More or less. The Republic will certainly exert influence over the Papacy, but its distance from the capital will open up some interesting dynamics. For example, certain factions in the government will be more supportive of Papal primacy than the Byzantines were historically, since the Patriarch of Constantinople, being a lifelong position, would loom quite large over the government, and they would want to weaken him. You also have the consideration that the Pope will become, literally, a kingmaker. How does that interplay when he's residing in territory still governed by the Roman state, particularly when said state is explicitly republican in nature?
Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn: The Restored Roman Republic
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
More or less. The Republic will certainly exert influence over the Papacy, but its distance from the capital will open up some interesting dynamics. For example, certain factions in the government will be more supportive of Papal primacy than the Byzantines were historically, since the Patriarch of Constantinople, being a lifelong position, would loom quite large over the government, and they would want to weaken him. You also have the consideration that the Pope will become, literally, a kingmaker. How does that interplay when he's residing in territory still governed by the Roman state, particularly when said state is explicitly republican in nature?
What will be interesting is, since there will be no Charlemagne as such, is if there is a possibility of an alliance between the Franks and the Romans. After all, the Franks have stopped too the advance of the Muslims, and a campaign in Aquitaine will probably have much more success than the OTL campaign in Catalonia which saw Roland lose his life. Furthermore, the Franks could be brought to eliminate or weaken the Lombard grasp on North Italy.
Problem is the Pope and the Exarchate's ability to defend it's territory against the Lombards.What's preventing the Exarchate's northern territory from being overrun just like OTL?By all means,things seem to be even more chaotic than OTL in the SPQR(I think that's the correct term to refer the Roman state as continuous entity). What's actually preventing the Pope from throwing the SPQR under the bus and getting the Franks as it's new protectors just like OTL?By all means,the SPQR was a lousy protector.
The Carolingian Dynasty
The Carolingian Dynasty
Charles Martel, mayor of the palace, had been king of the Franks in all but name. His two sons, Carloman and Pepin, succeeded him after his death in AD 742. Both sons were very ambitious, driven, and pious men, but they maintained a cordial relationship with each other, defying many expectations for brothers governing a divided realm. This partnership allowed both men to focus their attention on the realms bordering the Franks, and Carloman, ruling over the eastern territories, was able to continually push eastward, while Pepin maintained a similarly aggressive policy towards the Umayyad territory in Aquitaine.
Eventually, however, Pepin would die in AD 750, leaving Carloman as the sole power in the Frankish realms. Pepin's young son, Charles, was less than 5, and, as he grew older, would be sent to a monastery, becoming an esteemed member of the clergy, eventually becoming a bishop in the Church. As Carloman was the real power in the Frankish realm, he began to chafe at the formality of being subservient to the utterly powerless Merovingian monarch. However, he lacked any legal pretext to depose his sovereign.
This was the problem he faced as the Roman Republic was finding southern Italy too difficult a target to digest at the time. The Romans needed someone to break the back of the Kingdom of the Lombards in the north of Italy, and Carloman needed legitimacy to depose his king. The alliance was a perfect fit at first glance. However, Carloman had no interest in being supported by the actual government of the Romans, as that would show that the Frankish ruler was subservient to a foreign government, which was little better than the current status quo.
What Carloman would find more palatable was having his ascendency sanctioned by the Pope in Rome, rather than the Republic itself. The logic was that the Church was nominally an independent structure from the Republic's government, so Carloman was really only placing himself as subservient to the will of God, which he already was convinced that he was. Of course, the actual independence of the Church varied depending on the geography, with the Constantinopolitan clergy being much more in tune with Republic policy than outlying areas. Luckily for Carloman, the Pope's seat in Rome was outlying enough for these concerns.
So, in exchange for an invasion of the Lombard kingdom, the Pope recognized Carloman's right to rule, and the Frankish nobles elected him Carloman I, King of the Franks, in AD 761. The Franks then went to war with the Lombards, and, over the course of the next three years, soundly defeated the defenders, repeatedly on the field of battle. The Franks were unable to gain much territory outright, but they did weaken the Lombards dramatically. They eventually agreed to peace in AD 765, with several key Alpine territories being surrendered to Carloman's forces.
As the Lombards were fighting the Franks, the Romans did little in the way of fighting in the Italian theater, wary of being bogged down in a protracted struggle. They launched a few respectable naval attacks on the Adriatic coastline to secure the regions around Ravenna and Venice, thus placing the entirety of the coast in the northern reaches of the Adriatic firmly in their control. Low risk operations such as this were the only commitment the Romans were willing to make at the moment, as their concerns were focused further east.
Meanwhile, Carloman was able to use the prestige of his victory to solidify his young dynasty's hold on power. This made the succession a simple affair when he died in AD 771, and his son Drogo assumed the crown. If Carloman was a capable ruler, Drogo would surpass him in martial glory. Carloman would be known to history as Carloman the Pious, but Drogo became known as 'the Great.'
End
Not all that different from our history, at least from the Frankish perspective. The names have changed, but the song's basically the same.
Charles Martel, mayor of the palace, had been king of the Franks in all but name. His two sons, Carloman and Pepin, succeeded him after his death in AD 742. Both sons were very ambitious, driven, and pious men, but they maintained a cordial relationship with each other, defying many expectations for brothers governing a divided realm. This partnership allowed both men to focus their attention on the realms bordering the Franks, and Carloman, ruling over the eastern territories, was able to continually push eastward, while Pepin maintained a similarly aggressive policy towards the Umayyad territory in Aquitaine.
Eventually, however, Pepin would die in AD 750, leaving Carloman as the sole power in the Frankish realms. Pepin's young son, Charles, was less than 5, and, as he grew older, would be sent to a monastery, becoming an esteemed member of the clergy, eventually becoming a bishop in the Church. As Carloman was the real power in the Frankish realm, he began to chafe at the formality of being subservient to the utterly powerless Merovingian monarch. However, he lacked any legal pretext to depose his sovereign.
This was the problem he faced as the Roman Republic was finding southern Italy too difficult a target to digest at the time. The Romans needed someone to break the back of the Kingdom of the Lombards in the north of Italy, and Carloman needed legitimacy to depose his king. The alliance was a perfect fit at first glance. However, Carloman had no interest in being supported by the actual government of the Romans, as that would show that the Frankish ruler was subservient to a foreign government, which was little better than the current status quo.
What Carloman would find more palatable was having his ascendency sanctioned by the Pope in Rome, rather than the Republic itself. The logic was that the Church was nominally an independent structure from the Republic's government, so Carloman was really only placing himself as subservient to the will of God, which he already was convinced that he was. Of course, the actual independence of the Church varied depending on the geography, with the Constantinopolitan clergy being much more in tune with Republic policy than outlying areas. Luckily for Carloman, the Pope's seat in Rome was outlying enough for these concerns.
So, in exchange for an invasion of the Lombard kingdom, the Pope recognized Carloman's right to rule, and the Frankish nobles elected him Carloman I, King of the Franks, in AD 761. The Franks then went to war with the Lombards, and, over the course of the next three years, soundly defeated the defenders, repeatedly on the field of battle. The Franks were unable to gain much territory outright, but they did weaken the Lombards dramatically. They eventually agreed to peace in AD 765, with several key Alpine territories being surrendered to Carloman's forces.
As the Lombards were fighting the Franks, the Romans did little in the way of fighting in the Italian theater, wary of being bogged down in a protracted struggle. They launched a few respectable naval attacks on the Adriatic coastline to secure the regions around Ravenna and Venice, thus placing the entirety of the coast in the northern reaches of the Adriatic firmly in their control. Low risk operations such as this were the only commitment the Romans were willing to make at the moment, as their concerns were focused further east.
Meanwhile, Carloman was able to use the prestige of his victory to solidify his young dynasty's hold on power. This made the succession a simple affair when he died in AD 771, and his son Drogo assumed the crown. If Carloman was a capable ruler, Drogo would surpass him in martial glory. Carloman would be known to history as Carloman the Pious, but Drogo became known as 'the Great.'
End
Not all that different from our history, at least from the Frankish perspective. The names have changed, but the song's basically the same.
Indeed, the Franks are the most useful allies at the moment.
I would not consider the Republic to be drastically more unstable than OTL. Consider that the West *really* did not like the idea of Iconoclasm, particularly since it was usually only aimed at the upper reaches of the clergy, who are the exact sort in Italy who could tip scales of power. Consider also that the Byzantines had to contend with a few sizable attempted usurpations during the 8th century. The Republic is freed from both those concerns. Now, I'm not suggesting that the territory in Italy is nice and secure and prosperous, but the Lombards really aren't offering anything better than the Republic is, so there's no reason for the Pope and the Exarchate to support the other side.
Question:Is the Pentapolis connected to Latium or are they still separated?
I have no idea. The maps I've had to study conflict. I've been vague on that point, stating that the Romans are still maitaining a de jure strip of territory connecting them, but that the Lombards don't necessarily respect it. As Lombard power wanes, however, the Romans will be able to solidify their territorial claims.
I figure it would be useful to have some maps of the historical period the timeline is covering.
Here's some reference of what the Byzantine and Umayyad territories would have looked like in AD 717 (and their historical expansion over the next three centuries):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Byzantine-Arab_naval_struggle.png
Here's the growth of the Frankish realm:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../2000px-Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg.png
And here's Thomas Lessman's map of Eurasia in AD 700:
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_700ad.jpg
Here's some reference of what the Byzantine and Umayyad territories would have looked like in AD 717 (and their historical expansion over the next three centuries):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Byzantine-Arab_naval_struggle.png
Here's the growth of the Frankish realm:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../2000px-Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg.png
And here's Thomas Lessman's map of Eurasia in AD 700:
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_700ad.jpg
I never quite understood why the Emperors of the OTL didn't try to play on the rivalry of the different patriarchs to weaken the authority of the church.
Thanks.
I imagine its because, when they had plenty of Patriarchs to play with, the Empire was powerrful enough that it didn't matter. Plus, the religious leaders were probably more independent of the state at that point (consider Ambrose's chastising of Theodosius, and he was't even Pope). Once the Empire is smaller and they have to rely more heavily on the Church, well, you've got one right there in the capital, it would make sense to promote him over the omes who are presiding over Sees that are not in your territory, or only occasionally so (Antioch and Rome).
Last edited:
Problem is that after the classical period,the emperors quite often run into conflict with the Patriarchs in Constantinople as well.I can only remember one instance of an emperor getting the pope to screw with the Patriarch only--it was that one time when Leo the Wise asked the pope to tell the Patriarch to fuck off when he married for the fourth time.I see no reason why promoting one church leader over the others makes sense at all.It is better to keep the church divided than have it come under a central authority.The Catholic Church for example is much powerful than religions like Buddhism precisely because it has a central authority whereas the Buddhism's completely decentralized in terms of religious authority--which is why even though there are times when Buddhist temples became extremely powerful through acquisition of land in China,they were never able to defy imperial authority because they were completely decentralized and could be suppressed at the will of the emperor.
If I was Theodosius the Little and bloody Ambrose started chastising me,I'd just get one of the patriarchs who is more sympathizing to my cause to tell him to shut up.
Last edited:
Man, the board keeps eating my replies. Well, the short version is: They mist have had their reasons, and genuine faith was likely not trhe least of those.
I need a good term for the name of Latin under Roman rule, from a linguistic standpoint. Similar to how we has archais, classical, vulgar, and ecclesiastical latin. Basically, an analogue to what we would call Ecclesiastical Latin.
How is Latin being relived in Byzantine lands, I thought Greek would always hold sway?
Or is that just for next post?
Question:What's the view of past emperors?I'd assume that people like Julius Caesar and Augustus would be denounced as traitors in an effort to legitimize the republican regime.
My first thought is 'Late Antique Latin', but that's a little bland, and 'Byzantine Latin' is anachronistic as balls. 'Republican Latin' brings to mind the Roman Republic and is probably too confusing as a result, but 'Politic' or 'Political Latin' might work, working off of polis/politeia to emphasize the more Greek-speaking nature of the Republic at the time as opposed to the original Roman Republic.
That term runs into some of the same problems of non-specificity as 'Republican' but that might just be a result of how English turned out OTL. With a powerful Greek-speaking republic emerging in Late Antiquity, the TTL English term for 'republic' (assuming English as a language recognizable to us ever emerges) might be based off of the equivalent Greek root instead of Latin.
The Reconquest of Italy
The Reconquest of Italy
A quick glance at a map of the Roman Republic in the 8th century would not likely lead to the conclusion that Italy was a natural target for expansion. With the capital in Constantinople, it would be reasonable to expect a greater focus on territories more contiguous with and closer to the capital region. Expanding into the Balkans would seem perfectly logical, with seemingly weak tribal groups squatting on Roman territory. Perhaps a push into the east, towards the Armenian mountains or the heartland of Christianity, Syria. However, a better awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the Republic and its neighbors explains why Italy was an ideal avenue of attack.
To the east, the Arabs were locked in brutal civil war. An excellent opportunity, if it weren't for the pesky detail that the two main factions still outnumbered Roman forces in the region, individually. Added to that concern were the inherent challenges in geography. Simply put, it was mountains, more mountains, and more more mountains after that. For the time, most in Constantinople agreed that the most prudent course of action was to allow Arab to fight Arab and stay out of the way. The defenses in the region were improved and new fortifications were built, showing that the Romans took the reprieve from raiding as only a temporary mercy, but, other than raiding of their own, no major efforts were made to push east.
The Balkans were little more appealing. The repopulation efforts in Thrace and Macedonia were continuing with steady success, but, again, geography worked against the Republic. The territory was not nearly as mountainous as Armenia, but neither was it as valuable, with centuries of barbarian migrations having greatly disrupted the region. To be sure, the coastal regions were continually occupied, and the Republic would exert pressure inland, but the idea of a Danubian frontier was just too far beyond the possibilities of the time. Such an endeavor would take far more investment than most other projects. Once the Republic would push into Danube valley, all the natural barriers that were a hindrance to them would be gone, but, by the same token, there would be few barriers to invasion from outside. Nothing would stop the Bulgars or Avars or any other tribes from simply marching away from the armies of the Republic, and then marching back when the armies left.
Italy, on the other hand, played into Roman strengths perfectly. Pride alone would make the birthplace of the Republic a tempting target for any state calling itself Roman. It was, however, a more practical rationale that made Italy the key target: The Roman navy. Honed over the better part of the past century, the Roman navy had flourished to heights not seen well beyond living memory. It was easily the second most powerful navy in the Mediterranean. Fortunately for the Romans, the most powerful navy was that of the Caliphate, and the attentions of that state were, again, focused entirely inward. In fact, were it not for the civil war, the Republic likely could not have risked devoting so many resources to any Italian adventures.
Italy, being a long and narrow peninsula, represented a ripe target for any major power with a navy. The Lombard states in the peninsula had proven too tough a nut to crack by earlier expeditions, but their back had been broken by the Frankish invasion of the AD 760s. That invasion had allowed the Romans to re-entrench themselves on the peninsula, in preparation for a future invasion.
That time had come, and the invasion commenced with the siege of Bari in AD 768. The city held out for little over a month before surrendering. The Duchy of Benevento looked around for help, but found itself surrounded by enemies. The Roman navy sailed up the eastern and western coastlines of the Duchy and took every town of note along the shore. By the close of the campaign season, the Duchy of Benevento was effectively landlocked. To be sure, the Duchy had engaged in its own sieges of those coastal regions, but, with complete control of the seas, it was a trivial matter for the Romans to keep any besieged locales totally supplied.
In fact, the Republic had been building up a supply depot in Naples in preparation for an attack on Benevento itself, while the armies of the duchy were bogged down in futile sieges. As AD 768 turned into 769, the Romans gave the Duke, Sicard, terms of surrender, but he held out for hope that the other Lombards would come to their aid. However, Spoleto was also suffering from Roman incursions, and the Kingdom of the Lombards far to the north could not risk diverting its attention from the Franks. When the snows melted, the Romans took Capua and marched onward to Benevento, where another siege was established. The capital held out for three months, before the Duke was betrayed by his men and handed to the Romans, in exchange for clemency. Sicard was brought back to Constantinople and given a pension to live on for the rest of his life, and his duchy was wiped off the map.
Spoleto was the next target, and its duke, Gisulf II, attempted to stall for time with diplomacy, seeking to negotiate terms by which he could come to an accord with the Romans. Stalling was perfectly acceptable to the Romans, who took the time to consolidate their hold on the southern duchy and incorporate the more intransigent Lombard leaders in their territory into the new regime. For his part, Gisulf was hoping that, with Roman support, he could march north and take the Lombard crown for himself, and rule as a Roman ally. This was not entirely unacceptable to the Romans, but they wanted outright control of Spoleto, which Gisulf would not agree to. The Romans wanted the security that came with a contiguous territory across most of Italy, not the paper-thin assurance that their corridor between Ravenna and Rome would be protected.
As negotiations broke down, the Romans readied their forces and marched forth in AD 770 to conquer Spoleto. There would be no defiant last stand as Sicard had attempted. When the Romans reached his capital, Gisulf came out to meet them and surrendered his city. He was given the option of being a figurehead leader in his city, but chose to join Sicard in luxurious exile in the capital. Gisulf would use his time and resources to write a history of the Lombards, which has survived only in fragments.
Thus, the Roman Republic was able to secure the majority of Italy with few losses. It was a testament to Lombard weakness, rather than Roman dominance, that majority of the peninsula was restored. However, the extensive preparations and methodical focus greatly enabled the campaign. The Romans were also able to use the campaign as a training exercise for many of their armies, rotating portions of several themes in and out of Italy during the distinct phases of the campaign.
The Republic would celebrate a triumph for the commanding generals at the close of 770, and the more ambitious members of the government thought it was finally time to take a shot at the grand prize: the Caliphate itself.
End
A quick glance at a map of the Roman Republic in the 8th century would not likely lead to the conclusion that Italy was a natural target for expansion. With the capital in Constantinople, it would be reasonable to expect a greater focus on territories more contiguous with and closer to the capital region. Expanding into the Balkans would seem perfectly logical, with seemingly weak tribal groups squatting on Roman territory. Perhaps a push into the east, towards the Armenian mountains or the heartland of Christianity, Syria. However, a better awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the Republic and its neighbors explains why Italy was an ideal avenue of attack.
To the east, the Arabs were locked in brutal civil war. An excellent opportunity, if it weren't for the pesky detail that the two main factions still outnumbered Roman forces in the region, individually. Added to that concern were the inherent challenges in geography. Simply put, it was mountains, more mountains, and more more mountains after that. For the time, most in Constantinople agreed that the most prudent course of action was to allow Arab to fight Arab and stay out of the way. The defenses in the region were improved and new fortifications were built, showing that the Romans took the reprieve from raiding as only a temporary mercy, but, other than raiding of their own, no major efforts were made to push east.
The Balkans were little more appealing. The repopulation efforts in Thrace and Macedonia were continuing with steady success, but, again, geography worked against the Republic. The territory was not nearly as mountainous as Armenia, but neither was it as valuable, with centuries of barbarian migrations having greatly disrupted the region. To be sure, the coastal regions were continually occupied, and the Republic would exert pressure inland, but the idea of a Danubian frontier was just too far beyond the possibilities of the time. Such an endeavor would take far more investment than most other projects. Once the Republic would push into Danube valley, all the natural barriers that were a hindrance to them would be gone, but, by the same token, there would be few barriers to invasion from outside. Nothing would stop the Bulgars or Avars or any other tribes from simply marching away from the armies of the Republic, and then marching back when the armies left.
Italy, on the other hand, played into Roman strengths perfectly. Pride alone would make the birthplace of the Republic a tempting target for any state calling itself Roman. It was, however, a more practical rationale that made Italy the key target: The Roman navy. Honed over the better part of the past century, the Roman navy had flourished to heights not seen well beyond living memory. It was easily the second most powerful navy in the Mediterranean. Fortunately for the Romans, the most powerful navy was that of the Caliphate, and the attentions of that state were, again, focused entirely inward. In fact, were it not for the civil war, the Republic likely could not have risked devoting so many resources to any Italian adventures.
Italy, being a long and narrow peninsula, represented a ripe target for any major power with a navy. The Lombard states in the peninsula had proven too tough a nut to crack by earlier expeditions, but their back had been broken by the Frankish invasion of the AD 760s. That invasion had allowed the Romans to re-entrench themselves on the peninsula, in preparation for a future invasion.
That time had come, and the invasion commenced with the siege of Bari in AD 768. The city held out for little over a month before surrendering. The Duchy of Benevento looked around for help, but found itself surrounded by enemies. The Roman navy sailed up the eastern and western coastlines of the Duchy and took every town of note along the shore. By the close of the campaign season, the Duchy of Benevento was effectively landlocked. To be sure, the Duchy had engaged in its own sieges of those coastal regions, but, with complete control of the seas, it was a trivial matter for the Romans to keep any besieged locales totally supplied.
In fact, the Republic had been building up a supply depot in Naples in preparation for an attack on Benevento itself, while the armies of the duchy were bogged down in futile sieges. As AD 768 turned into 769, the Romans gave the Duke, Sicard, terms of surrender, but he held out for hope that the other Lombards would come to their aid. However, Spoleto was also suffering from Roman incursions, and the Kingdom of the Lombards far to the north could not risk diverting its attention from the Franks. When the snows melted, the Romans took Capua and marched onward to Benevento, where another siege was established. The capital held out for three months, before the Duke was betrayed by his men and handed to the Romans, in exchange for clemency. Sicard was brought back to Constantinople and given a pension to live on for the rest of his life, and his duchy was wiped off the map.
Spoleto was the next target, and its duke, Gisulf II, attempted to stall for time with diplomacy, seeking to negotiate terms by which he could come to an accord with the Romans. Stalling was perfectly acceptable to the Romans, who took the time to consolidate their hold on the southern duchy and incorporate the more intransigent Lombard leaders in their territory into the new regime. For his part, Gisulf was hoping that, with Roman support, he could march north and take the Lombard crown for himself, and rule as a Roman ally. This was not entirely unacceptable to the Romans, but they wanted outright control of Spoleto, which Gisulf would not agree to. The Romans wanted the security that came with a contiguous territory across most of Italy, not the paper-thin assurance that their corridor between Ravenna and Rome would be protected.
As negotiations broke down, the Romans readied their forces and marched forth in AD 770 to conquer Spoleto. There would be no defiant last stand as Sicard had attempted. When the Romans reached his capital, Gisulf came out to meet them and surrendered his city. He was given the option of being a figurehead leader in his city, but chose to join Sicard in luxurious exile in the capital. Gisulf would use his time and resources to write a history of the Lombards, which has survived only in fragments.
Thus, the Roman Republic was able to secure the majority of Italy with few losses. It was a testament to Lombard weakness, rather than Roman dominance, that majority of the peninsula was restored. However, the extensive preparations and methodical focus greatly enabled the campaign. The Romans were also able to use the campaign as a training exercise for many of their armies, rotating portions of several themes in and out of Italy during the distinct phases of the campaign.
The Republic would celebrate a triumph for the commanding generals at the close of 770, and the more ambitious members of the government thought it was finally time to take a shot at the grand prize: the Caliphate itself.
End