, what would be the effects?

Well they did manage to hold on to it for so long since they DID have support from the local Greco-Italian population.
 
Yep, who are quite invaluable, really. Sadly, other than a little bit of architecture and a few small communities of Griko speakers, they left very little legacy.
 
Yep, who are quite invaluable, really. Sadly, other than a little bit of architecture and a few small communities of Griko speakers, they left very little legacy.

That's a sad truth really. I would blame the Normans for coming in and leading to the eventual decline of the Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily. It really was an extension of Greece itself.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I think the biggest obstacle to holding Sicily will be internal rebellion. It seems almost inevitable that some Byzantine General will eventually rebel against Constantinople. He may fail but the probability that some neighboring power will intervene is high. I say this because the Sicilians have a long tradition of inviting in foreign powers to kick out their current rulers or to fight in an internal conflict/civil war, the Athenians, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Normans, the Aragonese, all the way up to the Allies in WWII.

So I think its very likely that Sicily breaks off as a Greek successor state by the 13th century (almost certainly if the 4th Crusade still happens in some fashion) or else some foreign power be they Arab, Norman or another will take advantage of a failed rebellion to wrest the island away from the Byzantines. And without Sicily the Byzantine position in southern Italy isn't very tenable. Unless the Byzantine Empire is made fundamentally more robust by securing Sicily by the mid 11th century - and I don't see that as an outcome. So ironically I think that the Greek presence is almost a moot point. Sicily is just going to be a bit too hard or rather prohibitive to hold on to.
 
Another problem is that Southern Italy just isn't very valuable in terms of resources. From what I understand it requires a lot of development and in that time was plagued by waves of Malaria every few decades.
 
Okay, lets assume Basil II lives long enough to take Sicily in 1025. Or maybe (but less likely) George Maniakes succeeds in taking it in 1038. Either way, by the mid-eleventh century, the Catapanate of Italy and Sicily are under Byzantine control. The question is, how long could they keep it.

Keep in mind, while it may be under their control, it probably isn't firmly under Imperial control, and you will have to deal with restless Italians, Lombards, Normans, and possibly Arabs. There are also the Germans/Italians to the north, and North Africans to the south. And of course, all of the problems back home. Still, could they keep it? And if so, what would be the effects?

FOREVAH!!!!! Seriously, forever. It could still belong to the Byzantine Empire today. Why not? It had a Byzantine(ish) culture in most of it, it wasn't Latinized yet, and to the extent it was that could be reversed, and given a few centuries it would be indistinguishable from the Imperial heartland.
 
Another problem is that Southern Italy just isn't very valuable in terms of resources. From what I understand it requires a lot of development and in that time was plagued by waves of Malaria every few decades.

The value of Southern Italy and Sicily isn't in resources, it's in location. Controlling both allows the Byzantines to exert a great deal of control across the Mediterranean.

Not to mention that controlling South Italy puts Rome within marching distance and you can bet that sooner or later one Emperor or another might get the idea to take the city.
 
FOREVAH!!!!! Seriously, forever. It could still belong to the Byzantine Empire today. Why not? It had a Byzantine(ish) culture in most of it, it wasn't Latinized yet, and to the extent it was that could be reversed, and given a few centuries it would be indistinguishable from the Imperial heartland.

Seconded. I doubt a breakaway Sicily is too likely really, unless some sort of 4th Crusade event does happen.
 
The value of Southern Italy and Sicily isn't in resources, it's in location. Controlling both allows the Byzantines to exert a great deal of control across the Mediterranean.

Not to mention that controlling South Italy puts Rome within marching distance and you can bet that sooner or later one Emperor or another might get the idea to take the city.

It was constantly depopulated as well. The Byzantines had to move in Greeks from their heartlands in Asia Minor and the Balkans to southern Italy.
 
Perhaps it could also be the home of a Roman Empire in exile if Constantinople ever fell. My own family is descended from Greeks if left for Sicily after the Turkish Conquest. If the island could remain under Roman rule until that time, it might be able to build itself up as a kind of trading empire like Venice of Genoa.
 
Perhaps it could also be the home of a Roman Empire in exile if Constantinople ever fell. My own family is descended from Greeks if left for Sicily after the Turkish Conquest. If the island could remain under Roman rule until that time, it might be able to build itself up as a kind of trading empire like Venice of Genoa.

Maybe a Byzantine general tries to seize the throne, fails, and retreats back to his holdings in southern Italy and Sicily. His lands are considered Eastern Roman territory but are completely independent from Constantinople, you know sort of like what happened in Cyprus before King Richard the Lion Heart conquered the island. He sets up a church that is still Orthodox in its traditions but recognizing the Pope as its head, perhaps as a way to make nice with the western Christians. The territory can then control trade coming in from the east.
 
Top