How would Egypt, Carthage and the Holy Land have developed under continued Byzantine rule?

[Silver01]

the East was two centuries later yet, after a decade of mayhem, almost managed to restore order throughout the empire (not meant to last because the competent emperor died before the incompetent one among other things).

Hence why the importance of the pod Heraclius is a very competent emperor but he will die in early 640s it really depends a lot if Constans II is born if he is then the empire should be fine as he was also a competent emperor.

nstead still following their own version of Christianity (at least if we are talking about the tribes close to the empire), the invaders might actually be popular among the local population. A certain Roman historian of anti-Chalcedonian beliefs, was more sympathetic to the Arabs rather than the emperor in Constantinople after all.

if you are referring to Jonh of nikou John of Antioch there is a really good I recommend Christian reaction towards Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries by Doç. Dr. Đsmail while its a possibility something would have to go terrible wrong ( like enacting bloody persecution ) to alienate from the empire

This is what I was talking about: a disorganized effort would resemble the military crisis of the early V century: an unprecedented disaster for the empire to be sure, but one they could recover from (like the WRE almost did) if handled correctly.

I fully agree

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

To clarify what I meant regarding Britain: when I said that Constantine III. wasn't a factor, I meant that he wasn't one before the Crossing. Thereafter he became a major factor, but before that it was Radagasius (as you said) who had force Stilicho back into Italy and away from the future area of conflict. And while Britain had experienced trouble in the 360s, by the 400s it seems to have been calm enough for Constantine to consider moving his army into Gaul.

This matter is complicated by the fact we are not sure when the crossing (of the Rhine) took place and when the usurpation did. It's likely that the crossing preceded the usurpation (thus providing an additional reason, among the many others, for it). But yes, in the end it was a combination of too many issues blowing up on Stilicho's face at the same time, bad timing, the surprise effect of the tribes crossing the Rhine (which no one had accounted for), and finally Stilicho not being given the time to deal with any of those threats. Compared to this, the situation in the East was marginally better (at least in the field of leadership I would say), though there is still room for similar blunders.

Hence why the importance of the pod Heraclius is a very competent emperor but he will die in early 640s it really depends a lot if Constans II is born if he is then the empire should be fine as he was also a competent emperor.

I can't say for sure if Constans was 100% up for the task (his campaign in Italy was honestly a little underwhelming), but he was definitely no Honorius.

if you are referring to Jonh of nikou John of Antioch there is a really good I recommend Christian reaction towards Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries by Doç. Dr. Đsmail while its a possibility something would have to go terrible wrong ( like enacting bloody persecution ) to alienate from the empire

I actually was talking about John of Ephesus. And by Arabs I meant the VI century Christian Arabs. Basically John viewed the leader of the neighbouring Arabs (a fellow anti-Chalcedonian) more favourably than the emperor of the Romans Justin II. If the invaders are actual Christians (the branch of Christianity popular in the East) instead of Muslims, I would have no problem believing in their ability to gain friends and supporters among the locals against the Romans (despite the locals also being technically Romans).

 

[Silver01]

I can't say for sure if Constans was 100% up for the task (his campaign in Italy was honestly a little underwhelming), but he was definitely no Honorius.

he mostly failed due to his failure to capture Benevento that nearly fell in the otl , and the king of the Lombards was a very talented ruler but with an empire, with more recourses, I say if can defeat Slavic tribes and limit arab raids during his reign as he did in the otl ( despite Mu'awiya I putting a lot fo effort and recourses of them) the empire will do fine, especially in reorganizing the man who created the Strategiai would do fine to reform the empire and yeah compering to Honorius is ... well lets just say if Constans II was a bad as Honorius or even close the empire would have fallen in the 7th century

I actually was talking about John of Ephesus. And by Arabs I meant the VI century Christian Arabs. Basically John viewed the leader of the neighbouring Arabs (a fellow anti-Chalcedonian) more favourably than the emperor of the Romans Justin II. If the invaders are actual Christians (the branch of Christianity popular in the East) instead of Muslims, I would have no problem believing in their ability to gain friends and supporters among the locals against the Romans (despite the locals also being technically Romans).

Ah yes but the difference is that Justin II actively persecuted the monophysites while the Heraclians did not still and the best he could to compromise with them it is possible if the Arabs are monophysites this could happen

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

he mostly failed due to his failure to capture Benevento that nearly fell in the otl , and the king of the Lombards was a very talented ruler but with an empire, with more recourses, I say if can defeat Slavic tribes and limit arab raids during his reign as he did in the otl ( despite Mu'awiya I putting a lot fo effort and recourses of them) the empire will do fine, especially in reorganizing the man who created the Strategiai would do fine to reform the empire and yeah compering to Honorius is ... well lets just say if Constans II was a bad as Honorius or even close the empire would have fallen in the 7th century

Fair enough, although with the right POD I would not exclude the possibility of Constantine III living longer. Was he as skilled as his father?

 

[Silver01]

Fair enough, although with the right POD I would not exclude the possibility of Constantine III living longer. Was he as skilled as his father?

i dont know there is very little on him as he died months into his reign there is a book covering him Heraclius Constantine III by Nikolas Hachler but I can get access but he is a wild card here

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

i dont know there is very little on him as he died months into his reign there is a book covering him Heraclius Constantine III by Nikolas Hachler

Thanks for the suggestion, I found it online and I am going to read it over the next few weeks.

but I can get access but he is a wild card here

Do you mean you can't access it? Because I think I can send you the file if you want.

 

[Silver01]

Do you mean you can't access it? Because I think I can send you the file if you want.

oh if you can please

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

oh if you can please

Ok, sent it to you attached to a PM.