Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn: The Restored Roman Republic

[DominusNovus]

Inspired by this thread. There will be some handwaving to reach the desired result, and I apologize as that is not good form. However, given that we are dealing with a particularly anarchic period of the Dark Ages, even for such a cosmopolitan society as Byzantium, I contend that such handwaving is not entirely unreasonable.

The Siege of AD 717 and the Restoration of the Republic
While the restoration of the Roman Republic in AD 717 was, in hindsight, one of the most important events in its history, its details are obscure. The general chaos and disorder of the times contributed no small amount to this obscurity. The fires that raged in Constantinople in the following centuries erased much of the contemporary accounts of the time. Further, there has likely been no small amount of distortion, both deliberate and otherwise, from historians, authors, playwrights, artists, and philosophers, all painting an idealized and anachronistic picture of an outright revolution over monarchy and a triumph for whichever cause the source with which the source felt most aligned. This is particularly anachronistic in light of the likelihood that contemporary Romans saw the institution of Basileus as totally compatible with the notion of Republic, where the duty of the state is to attend to the needs of the population, rather than the modern notion that a Republic is defined by elections and non-hereditary rule.

What can be said in certainty is that the siege was the catalyst of the transformation from a semi-hereditary government, ruled by a Basileus, to an elected government. The last undisputed Basileus claimed the name Leo III, though he was born Konon, and was either Isaurian, Syrian, or Armenian by birth. In the chaos that surrounded the downfall of the Heraclian dynasty and the Arab invasions of the early 8th century, he was but the last of seven usurpers in two decades. In light of the fate of the government, it would seem that the political instability, combined with the territorial losses to the Arabs had fatally undermined support for the government.

Perhaps had Leo survived the siege, he would have had the support necessary to continue on as things had always been, and start his own dynasty. However, the muddled and conflicting sources on the siege all agree that he died during it. There are many accounts of his fate during the siege, ranging from dying in battle in defense of his city, to offering surrender and being double-crossed by the Arabs, to more fanciful defamations. Upon his death, a brief power struggled ensued, with his chief lieutenant and son-in-law, Artabasdos, making a play for control. Though he had the support of many in the military, his attempt somehow resulted in his death before he could consolidate power, resulting in a power vacuum at a time the city could spare it the least.

However, under the moral leadership of Saint Germanos, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the various factions in the city set aside their differences for the time being and focused their energies on withstanding the invaders. Though the military and urban elites almost certainly spent the entire time jockeying and conspiring to place one of their own back on the throne, it was from this temporary truce that the Republic would be renewed.

On the military side, Constantinople would continue to endure, scoring major naval victories that enabled the protection of their supply lines and the severing of the Arabs'. A particularly dramatic turn occurred when many Christian crews in the Arab fleet defected en masse to the defenders. Without a secure line of supply and suffering from Bulgar raids, the Arab invaders under Maslama withered along their siege lines, their numbers decimated by battle, starvation, and disease. The siege was lifted, and the Arabs retreated back to their homes, the expedition an unmitigated disaster.

What followed in Constantinople is the stuff of legends. Supposedly, two new hypatoi (consuls) were elected for the first time in centuries, by the names of Paulos and Anastasios, and they were followed by several other elected leaders. It is likely that some sort of assembly was held in the hippodrome, and popular support was given to whatever the new regime was, and that two men by those names did play a leading role in the government.

It is relatively safe to say that, by AD 730, regular elections were being held for hypatoi, and that they were the chief magistrate within the government. These men would be elected to two year terms, and their terms of office were staggered, so that one was elected each year. Though the early elections were haphazard affairs, an acceptable formula was worked out over a few decades.

The elections themselves were handled by the relatively new organ of the state, the themes. While some sources claim that the themes were an invention of the new government, there are enough solid sources dating form the previous century to safely conclude that they existed in some form prior to that. Their full incarnation would be as civil and military administrative units, though they likely initially simply were a streamlining of the military structure initially. The themes were comprised of all able-bodied men within their given territory, trained as militia in a model inspired by the old republic. A smaller core of fully professional soldiers formed the backbone of each theme and would assist in the training of their civilian counterparts during peacetime. During wartime or in response to Arab raids, the theme would quickly coalesce in response. So long as their military obligations were fulfilled, each citizen had the right to vote in the theme. A slight variation occurred in maritime themes, where the citizenry may be expected to serve as either sailors or marines.

Each theme, collectively, cast one vote for the office of hypatos, to be sworn in at the first day of each year. They also elected an antiprósopos (delegate) to send to the capital to advocate for their theme. They were led by a stratēgos initially, though, as the civil functions of their leadership expanded, the leader of each theme became more commonly referred to as doux. This leader, regardless of title, was appointed by the government in Constantinople. As the scope of the themes' power grew and their ranks swelled with citizen-soldiers, the themes became utterly identical to the regions over which they were assigned.

In this early period, the themes were nine in number: Armeniakōn, Anatolikōn, Opsikion, Thrakēs, Thrakēsiōn, Hellàdos, Kibyrrhaiotōn, Sikelias, and Krētēs. These divisions did not encompass the entirety of Roman territory, but they did account for the overwhelming majority, both geographically and demographically.

No discussion of the government would be complete without mention of the position of Constantinople. As the beating heart of the Republic, the economic, poliical, cultural, and religious center of the territory, it had a key role in the new constitution. The citizenry were soon assembling regularly in the hippodrome to advocate for the issues of the day, much as the plebeians of classical Rome had, centuries prior. They soon took to acclaiming who would be acceptable candidates for the coming year's hypatos, with assemblies typically supporting two to three candidates. While this was not binding, it seems that the themes took their cues from reports from the capital, with such acclaimed candidates almost always being elected.

As would be expected of a government more styled on Republican ideas, the Sygklētos (Senate) became exponentially more powerful. It was pared down in size dramatically from its Imperials days as a mere sign of wealth and nobility, and began to actually govern again. It was with the Senate that the hypatoi and delegates from the themes would govern on a day-to-day basis, and it was from those ranks, as well as the ranks of other magistrates and high ranking clergy, that the Senate would be formed.

This overview, encompassing the scope of the early decades of the restored Republic, should not be taken to indicate that these changes occurred overnight, or that they were set in stone. They were hobbled together through a series of compromise over the years, as the leading men of the day looked to their circumstances and to antiquity for solutions to lead their new government. Indeed, many did not even likely consider what they were doing truly revolutionary. Some simply thought of themselves as participating in an oligarchic interregnum, until the norm of autocratic rule returned. Some were simply trying to increase the power of their given faction. Though there were idealists among them, as in any age, this was largely a work, as so many others are, of ordinary men pursuing their goals to the best of their ability.

Close

Have at it, guys.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Umayyad Caliphate

As the various political intrigues that resulted in the restoration of the Republic sorted themselves out, both in Constantinople and the hinterlands of Roman territory, the rest of the world was not sitting idly by. The various peoples that bordered Rome were forging their own histories, and, in many cases, those histories are better documented than the contemporary Roman histories were.

The greatest power of the age, excepting perhaps for Tang China in the far east, was the Umayyad Caliphate, which stretched, at the time of the siege of AD 717, from India in the east to Spain in the west. Though the Umayyads had been dealt a critical blow in their failure to take Constantinople, they were still in an entirely different league of power than any of their neighbors. When they faced failure, it was, more often than not, simply due to the sheer limits of empire in such an age.

That is not, however, to say that their exploits ended at Constantinople, and that they were content to live in decadent luxury within the walls of Damascus. Far from it. The raids that had marked Arab-Roman relations for nearly a century continued almost continuously for the entire life of the Umayyad Caliphate. It was these raids, more than any other threat, that necessitated the reformation of the Roman military into the Themes. All of Rome knew all too well that the raiders were opportunistic, and what could start as a simple operation to plunder and pillage could quickly turn into an impromptu occupation. That had been, after all, how so much of the Arab empire had been formed.

With this in mind, the Roman strategy was generally to simply make the raids as unprofitable for the Arabs as possible. Riders and beacons would send the alarm to all the surrounding regions whenever raiders entered into Roman territory. Though the Romans could now boast of large numbers in their military, due to the near universal conscription inherent in the thematic system, most of these troops at this time were little better than the stereotypical feudal peasant levy. What they did excel at, however, was guerrilla warfare. As the raiders plunged deeper into the territory, the Roman strategy was to avoid battle and simply pick off targets of opportunity, while the main armies were gathered up. Nightly sorties by local farmer militias were expected, and intimate knowledge of the terrain was crucial in out-maneuvering the invaders.

As Roman forces coalesced, they would seek to deny the Arabs any useful avenues of attack, and force them onto unfavorable terrain, as would be expected. However, an implicit facet of this entire defense-in-depth strategy was that the Romans almost counted on the sacking and looting of their territory. Drunk raiders with bags full of gold were much easier targets. The field armies would often circle like vultures, waiting for the Arabs to take the bait, and then seek to whittle down their numbers until a decisive battle was as risk-free as possible for the defenders, and the looted treasure could be returned to Roman hands.

This style of warfare was not particularly glorious or honorable, and there were no great histories written of the exploits of the Roman armies in this theater. But it halted the Arab advances into Anatolia, and honed the Themes into veteran forces. Even the conscript farmers who could expect to serve only a fraction of the year became battle hardened veterans by the standards of most empires. While the Roman Empire had built its martial reputation, first on heavy infantry and then on heavy cavalry, these armies would be some of the best skirmishers of the era. It was no long before the Romans could regularly launch counter raids into Umayyad territory. This had the sad effect of turning the border regions into no-man's-lands, though the overall result was that the border was solidified, and the raids gradually decreased, year by year, until the Umayyads' own troubles directed their energies elsewhere.

One of the early such troubles that the Umayyads faced, if it could be called such, was the stemming of their expansion into Gaul. Their conquest of the Visigoths had been largely unopposed, and they began to push beyond the Pyrenees into Aquitaine. There, they faced stiffer resistance, but had little trouble subjugating most of the southern cities. When the most powerful leader in Aquitaine, Odo, sided with the Muslims, much of southern Gaul was delivered directly into their hands. Though the Aquitainian elite would remain in power under Muslim rule, they were still subject to the orders of the Umayyad governor of Al-Andalus. In AD 735, that happened to be a man by the name of Abd al-Malik, who sought to prove himself on the field of battle. He began raiding into Frankish territory, under the protection of the Merovingian dynasty, though the real power in Francia was the Mayor of the Palace, one Charles.

Charles would cement his place in history as Charles Martel at the battle of Paris in that same year. With the forces of Abd al-Malik crossing the Loire border, the Frankish armies quickly responded to the threat to their capital. Well outside the Merovingian capital, the Umayyad forces were crushed by the Frankish heavy infantry, which Charles had deployed specifically to counter the invaders. As would be true throughout so much of history, heavy infantry utilizing shield wall tactics were the bane of cavalry, particularly light cavalry. With the death of their commander and facing serious losses, the invaders retreated back to their territory. However, though the Franks would follow up by keeping pressure on the Umayyads, the Arabs still maintained their hold on most of southern Gaul for the time.

Though halted on the mainland, the Umayyads would continue to put pressure on their neighbors. From their bases in Spain and southern Gaul, raiding fleets began to visit the islands of the Western Mediterranean. The Balearics had capitulated decades earlier, and now it was Corsica and Sardinia that received the brunt of the attention. Corsica would fall in AD 729, while it was being fought over by the Romans and Lombards, and Sardinia would meet a similar fate in AD 738, as the Romans there submitted to Arab suzerainty.

From these island bases, the whole of the west coast of Italy was open for attack, and the peninsula suffered greatly from this. The Lombards, controlling the greater part of Italy between their two realms (the Kingdom of the Lombards in the north, and the Duchy of Benevento in the south), bore the brunt of the raids. This was made all the more acute by their relative lack of naval forces. The Roman strip of land surrounding Rome had a shorter coastline, and their naval forces were stronger, so they were a less appealing target overall. That said, Sicily, being more exposed, and Rome, being a high profile target, did attract more attention from the raiders than the rest of Roman territory in the west.

This constant tension in the Mediterranean would be the rule right up until the end of the Umayyad Caliphate, as the vast empire collapsed under its own massive weight.

End

I figure the best way to counter my Roman fanboyism is to simply overpower their main competitor. It was fun.

 

[DominusNovus]

Early expansion of the Republic

The relative stability of the Republic in the middle of the 8th century was countered by the lack of decisive leadership that came with the turnover in leadership as the institutions of the new government began to coalesce. The old Republic could rely on the steady guidance of the Senate, composed of experienced leaders that had been in government for decades. When the new Republic was so young as to not afford that experience to its leadership, it could not avail itself of such guidance. Due to this, the early decades of the new government were dominated by a very timid foreign policy. That was not to say that the time was peaceful, as the territory governed from Constantinople turned into something of an armed camp.

As the 740s began to progress, the Roman state became increasingly assertive in its relations with its neighbors. The Umayyads, though facing severe internal strife, were far too powerful an opponent to seriously contend with. So, the Romans began to re-assert their influence over the slavic tribes that had migrated into the territory south of the Danube. The Bulgars ruled over many such tribes, but there were scores outside of Bulgar control, living in the highlands north of Greece. These were the targets of Roman campaigns, both military and diplomatic, of the decade. Overall, there were few setbacks, and the progress proceeded without any slowing. As the Roman presence in the territory grew, towns were re-settled with farmers from Anatolia and Syria, often by people who had been living under Umayyad governance until a Roman army showed up to rescue them.

However, the Bulgars, under their Khan, Telets, began to look at such expansionism with disfavor. They did not appreciate the growth of Roman power in their vicinity. Further, Telets had no blood ties to the Dulo clan that had ruled the Bulgars for decades, and which had maintained comparatively peaceful relations with the Romans. The Romans had had several treaties that had been signed when a Dulo Khan had been in power, such as the famous Tervel, who helped defend Constantinople in AD 717, and the re-settlement of the area was deemed to be in violation of those treaties. The dash-and-grab raiding that so characterized Roman-Bulgar relations intensified, and, soon, the Republic felt the need to push back firmly against these encroachments.

A campaign in AD 747 was led by one of the Hypatoi, Theophanes, to curtail these raids, and the army marched along the coastline of the Black Sea in order to bring battle to the Bulgars. However, still being an innately steppe nomad society, the Bulgars simply denied the Romans battle, and did little more than to harass them as they went. So, Theophanes began to attack the undefended towns and villages of slavs and former Romans, bringing their populations back to Roman territory to settle in regions in which they could more easily secured under Constantinople’s armies. Eventually, the Romans concluded the campaign, and marched back to the Republic’s territory. However, deciding to take the mountainous route back, Theophanes managed to lead his army into a trap.

While in a pass known as Varbitsa, the Romans were ambushed by the Bulgar forces, who had managed to prepare several earthwork fortifications in order to funnel Roman troops into a killing zone. The result was a slaughter, with almost half of the nearly 40,000 Romans in the army dying. Theophanes was able to organize a retreat, and the remains of the army made it south of the mountains, to safety. For his failure, Theophanes would not be returned in the next election. However, his advice was valued enough that he was a senior lieutenant to his successor, Christophoros.

This new commander sought to erase the humiliation of defeat by sacking the Bulgar capital at Pliska. This campaign took place in AD 748, and Christophoros marched straight through the same pass at which Theophanes had been ambushed, as a bold declaration of his confidence. This boldness was backed with some prudence, and the Romans maintained strict discipline throughout the march. When they reached Pliska, they defeated the small Bulgar army that attempted to defend the capital, though the bulk had, as usual, fled. So, the capital was burned to the ground, and the Romans marched back across the mountains, their point made.

This moral victory proved more fruitful in the immediate term than the previous campaign had, as it undermined the support that Telets had among the Bulgar elite. He was assassinated in the following year, and his successor maintained power for only two years, himself. What followed was an extended series of civil wars as the Bulgars struggled to maintain their order. Playing the various factions against each other, the Romans sought to maintain the disorder, and were able to secure the mountain passes that divided the two states from each other. Some minor campaigns were launched in the early 750s to take advantage, but the general policy was not to push the Bulgars against a wall and force them to re-unite under strong leadership. This policy enabled the Romans to conclude the consolidation efforts further south, and re-settle the region with productive farms. After that, their attention could turn further west.

The Lombards had enmeshed themselves into the fabric of Italy shortly after the reconquest of the peninsula under the Emperor Justinian. Sweeping aside the exhausted inhabitants, they became the new overlords of the region, just as the Ostrogoths had been before them. However, the Lombards rarely had the unity of rule that the Ostrogoths could claim to have through much of their rule over the peninsula. Broadly speaking, their territory was divided into three relatively independent realms. The north was ruled as the Kingdom of the Lombards, while the south was divided between the Duchies of Benevento and Spoleto. Scattered around and between these realms were the scraps of territory still ruled by the Romans, including Rome itself, Ravenna, Naples, and a still-minor town on the north of the Adriatic, Venice.

Though divided, the Lombards were still a major force, and had been steadily and methodically encroaching on Roman territory ever since their initial invasion. When one looks at a map of the period, the effect could be seen quite readily. On paper, Ravenna and Rome were connected by a strip of land that was under Roman control, but this was not always true on the actual ground, and the territory was never firmly in one camp or the other.

As the Republic began to consolidate and re-assert itself, the Lombards were one of the earlier targets of opportunity. After solidifying the border with the Bulgars on favorable terms, the Romans began to look towards retaking southern Italy, at a minimum. At that point, Benevento was hostile with the Lombard crown, and the Romans saw the opening they were looking for. Taranto fell back under Roman control in AD 756, and the Republic was consolidating its hold over southern Apulia, ready to push forward and secure the bulk of the duchy for themselves. However, the duke was able to make common cause with his Lombard brethren in the north, and the Romans were defeated outside of Bari. The Lombards counter-sieged Taranto and made a strong push to take the city back, but the Romans were able to hold out.

The Republic was able to secure peace under the current status quo, with only the southern tip of Apulia under their control. It was a victory, in the end, but hardly worth the effort expended to take it. The Roman Republic could be said to have won a Pyrrhic victory in its war for Taranto, just as Pyrrhus had against the Roman Republic, roughly a millennium prior. By this time, the Bulgars had re-united and were proving to be a more pressing concern than the Italian adventures. So, the Senate and the Hypatoi held off for the time, and began to look for more diplomatic options to enable their foreign policy goals. Fortunately for them, the son of Charles Martel, Carloman, sought assistance in asserting his power over the Franks.

End

So, in short: The Romans are able to conduct the equivalent of Constantine V's foreign policy, more or less on schedule, with marginally better results. They have a few more resources available on hand in Italy, largely due to the Iconoclast controversy being butterflied away. And, among the Franks, its the older son of Charles Martel, Carloman, rather than the younger, Pepin, that is rising to power.

 

[DominusNovus]

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.

 

[DominusNovus]

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

 

[DominusNovus]

The Collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate

The 7th century had seen the rise of the Umayyad Caliphate as it created one of the largest empires known to mankind. Sheer momentum carried it into the 8th century, expanding from Aquitaine in the west to India in the east. However, as the Caliphs' power grew, they found it increasingly difficult to maintain such a large empire. To many, the decadent capital of Damascus was as symbol of all that was wrong with the current political order, and the Umayyads soon face multiple contemporaneous revolts across their realm.

In the far western reaches of North Africa, the Berber tribes, many of whom had become recent converts to the faith of Islam, began to object to their subjugation by the Arabs. They contended that, as fellow Muslims, they should be accorded some measure of respect and incorporation into the regime. This was, of course, a common refrain among many of the various non-Arab groups within the Caliphate. So, in the early 740s, they began to agitate for reform, which turned into outright revolt when Umayyad governors began increasing their tax burdens. The revolt started in the backwater regions of North Africa and quickly spread into Al-Andalus and Al-Akitun (Aquitaine). The major urban centers fell one after another to the rebel armies, and the entire region was effectively under Berber control. The Umayyad reaction was firm, and an army from the heartland of Syria was sent to defeat them. However, this army faced stiff resistance through much of the campaign, with the European territories held by the Berbers proving to be a near impregnable stronghold from which they could launch naval raids to hinder Umayyad advances through North Africa. However, the Caliphal armies continued to press westward, without signs of stopping.

Perhaps they should have stopped, because, in Iraq and Arabia itself, the Arabs themselves were beginning to rise up under a charismatic leader known as Al-Dahhak, who was a member of the Kharijite sect, which rejected many of the foundations of Umayyad governance. This rebellion also spread like wildfire, with much of the fertile Tigris-Euphrates river valley coming under their control, and raids being launched the holy cities of Mecca and Medina themselves. As the Umayyad government spun to face this latest threat, they were unprepared for the most serious threat of all.

The Persians, like the Berbers, had chafed under Umayyad rule for generations by this time, and local men of ambition now seized the opportunity to take advantage of this discontent. This threat was all the more dangerous to the elitist Umayyads, as the Persians were far more organized than the Berbers. As-Saffah, head of the Abbasid branch of the Hashim (the family of Muhammad), was the principal leader to succeed in channeling Persian anger. With the aid of the capable commander Abu Muslim, the Abbasid revolt exploded out of Persia and began to push westward, just as the Umayyads seemed to be gaining the upper hand over the Kharijites. Abu, a capable diplomat in addition to his military prowess, was able to gain the support of the Kharijites after the death of their leader, Al-Dahhak, and the combined force was relentless as they pushed into Syria, crushing the last Umayyad resistance in AD 751. As-Saffah would rule as Caliph for merely two years, but he had defeated the Umayyads and wiped them out to the best of his ability.

However, the ambitious son of As-Saffah, Al-Mansur, would make one key mistake upon ascending to power. Faced with the threat of the powerful, popular, and capable commander Abu Muslim, Al-Mansur decided the man had to be put to death, in AD 754. However, the murder was botched, and Abu Muslim escaped with the aid of on Ismail ibn Jafar, a scion of the Fatimid clan. Rallying soldiers loyal to him, Abu Muslim raised the banner of Jafar as the rightful Caliph, as the rebels fled into the Arabian peninsula. For once, a rebellion would not seemingly explode out of nowhere, and it took years for the rebels to gain enough strength to be more than a nuisance to the government. The Fatimids could come into their own with the seizure of both Mecca and Medina in AD 766, critically undermining Abbasid legitimacy. The Civil War had renewed, and those discontent with the new Abbasid regime flocked to the Fatimids. Some were Arabs that were unhappy that non-Arab Muslims had been granted power in the government. Some were non-Muslims, who were unhappy that their autonomy under the Umayyads had been reduced by the Abbasids. And others were some of the original supporters of the Abbasids, unsatisfied with unfulfilled promises. Most prominent among the supporters were key members of the Shi'ite sect, who saw Jafar and his line as the rightful leaders of all Islam.

In the west, meanwhile, the situation was muddled at best. Once the Berbers found that their existential threat from the Umayyad government was gone, they took to fighting amongst themselves, and the Umayyad expeditionary force sent to stop them soon became little more than a large mercenary force. The region was ripe for a leader of vision.

End

Somewhat vague, I know, but I really wanted to get this done, and play around with the details of how the Umayyads actually did fall.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Roman Invasion of the Caliphate

As the early AD 770s proceeded and the internal instability of the former monolithic juggernaut that had been the Caliphate continued to fracture their society, Roman statesmen were increasingly inclined to believe that there was a real opportunity for military gains to be made at the expense of their hated foe to the east. It was not an unreasonable perspective to hold. The Republic had gone from military triumph to military triumph, having regained the greater part of Italy and having maintained the pre-eminent navy in the region. Their armies were well trained and flexible to a variety of purposes. Further, their society had not seen such solidarity in ages. If there ever was a time to strike, this seemed to be it.

Of course, that is not to say that the Republic had not launched any offensives into Arab territory previously. They often met raids with counter raids, and they generally applied a policy of scorched earth tactics to the borderlands between the two empires, razing both their own lands and the lands of their enemies. However, these engagements were par for the course and generally conducted on a purely local level. In AD 771, the election of a new leader, one Theophilos, ushered in a more energetic policy regarding the eastern border. Theophilos was part of a loose faction that had long advocated for taking advantage of the instability to the east, and his election allowed these men to put their plans into action. As the campaigning season began, Theophilus was ready, with an army near the border, to invade the Caliphate.

The plan was relatively simple: invade Cilicia and retake the region, to be a buffer zone for the areas of Anatolia further away from Arab raids. It was not as defensible as the land behind the Tauros mountains, but it was not entirely exposed, either. The extensive coastline would lend itself well to naval coordination with the land forces, both for purposes of supplies and for assistance with coastal sieges. Forces would also be arrayed along the mountainous borders in Armenia, where they would pressure Arab troops and hopefully incite unrest among the local population.

As Theophilos began his invasion, the army acquitted itself well. Early battles in the mountains went overwhelmingly in favor of the Roman forces, who, being largely made of light frontier troops that fought in mountainous terrain, were highly skilled in the sorts of engagements that occured there. As they broke through to the flatter terrain in Cilicia, the Roman forces were challenged by the local governor, one Ali ibn Malik, who fought them north of Tarsos. Theophilos and his men were victorious on the field of battle, though ibn Malik was able to extricate his army from the area in an orderly fashion, pulling back to regroup and receive reinforcements.

After the battle, the Roman forces went on to invest Tarsos (at that time, little more than a military encampment, rather than full city), and were able to take the fortifications after a modest siege lasting just over a week. They then went on to Adana, the major city in the region at that time, and it surrendered with in a day, after collaborators opened the gates. The city was sacked, though Theophilos was able to reign in the worst excesses, and the army continued on after a few days rest.

A month was taken in which most of Cilicia was secured, particularly in the coastal regions, and the army faced little organized opposition. Light skirmishing was the order of the day, and the Arabs, though numerically inferior in the theater, were unwilling to totally cede the region while waiting for reinforcements. By the end of the season, Theophilos was dreaming of greater conquest, and, as he marched along the Gulf of Alexandretta, he began to think that it just might be possible to take Antioch itself, the greatest prize for the Christian state until Jerusalem. A brief attempt to take Alexandretta was made prior to the end of the season, though that failed, and the army returned to winter quarters, to prepare for the next season.

When that came, Theophilos, returned after that year's election, marched on the city quickly, before the Arabs expect the Romans to strike. Investing the location again, the Romans sought to take it quickly, though the defenders were more stubborn than previous enounters. While maintaining their siege, the Romans were surprised by a sizable Arab force, as ibn Malik had arrived to relieve the city with the enlarged army he had been granted by the Caliph to force the Romans out. The two armies met and, after a bloody engagement that lasted a large part of the day, the Roman lines stood firm, and the Arabs had to abandon the battlefield. Even worse for the Arab cause, the city garrison had sortied to assist, but that had enabled the Romans to take one of the towers, late in the day. When dawn rose, it was a foregone conclusion as they fought along the walls towards the nearest gate, and, having taken it, took the city itself.

The secondary Roman army, under the command of on Stavrakios, was facing less success, in large part due to the ambitions of its commander. Possibly motivated by his counterpart's victories and jealousy, Stavrakios had been more aggressive in his Armenian theater than the warplans had originally called for. And he faced less support for the invasion than the Romans had hoped. The Armenians were not fond of Arab rule, but the Arabs were so divided that they had virtually autonomy. The Romans, on the other hand, were quite united, and would likely impose far more stringent government upon the mountainous region. The northern Roman army was facing logistical issues and began to suffer from frequent ambushes in the less-familiar mountains.

Theophilos sent some contingents north to aid the beleagured army retreat from the mountains, though the bulk of his army went on to take Antioch. If he could take that one city, the campaign would be a rousing success beyond any of their wildest hopes, and he would be assured of multiple re-elections for the foreseeable future. However, when they reached Antioch, the Romans found that the Arabs had finally mustered enough troops away from their civil war to truly match the Roman invasion. It was a crushing defeat, and the Romans were soon retreating as quickly as they could back north. Though splitting his army made things even worse for Theophilos, the Arabs reportedly outnumbered the Romans 2-to-1, so it is unlikely that the larger Roman force would have fared much better. Well over half the Roman army was wiped out in the battle.

The Arabs, under ibn Malik, continued after the invaders, only stopping to take the major cities, along the way. Alexandretta fell back into their hands, as did Adana. In fact, the Romans were pushed back completely past the Cilician gates, and the Arab army continued after them, still. Ibn Malik made his intentions clear that he was leading a punitive campiagn, and, after defeating several local garrisons, was able to take and sack Iconion and the surrounding countryside.

However, as the Arabs began to retreat with their newfound spoils, the army under Stavrakios arrived, and was able to cut off the avenue of retreat. Theophilos, with a newly raised army, was able to cut off ibn Malik's second attempt to retreat, after which Stavrakios was able to defeat the Arab army and take their commander prisoner, with the army itself fleeing back to the Caliphate. The second year of the campaign finished, the Romans sent envoys to end hostilities, deciding that there was not enough gain to be had for the effort of invading the Caliphate.

The invasion, overall, was, at best, seen as a waste of time and effort. The Arabs had been wounded, to be sure, but Roman territory faced an invasion the likes it had not seen in decades, and it was a very near thing that further damage had not been done. However, had the Romans known just how much damage they had inflicted on the Caliphate, they may have continued their operations further. The overall losses of men and material were not the biggest problem the Arabs faced, but the focus on the north, when their larger threat was to the south, was crucial. The time it took to transfer armies across their territory, and the resources it took to do that, created several openings for the Fatimids and other dissident groups to capitalize on their own gains. When the Abbasids began to lose more valuable territory to the Fatimids, the Romans realized that they really did have the right general idea, but, by then, the Fatimids were too powerful on their own to be taken lightly.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Rise of Drogo and the Fall of the Lombards

When Carloman, king of the Franks, died in AD 771, the vast realm fall upon the shoulders of his son, Drogo. More accurately, it fell upon the shoulders of Drogo and his younger brothers, Pepin and Grimaold, who were to govern under Drogo's auspices. However, neither of his younger brothers survived the year, so they are little more than historical footnotes. It hardly needs to be noted that their deaths were under circumstances not entirely without suspicion, and they were merely the first victims of Drogo's calculating ruthlessness. Whether it was fear of his capacity for violence, or faith in his ability to direct that violence towards the enemies of the Franks, none of the nobility of Francia protested in the slightest as his ascension to unrivaled power.

Drogo sought to expand his realm in every possible direction and establish a Frankish hegemony over as much of Europe as possible. To that end, he struck first at the remnants of Arab-Berber rule in Al-Akitun, which would soon be called by its former name of Aquitaine. In AD 772, Frankish forces invaded the prosperous region to their south, and found the squabbling defenders quickly putting aside their differences to fight back the invaders. It did them little good, however, and the heavy Frankish infantry and cavalry were able to secure a string of devastating victories against the Muslims, securing all of Aquitaine to the Pyrennes by AD 774. It was a relatively simple matter to incorporate the region into Francia, as the population was almost entirely Christian Romance-speakers, though there were a significant number of Muslims living in the major cities. They were expelled and their property confiscated, unless they agreed to convert.

Following up the conquest of Aquitaine, Drogo began to prepare for his next triumph, though his military plans were secondary for the time being to his political ambitions. The King was without a Queen, though he already had several mistresses and bastards by those same mistresses. Despite the nominally elective nature of the Frankish monarchy, it was crucial for him to have a wife, and the perfect candidate was just across the water from the Franks. The King of Kent, one Ecgberht, had a young daughter, Aelfwynn, that was of marriagable age. Further, the Kings of Kent had long been under the domination of their Mercian neighbors, something that Ecgberht wanted to rectify. Allying with the powerful King of the Franks to his south would enable Ecgberht and his presumed successor, Burgred, to re-orient the balance of power in England. Thus, Aelfwynn became Queen of the Franks. The plan worked quite well, and the Kentish and Franks were solidly allied, thus securing additional autonomy from Mercia for Kent. On the other hand, Burgred died while hunting while his father was ill, in AD 778, so perhaps the alliance was not nearly as beneficial to the King of Kent as he may have intended. Almost all historians lay the blame for Burgred's death at the feet of Drogo, and the only question is whether or not Aelfwynn was complicit. As a canonized Saint, few are willing to disparage her name, though there is little evidence that she was particularly upset with Drogo after the death of her only brother, so her involvement remains a mystery.

While the power politics of Anglo-Saxon England were proceeding, Drogo's attention was directed, first and foremost, at his next target, the remnants of the Kingdom of the Lombards. The Franks already held all the strategic passes through the Alps, and the Roman Republic had already isolated the Kingdrom from its southern duchies in Italy. Further, the Lombards were almost completely commercially isolate, with only the port of Genoa providing them reliable access to the slowly-recovering Mediterranean trade network. With support from the Republic, Drogo invaded in AD 775. It was an anti-climactic war, with the Lombards still divided amongst themselves, even though they were vulnerable. Milan and the Lombard capital of Pavia fell before the year was out, and, though the Lombard royal court fled to Constantinople, their kingdom was at an end. The Republic sheltered them only on the condition that they renounce their claims to rule, and many Lombard nobles followed their royal family to the Republic. It benefitted the Romans to have capable fighters and administrators settling in their territory, and many of these Lombards would be appointed to positions in Roman Italy. Drogo did not protest strongly, happy to be rid of potential rebels, and making it easier for him to reorganize northern Italy as he wished.

However, there was a major downside to the fall of the Lombards for Roman-Frankish relations. Without a common enemy between the two of them, the diplomatic ties began to deteriorate quickly. Within a year, both sides were fortifying their common border, and Drogo began to plot on how best to secure his independence from Roman policy. It was, after all, the Pope, living in the Roman Republic and actively involved in Roman politics, that crowned both Drogo and his father. There was an implicit subordination to Rome inherent in this state of affairs, and it began to chafe Drogo greatly. To this end, he began to increasingly interfere with the Church within the Frankish realm, much to the consternation of the Pope and the Roman Republic. This came to a head when Charles, Drogo's cousin and the Bishop of Paris, was declared Archbishop, and the two cousins pronounced that the church within Francia would be entirely autonomous, under the jurisdiction of this new Archbishop. The political fallout from this aggressive policy would reach a head when Drogo was crowned as the Emperor of Francia by his cousin on Christmas day, in AD 800. The consequences of these actions would be far reaching.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Italian Rebellion

In the 8th decade of the 8th century, as the Franks were ascendant across much of Europe, the Roman Republic was re-assessing its strategic situation. The majority of Anatolia was secure from Arab raids, though the locals did not agree. The Arabs themselves, well, nobody was quite sure how far Abbasid rule extended. The eastern Mediterranean was firmly under their control, it seems, though once you travelled west of Egypt, the Caliphate's rule seemed more ephemeral. The sea lanes were safe, Greece was safe, Roman rule was unchallenged in Italy, south of the Po Valley, with the mouth of that river firmly under Roman control as well. The Balkans were a hodgepodge of Roman territory and Slavic states, with the Bulgars looming just across the mountains from Thrace, though the Republic held the key areas of the coastline firmly. In theory, the Balkans, then, were the ideal avenue of expansion, being close to the capital and not being held by any major state. However, they were relatively poor, and they were quite rugged, reasons that had discouraged the original Roman invasions of the region centuries prior. Regardless, the idea of expanding in that direction had begun to gain traction among many in the hall of power in Constantinople, when history decided to intervene.

By this time, it had been fairly well established that the outlying Themes of the Republic had a great say in the government, with the ability to elect each year's Hypatos, and to send delegates to consult with the Senate about their local needs. By now, three full generations had lived under this general power sharing arrangement, and it was becoming taken for granted in those territories organized as Themes. Though the Republic did occasionally expand the Thematic system to additional territories, or break up individual Themes into smaller parts for strategic reasons, the political nature they had taken on encouraged a conservative approach to their expansion. Few wanted to topple the delicate balancing act that were the annual elections, and it was deemed quite likely that quickly extending the franchise would do just that. Meanwhile, across the Adriatic, the situation was viewed in a very different light. There, the birthplace of Roman Republicanism had no say in the governing of the Roman Republic. From Venice in the north to Calabria in the south, to the ancestral seat of the Republic itself, Rome, there were no Themes. The entire region was organized largely in the Exarchate of Ravenna, also known as the Exarchate of Italy. And, yet, they still owed service and tax to the government, without any of the consideration their Greek-speaking brethren had. That the cities of Italy had twice fought the Republic in hallowed antiquity under similar circumstances was not lost on the more educated among those on the peninsula.

Tensions finally boiled over in AD 789 in the wake of several ignored petitions by various Italian cities in the Exarchate. A mob formed quickly in Ravenna, and tore the governing Exarch, one John of Attalia. From the regional capital, the fans of revolt spread quickly, and soon, the Republic's forces were being beset by locals that were rising up against the government. Some mixed detachments of troops, often those with stronger ties to the locals, joined the burgeoning rebellion, and city after city fell. The government in Constantinople reacted as best as it could, and sent a fleet and a full army, composed of troops from multiple Themes to put down the rebellion. Landing at Brundisium, the Republican army faced several setbacks early on and had to fight dogged resistance against the locals, before being defeated near Tarentum. This defeat emboldened further rebellion, and several of the previously loyal cities joined the fray. By AD 790, the peninsula was almost entirely in revolt, with the Republic desperately maintaining besieged strongholds along the coast wherever it could.

The two notable exceptions to the revolt Sicily and the still relatively minor Venice. Venice, being in a lagoon, was easily held by the Republic's navy, and soon became a destination for loyalists fleeing the bloodshed on the peninsula. Sicily, on the other hand, was largely Greek-speaking and, more importantly, had been organized as a proper Theme for decades. Fully invested in the status quo, they had no desire whatsoever to side against the central government. In this first full year of the war, it was the intention of the Republic to force Italy back into the fold by strength of arms, so a new army was formed, with the intention of sailing it across the Adriatic. However, shortly after the bulk of the new army was ferried across the sea, the main fleet in the Adriatic was struck by a powerful storm, sinking a sizable portion. Rebels then were able to pick of much of the remainder, isolating the relief army. In this weakened position, it was no surprise that the Republic proved a tempting target to many of its neighbors. The Bulgars began raiding Thrace and Macedonia in large numbers, and the Caliphate began probing the Taurus mountains for weakness in the Republic's defenses there. Even the nearly anarchic territories in North Africa began to launch coastal raids against Sicily. The relief army soon found itself being pulled back to defend the core Republic territories.

At this point, the Republic was beginning to re-assess its strategy, and the next year's elections brought back Theophilos, of the failed Cilician campaign, to power. He had been heavily involved in the fighting in Italy, and knew where the cracks were in the rebel's defenses. Prior to his election, he had, not entirely with any authority, promised Venice that, if they could provide enough ships to the weakened Republic's fleet, that a new Theme of Veneto would be formed. After being elected, Theophilos received word from Venice that they had fulfilled their naval obligations, and he quickly rushed through the confirmation of their status as a Theme. Then, in the south, where the population was nearly as Greek as on Sicily, Theophilos brought the expanded fleet to bear, along with more troops than his political opponents considered wise. Declaring a general amnesty for the region and organizing the southern reaches of Italy as the Theme of Kalavrias, if they returned to the fold immediately and the armies they raised came over, as well. Faced with the overwhelming force and the attractive offer of basically exactly what they were fighting for, the south agreed, and Theophilos was able to quickly march his bolstered army north. Outside of Rome itself, two battles were fought, both resulting in victories for Theophilos. As he negotiated with the defeated rebels, the other Hypatos, a political rival named Phokas, landed a smaller army near Ravenna and offered similar clemency, hoping to deny Theophilos the political spoils of having so many voting districts in his debt. Theophilos objected, as the rebels around Ravenna had not shown any inclination towards reconciliation, nor had they been defeated in the field, but, nevertheless, Ravenna surrendered, and the government organized the remainder of Italy into the Themes of Ravenna, Lation, and Longobardias. After this, the Romans redeployed their fleets and armies and were able to come to terms with the various threats they were facing by the end of AD 791. Even as they did so, however, the Republic was being presented with the very real danger that the Franks were overtaking them in overall power, and that Drogo was eying the Mediterranean for possible areas in which to expand.

End

 

[DominusNovus]

The Birth of Frankish Britain

As Drogo's reign progressed through the latter decades of the 8th century, his hold on power and his prestige increased, even before he was crowned as the first Frankish Emperor. His main avenue of expansion was to the east, into the territories of the Saxons and into Bavaria, following the final fall of the Lombards. There, the Franks sought to expand beyond the territories that the Roman Empire had ever ruled, and so surpass their predecessors. With sword and cross, Drogo sought to convert the Saxons and force them to accept Frankish suzreinty. The wars were bloody and constant, with the Franks returning year after year to put down rebellion after rebellion amongst the unruly and savage Saxons.

It was during one of these wars, in AD 782, that the father Drogo's Empress, Aelfwynn, King Ecgberht of Kent died. Without a clear successor to his crown, a struggle soon broke out in Kent and the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Aelfwynn was the sole heir, but many suspected her husband's involvement in the death of her brother, so her claim to the throne was quickly challenged. The king of Mercia, the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, was at this time one Wiglaf, and he had no interest in the Franks in gaining a foothold in England. The remaining Angl-Saxon kings largely sided with him. The only Anglo-Saxon state that supported Aelfwynn's claim was Northumbria, the most distant of the realms, and it was likely due to this distance that they sided with the Frankish faction, on the logic that even as powerful as Drogo was, he was still far more distant than Wiglaf in Mercia.

So it was that Drogo scaled back his efforts in Saxony for the time being, and focused his attention on England, intent on having his offspring be the paramount ruler on the island. Looking for allies in the effort to make the crossing of the English channel, Drogo found the Britons in Wales and Dumnonia to be amenable to his cause. With allies in place, Drogo was ready to invade in the year following Ecgberht's death, AD 783. Though Kent was nominally under the control of a pro-Mercian noble that had been elevated to the throne, one Offa, there were enough supporters of Aelfwynn in the kingdom to provide the Franks with the opening needed to land a sizable army on the shore, forming a beachhead.

An Anglo-Saxon army was ready to meet the Franks, and the two opposing sides met near Rochester in the first major battle of the war. The Franks were outnumbered by nearly 2-to-1, but had an advantage in heavy cavalry. This advantage, however, was largely negated by inclement weather and waterlogged terrain. The initial Frankish charge was bogged down, literally, in the muck and mud of the battlefield, and cavalry had to fall back to their lines and regroup. Drogo took a risk and dismounted all of his heavy cavalry, while sending his lighter cavalry in a flanking maneuver, hoping that the fog would hide their approach and that their lesser weight would negate the terrain difficulty. His bet paid off when, while the two now entirely infantry armies were locked in battle, the Frankish cavalry crashed into the pro-Mercian lines, sending the surprised enemy into a rout. From there, the Frankish faction were able to take hold of all of Kent, and even held London, which was outside of the territory of Kent itself. Offa and Wiglaf did their best to halt the Frankish advance towards London, throwing a second army at the Franks. However, the Franks had reinforced their army and now, with the numbers more even, the results were thoroughly lopsided, and the Mercians were forced to sue for terms, offering to recognize Aelfwynn and her progeny by Drogo as the rightful rulers of Kent.

Drogo, however, was nothing if not ambitious, and he declined their offer of peace. Claiming that the Mercian kings could not be trusted with the responsibility of being the pre-eminant kings in England, and that a new order was to be established. If they would accept Aelfwynn as their overlord, Drogo would agree to peace. They would not, and the next three years of Drogo's reign saw him fighting in England. The Franks won early victories, in large part due to their alliances in the region, as the Britons attacked their Anglo-Saxon enemies. However, as the Franks became more and more assured of victory, Drogo siphoned troops back to Saxony, to keep the peace in that region (generally defined as killing as many unrepentant pagans as possible). This, combined with some of the Briton allies of the Franks growing wary of his ambition, resulted in the setbacks that prolonged the war.

However, by AD 786, peace was finally had. All of the Anglo-Saxon kings accepted Drogo's new order for the island. The Kings of Kent would be recognized as the overlords of the other Anglo-Saxon kings, though Northumbria was excluded, due to their pro-Frankish stance throughout the war, and their distance. Dumnonia, the southernmost kingdom of the Britons, was also included in this hegemony, due to their betrayal of the Frankish faction. With his dynasty being overlord of many individual kings, Drogo began to lay the groundwork for his eventual Imperial coronotion.

 

[DominusNovus]

AD 800 Recap

Here, I'll just give a brief overview of the situation in the areas discussed so far, as compared with our history.

The Roman Republic is doing much better than the Roman Empire of our history, on paper. It has avoided the internal instability that came with the Iconoclasm contoversy (Iconoclasm has largely been non-existent). It is larger, with most of Italy under its control, as well as more securely holding onto the Balkans. However, economically, its lagging behind its historical counterpart. This is largely driven by the increased focus on military recruitment. The Roman military of this time, in our history, was in the general range of 100,000 men. For the Republic, they regularly maintain nearly double that amount at arms at any given time, and the reserves of men recruitable by the Themes are even higher. This means that the Romans are recovering from the economic instability of the previous century far more slowly, though there are some benefits of scale that are coming into effect as their territory expands.

The Abbasid Caliphate is worse off than its historical counterpart. First, the Fatimids are being retconned into having their base of support in Persia, rather than Arabia. The two rival Caliphates are in a state of near constant warfare, with neither currently able to gain the upper hand. The Fatimids are the weaker power on paper, but they are more popular in their territory than the Abbasids are in theirs, and the Abbasids have more pressing threats to their power in the Roman Republic and the breakaway states in the Maghreb and Andalusia.

Those breakaway states are largely in flux in the Magrheb, as none of the berber warlords that have come to power between Tunis and Tangiers can maintain any semblence of power beyond their immeidate surrounding, and the entire region is in something of an anarchy. Andalusia had largely been in a similar state of affairs, but the threat of the Franks under Drogo has enabled them to coalesce under a central leader in Cordoba. Whereas, historically, this centralization would be sprearheaded by the last scion of the Ummayad dynasty, in this history, the Cordoban state would be led by a local preacher, one Ali ibn Rustam, who founded an explicitly Kharijite state in Cordoba, which attracted many of the followers of that sect in the Maghreb that were seeking a stable state in which they could practice their faith and apply its precepts on government. There will be more written about them in their own post.

North of Andalusia was the expanding Frankish Empire, which would be christened as such that very year. Drogo, first Emperor of the Franks, matched his counterpart, Charlemagne (in this history, the archbishop of Francia) in conquests in most respects. Where Charlemagne expanded his realm into much of Italy and held the the balkans subject to his power, Drogo focused more on the north, and gained a solid foothold for the Franks in Britain. However, Drogo also had to deal with a far less grateful Church than Charlemange did in our history, which lay the groundwork for his unilitaral declaration of autonomy for the Frankish Church.

Beyond Europe and the neart east, much of the world continued on as in our history. Tang China, however, had thus far avoided the disastrous An Lushan rebellion or any analogue, but the precarious balance of power between the central imperial government and its outlying border armies remained a house of cards waiting to be tipped over by its energetic Uighar and Tibetan neighbors. India was doing its own thing, and the butterflies that had swarmed over all of the Mediterranean litoral had yet to even dream of flapping their wings over to the Western hemisphere.

End

Hope that has been useful. I felt it came across a little awkward, writing in the standard style of this timeline, but with the ability to cross reference actual history. I'll try to do something like this every century or so, just to keep things all lined up as best as possible.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Birth of the Imamate of Cordoba

With the fall of the Ummyad Caliphate, the Muslim territories in the west, already in a state of flux, were thrown into complete disarray. There was no central authority in any of the areas, and the Maghreb, Al-Andalus, and Al-Akitun were all left to fend for themselves, with each area divided among many local warlords. To say the regions were divided would be an understatement.

They were divided, most notably, by ethnicity, with the Arab, Berber, Visigoth, and Latin populations all vying for power and influence. The only real contenders for authority were the various Muslim groups, but even they were not united. There were religious dissidents that had fled to the borderlands of the former Caliphate, there were hardline theocrats, and there were the typical aristocrats and commanders that were more flexible in their religious adherence. There were also divides between the urban populations and the more nomadic groups. Many maps of the region in this era simply give up and don't bother to try to label any borders between the various competing groups.

The consolidation of power was driven, more than anything else, by the external threats from the north. Those threats included the Franks, under Drogo, who totally conquered Al-Akitun in a war that greatly shamed many of the Muslims in Al-Andalus, while also striking great fear into their hearts that the Franks might soon cross the mountains. Also noteworthy, though often overshadowed by the Franks, was the Kingdom of Asturias. Formed in the mountainous regions along the northern coast, Asturias was initially just a group of Visigothic and Latin rebels living amongst the remnants of the ancient Celtic tribes of Hispania. These refugees soon grew in strength as Christians settled in their territory, and soon, the entire northern coast was under Christian rule, and they began to expande their borders into Al-Andalus.

The man the Muslims would eventually rally around, Ali ibn Rustam, was an oddity in the region. First, his father was a Persian, though his mother was half Arab and half Berber, giving him some ties to the locals. Second, he was a practitioner of the Kharijite sect of Islam, which was, at the time, a minority in the region, but they had followers scattered all across the Islamic territories. The Kharijites were completely separate from either the Shia or the Sunni, and were often oppressed by both. They contended that the leader of the Muslims should be chosen from amongst them, without any considerations of ancestry, that the faithful had an obligation to rise against unpious rulers, and that any Muslim that sinned ceased to be a Muslim until they repented. They were considered hardliners by many, but, in some respects, they were more moderate than their counterparts, and were known for very fair treatment of Christians and Jews under their rule.

Ali ibn Rustam was born and raised in North Africa, but joined one of the many armies vying for control of Al-Andalus. After winning some small glory and booty in war, he retired to more theological pursuits in AD 783, and quickly proved to possess a keen intellect for Islamic jurisprudence, defending the Kharijites vigorously in public, and began to amass followers. By AD 785, entire cities were swearing loyalty to him, and his followers were counted among the various major factions attempting to control Al-Andalus. It was the fall of Cordoba to ibn Rustam's army in AD 787 that solidified their place in the peninsula. Kharijites from across the Muslim world began to flood towards his growing realm, and they bolstered the strength of his armies. Major cities, drawn to his theories on governance, began to swear fealty to ibn Rustam even without battle. By AD 790, almost all of Al-Andalus looked to Cordoba.

Ali ibn Rustam spent the intervening years not just focused on conquest, but also working with many clerics and aristocrats to bring their Kharijite vision of governance into reality. It was in AD 790 that they declared the creation of their Kharijite Imamate, and that all pious Muslims should choose from amongst themselves the most pious man to lead them as their Imam. It was no surprise to anyone that ibn Rustam was chosen as their first Imam. He proved himself equally adept at diplomacy as he had in governance and war in AD 801, by totally reshuffling the strategic order in the Mediterranean.

By that time, the Cordoban government had totally unified Al-Andalus, and now was pre-occupied with holding their gains against Asturias and Francia to the north, and the still chaotic Berbers in North Africa, that continually launched raids against the Andalusi coast. From North Africa all the way to Persia, the Cordobans could not count on any friendly reception from any of their fellow Muslims, given that both sides considered the others heretics. Diplomatically isolated and surrounded on all sides by hostile powers, ibn Rustam's regime sought out an unlikely ally: The Roman Republic. His overtures were received very warmly in Constantinople. Both states considered the Franks and Abbasids to be major threats, both states were far away enough from each other to not have competiting interests, and both sought to bring back a healthy trade network in the Mediterranean. Their alliance was formalized in AD 802, and, with the stroke of a pen, the agreement between Constantinople and Cordoba formed wha was potentially the most powerful military force in the entire Mediterranean.

End

 

[DominusNovus]

The Bulgars under Tervel

The Bulgars had been a major presence in the Balkan peninsula for generations by the late 8th century. They, like many other Turkic steppe nomads, had proven to be quite a threat to settled civilizations when unified and organized, but could often be found fighting themselves more than foreigners. However, the Bulgars had managed, over the time that they had settled in the region around the lower Danube, to stay relatively united and, thus, dangerous. In fact, most of the Roman Republic's renewed expansion took place in the wake of a series of power struggled among the Bulgars, after the Romans had defeated them in the middle of the century. It goes without saying that the Bulgars would eventually re-unify, and prove to be just as threatening as ever.

It was a warlord of the Dulo clan, the traditional royal clan of the Bulgars, that would lead the new phase of Bulgar expansionism. Tervel was his name, and he had all the markings of a great man that story-tellers love and historians disparage. Born in AD 757, he was orphaned as a youth during the instablity among the Bulgars, he was hunted by his family's political opponents all the way to the Roman frontier, where he sought refuge, impressing the Roman garrison with his story (a popular tale is that he tricked a Roman archer into giving him his bow and arrow, which Tervel then used to kill several of the warriors hunting him down, before returning the weapon and promising to repay the soldier for the cost of the arrows, which he would go on to do when he came back into his throne). He would go on to be raised in Constantinople, as a noble hostage of the Republic, useful insofar as he was a threat to be unleashed on whomever might be in power in Bulgaria.

Tervel was not enamored with his gilded cage, and wished to be free to reclaim his throne. He was, however, enamored with the city itself, as well as with the women. He was rumored to have many lovers among the Roman noblewomen, who found the exiled prince quite charming. When he finally left the Republic to claim his throne, he was able to convince a young teen named Anastasia, a descendent of the Heraclian dynasty of the old Empire, to accompany him, marrying her in front of the first priest willing to give the pairing his blessing. It was AD 777 when Tervel crossed the border back into the Bulgar lands, with only some gold from the Republic, his new wife and a band of loyal retainers accompanying him. For the next decade, he waged an unceasing war to unify the Bulgars back into a force to be reckoned with. In AD 788, he was the undisputed ruler of the Bulgars, and he wasted no time in expanding his newly-won kingdom.

As Khan, Tervel knew it was futile to attack the Republic at this point in time. It was on the ascent, and its military re-organization gave it the ability to call on its manpower to an extent that it could not prior. However, Constantinople and Greece were not the only targets worth invading. The vast Pannonian plain lay to the west, up the Danube, and it was ruled by the decaying Avar Khaganate. It was there that Tervel would strike, providing the land necessary to maintain the cavalry that his army - and Khanate - would depend on. So, the Bulgar armies would march up the Danube and conquer the Avars. There are campaigns throughout history that are drawn-out and hard fought, with a metaphorical pendulum swinging back and forth until one side wins through simply outlasting the other. This was not one of those campaigns. The Bulgars struck with lightnning-fast fury and decimated the Avars that stood against them. With the death of the key leadership of the Avars within the first few battles, the opposition was disorganized, as often fighting each other as the Bulgars. From that point on, Tervel's army would ride through the Avar lands, impressing whomever was the most powerful leader in the region that the Bulgars were the new authority in the region. Their rule was sometime ephemeral, but by AD 790, Tervel could reliably claim to rule all of the Pannonian basin.

The next campaigns for Tervel would be amongst the more mountainous lands south of the Danube, where the slavic tribes that only nominally ever accept Avar suzreinty lived. These wars would take far more effort, but Tervel was indefatigable in his desire to rule over every tribe that had not already been conquered by the Romans. Every campaign season, Tervel would march his armies into the highlands and fight whichever tribe proved to be the most obstinate in accepting the Bulgars. Not every campaign would be successful in and of itself, but, by the dawn of the 9th century, Bulgaria was the only polity worth listing between the Franks and the Romans.

Tervel was not only skilled in warfare, but also in diplomacy and administration. He continually played the Franks and Romans off each other, giving him a free hand to expand his own realm. When attacking other tribes, he regularly made sure to target those that had poor relations with whatever major power was closest. Those that were friendly to either the Romans or the Franks were wooed with more subtle - though no less threatening - overtures. Tervel made sure that his military adventures were never seen to directly threaten either the Franks or the Romans, and avoided any conflict with them. Within his realm, Tervel issued a law code for his people, and did his best to organize the adminstration of the government through meritocracy, rather than clan loyalty.

Tervel would die in AD 806, after nearly two decades of rule of a unified Bulgar state. His son would prove to be just as influential on history as his father. Petar, the son of Tervel and Anastasia, was raised and named by his mother to be a Christian, and it would be through his efforts that the Bulgars would embrace Christianity.

End

 

[DominusNovus]

The Ascent of the Fatimids

In the mid-8th century, the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate was quickly followed by the rise of the insurgent Fatimids, representing, largely, the disaffected Shi'ites within the Islamic realm. What had started as a series of loosely organized local rebellions, including uprisings in Mecca and Medina themselves, gradually coalescend into a larger movement, centered around the Persian territories. By the close of the 8th century, two rival powers had emerged in the heartlands of Islam: The Abbasids, the Sunni power, rulling from their new capital in Baghdad, held the rich lands of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and the Arabian peninsula. Though they had originated in Persia and had been relatively multi-ethnic, their demography gradually turned them into a more consciously Arab state as the years wore on. The Fatimids, devout Shi'ites, ruled the Persian heartland, claiming the title of Caliph for themselves, with only the early instability of the Abbasid realm to bolster their claims. In a mirror to the Abbasids increasing Arabization, the Fatamids grew increasingly Persianized as their realm solidified.

As the two rival powers fought for supremacy, the Fatimids were usually on the defense, despite being the insurgent power. This was largely due to the fact that, without Mesopotamia, Persia was far weaker, economically and demographically. Meanwhile, the Abbasids had the wealth of the Fertile Crescent and the sea trade to rely on to bolster their war efforts. In fact, it was the rivalry between the two dynasties that fueled an Abbasid focus on naval trade, to cut out the Persian legs of the Silk Road, to the extent that they could. However, the Fatimids were hardly helpless in their wars with the Abbasids, relying on the strong defensive barrier of the Zagros mountains to wear away at the regular Abbasid invasions. Though the early years of the Fatimid Caliphate were reactionary in their policy towards the Abbasids, the Abbasid losses against the Romans in 770s gave the Fatimids some breathing room, and they took full advantage of it.

The new Fatimid Caliph, Ya'qub, sought to bolster his realm's military power, and, as such, focused on the classical Persian strength of cavalry. To that end, he set about campaigning to the north, rather than trying to take his existing army west, against the Arabs. Ya'qub knew the one of the hard truths that defined warfare until the dominance of gunpowder: the best cavalry would always be found on the steppe. The Persians could not be matched in heavy cavalry, but that alone did not win battles. They needed the fleet and nimble nomads to their north, the Oghuz Turks, on their side. Ya'qub began launching a mixture of military and diplomatic expeditions to the Oghuz, seeking to vassalize those that could be vassalized, and ally with those that could not.

This project took longer than his reign to accomplish, with Ya'qub dying in AD 786, though not before he conquered Chorasmia. His successor, Ahmad, finished his father's work over the next decade. The Oghuz were fierce opponents on the field of battle, and the Fatimids only began to achieve success once they could rely on the support of various Oghuz clans that supported them. The Oghuz were not immune to the economic impacts of the Abbasid trade embargo, now having to sell to the Khazars to their west, rather than the far wealthier societies of Persia and Chorasmia to their south. The opportunity to re-open the southern reaches of their trade network appealed to many clan leaders, and the critical mass of support among the Turks began to shift towards the Fatimids. Though the Caliphate could never truly claim to have conquered many of the tribes, they could rely on them as allies and mercenaries in their wars. Oghuz Turks soon became indispensible assets in the Fatimid military machine.

Caliph Ahmad, however, was not yet ready to invade the Abbasids, and took his new cavalry army southeast, into the Indus river valley, even while still courting and battling the Turks to the north. Ahmad's reasoning was that the rich and fertile Indus valley would provide him with the riches and population needed to counter the Abbasid's own hold on the Fertile Crescent. Two substantial Sunni realms had been formed in the valley as the Umayyad Caliphate fell, and the Abbasids were unable to project their power to the region: Sindh in the south, and Multan in the north. It was a shrewd move to invade, though, like his father, the effort would outlast him, as he died in AD 793, followed by his eldest son, Ismail, in AD 795, while on campaign in Sindh. Ismail was succeeded by his young brother, Ali, who set his generals to the task.

As the Fatimid and Oghuz armies invaded, Ali made sure to expend as little in men and treasure as possible to take the territory. This war was supposed to pay for itself, and he made sure that it did. That did have the side-effect of prolonging the invasion, as the Caliph constantly challenged his generals to make due with far too few men and far too little money. Though the commanders were not pleased with the frugality of their sovereign, there was no lack of plunder and booty in the Indus to support their campaign. By AD 801, the region was conquered. Still, Ali sought to extract as much wealth as possible, sending out as many raids across the borders into the Hindu states that were his neighbors, extracting tribute from any and all. He was so focused on this project that many began to doubt that the Fatimids would ever attempt to contest the Abbasid's claim to be the universal Caliphs.

However, Ali had not forgotten his legacy, and he extended his aggressive fiscal policy to the Abbasids, as well. Raids were not uncommon over the land borders, but it was his sponsorship of pirates all throughout the Indian ocean that reaped the greatest benefit. In an arrangement not too dissimilar to the privateers of later centuries, Ali outfited as many pirates as possible to prey on the trade routes that the Abbasids were relying upon to cut his realm out of the economic glue that held the region together. It was quite a successful policy in the short-term, though the Fatimids would eventually regret facilitating such piracy on their coasts.

With a full treasury, and armies drilled and drilled more, Ali waited for the opportune moment to strike. When the Armenians rebelled anew against the Abbasids in AD 805, he knew it was time. It did not hurt that Ali had helped to facilitate their uprising, of course. The war was once more fought with true vigor, and his armies poured out of the mountains and highlands of Persia, into the flatlands of Mesopotamia. Poets might describe their victories as sweeping aside the Abbasid defenders, but, in truth, the Abbasids held their own, even in defeat. They could call, for the most part, on the Bedoin cavalry of Arabia, who were, man or man, every bit the equal of the Oghuz. However, nearly two centuries of political unification and dominance of the Arabs over their neighbors left fewer true Bedoin than the Abbasids needed. Their armies were being defeated in their heartland and in the mountains of Armenia, as they prioritized their defenses. City after city fell to the Fatimids, and Baghdad was among them. The beating heart of the Abbasid Caliphate now lay in Fatimid hands, a stark symbol of the course of the war.

The Abbasids, however, had not made the same mistake the Umayyads had, allowing their dynasty to be extinguished by the fall of their capital, and they continued the fight from Damascus, the old Umayyad capital. That their dynasty had been forged in the resentment over the decadence of Damascus was not lost on their contemporaries. Ali's armies, rather than attacking Damascus, however, swung south, for Arabia. This was a war for the soul of Islam, and Arabia was were such a battle would be won. The Abbasids were all too pleased to allow their enemy to divert their attention from their remaining population centers, and worked to build their armies up, even while the Fatimids were taking the holy city of Mecca for their empire. As they did, the Abbasid general, Abdullah ibn Isa, lead a daring counter attack at the new Fatimid capital... Baghdad. Ali had not expected the Abbasids to prioritize retaking Baghdad over Mecca, and had not left enough defenses to properly defend the city. It fell back to the Abbasids in early AD 806, but that was simply a blip on the historical record. The Fatimid army marched north once more, and met the rebuilt Abbasid army at Baghdad. It was a hard-fought victory for the Fatimids, with both sides depleted afterward, though Baghdad was once more in their hands.

Ali wanted to continue the war, but his court convinced him that to do so would be dangerous. First, the war had been taxing on his empire, and there were rumblings among the newly conquered territories in India. Second, the Romans had not be idle during the war, and had been all too happy to attack the Abbasids, at first. But they had now made peace with their former enemies, and were now viewing the Fatimids as the greater threat. Third, Ali had won everything he needed to win to claim victory. He held Baghdad and Mecca and Medina. He controlled the sea lanes now, so it no longer mattered now which way the trade would go. Further, though few appreciated it at the time, the deft diplomacy that enabled the Fatimids to call upon the nomadic Oghuz was not without its consequences. The war solidified the Turks in the Fatimid goverment, and they would grow in power. It did not hurt the Oghuz position that the brunt of most losses in the war were not suffered by their men.

Ali acquiesced to his advisors, and settled for peace with the Abbasids. The Abbasids would recognize the Fatimid Caliphate as such, though the treaty notably was silent on Fatimid recognition of the Abbasid position. The Abbasids would hold onto Egypt and Syria, with Arabia and Mesopotamia going to the Fatimids, and Armenia now independent. Peace prevailed, for the time.

End

So, this starts out somewhat incorporating the retcon I mentioned of the heartland of the Fatimid revolt. Other than that, have at it.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Abbasid Consolidation

After the devastating loss to their Fatimid rivals, it would not be unreasonable to expect for the Abbasid Caliphate to collapse in on itself, as its prestige, wealth, and power were severely diminished in the wake of the recent war. And yet, to their credit, the Abbasids not only endured, but thrived. Focused strictly on maintaining a realm that comprised only of some of the wealthiest lands in the region, and still sitting astride key trade routes, the Abbasids had plenty to work with. As the 9th century progressed, they maintained a conservative foreign policy, with the goal of simply capitlizing on their position and avoiding any disasters.

First, the Abbasids moved their capital to Fustat, one of the previous territorial capitals of Egypt. Staying in Damascus left their position far too vulnerable to the Fatimids, should war resume, and the Abbasids knew they could not afford to lose their capital to invaders again. Fustat was secure, upriver of the Nile delta, and in the region of most previous Egyptian capitals, save for Alexandria, which was typically distrusted for its strong Christian leanings. The Abbasids also invested greatly in the Nile, re-opening the canal that linked the river to the Red Sea, that had been neglected for nearly a century.

Second, the Abbasids did their best to maintain good ties with not only the Romans, but the Fatimids, as well. If the circumstances under which they now lived required triangulation, then they would triangulate the hell out of their political position. As the wealth of trade resumed, after their defeat, the Abbasids would make sure to keep both Rome and Baghdad happy with the status quo. If that meant tribute, then so be it. The wealth of Egypt and Syria could bear tribute, and, in any case, controlling the mid-point of the trade between the Roman Republic and the Fatimid Caliphate, and all the lands to the east meant that much of that tribute simply ended up back in the hands of Abbasid merchants, whose taxes would end up paying a fair share of that tribute. Nor were the Abbasids unwilling to side with either power in their coming disputes, to whatever extent they thought they could keep a balance of power in the region.

Third, the Abbasids made new friends where they could. This was largely to the south, where the Nubian kingdoms of Makuria and Alodia, lay, and further beyond, to the kingdom of Ethiopia. The Nubians already had a treaty with their Muslim neighbors, the Baqt, which had secured the peace between Nubia and Muslim Egypt, and ensured a free flow of trade goods. The Abbasids expanded this arrangement to include the Ethiopians, who were in the process of recovering from the fall from grace of their prior capital of Axum. The Nubians and Ethiopians had nowhere near the population of Egypt or Syria, nor the wealth. However, they did have plenty of soldiers available, whose isolation from the wealth to their north tended to produce hardier and more disciplined men.

So, the Abbasids relied on both shipments of slaves from the south, and the hiring of mercenaries, when the slaves were not enough, from those same regions, to bolster their military force. It would not be long before the most elite units in the Caliphs armies were black Nubians and Ethiopians, and almost all were Christian. This stronger military gave some teeth to the otherwise pacific foreign policy pursued by the Caliphate. Similar to how the Fatimids had sponsored pirates in the Indian Ocean to plunder the merchants of the enemies, the Abbasids sponsored the Ethiopians to rebuild their greatly diminished navy, to protect those very merchants from the pirates that now plagued the ocean. This policy was largley successful in the reaches of the Red Sea, and, though it was not as successful in the greater ocean, it did provide the Ethiopians cover to raid the small Emirates on the Horn of Africa that did not cooperate with the new orders coming from Fustat. If the Ethiopians happened to take something for their efforts, well, that was just the cost of enforcing the Caliph's peace.

These measures largely kept the Abbasids free from further decline, and, in the 9th century, few lands were as peaceful and prosperous as those ruled by the Abbasid Caliphs. Of course, nothing can last forever, and the serenity of that century would be no exception.

End

Back to back updates. Its what you get when I'm on a small vacation.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Roman Anti-Piracy Campaigns

As the 9th century dawned, the Roman Republic had gone nearly a decade without any major wars, after the close of the recent rebellion in Italy. Other than border skirmishes, the state was at relative peace, allowing for its farmers to grow, its merchants to trade, and its soldiers to drill, without serious external disruptions. The government in Constantinople continued to keep a wary eye to their neighbors, and further afield, as well. At the time, their main concern was balancing the power of the Franks and of the Abbasids, while also combating piracy in the Mediterranean.

To both ends, they formalized an alliance with the distant power in the west, the Imamate of Cordoba, that now ruled most of the former Roman province of Hispania. This allowed both states to present a united front against the growth of the Frankish Empire to their north, and focus their attentions towards their own ends. The Senate in Constantinople began debating just how to curb the scourage of piracy that afflicted their western territories, with the reports from Italy and Sicily detailing the ravages of the Berbers and Arabs of North Africa, who had grown increasingly threatening, without a central authority to reign them in. There were a half dozen statelets between the Straits of Gibraltar and the Abbasid borders, each vying with each other for power and plying the seas in search of victims to attack.

Before the Republic truly began to pursue a coordinated policy against those pirates, the Fatimid-Abbasid war resumed in full force, and it was quickly obvious that the Fatimids were going to get the better of the conflict. The Republic was supportive of the efforts by the Armenians to wrest their independence from the Abbasid Caliphate that precipitated the war, and also wanted to take full advantage of the opportunity to expand their own borders.

This this end, the commanders of the Armeniakon and Anatolikon themes, named Leo and Maurikios, respectively, mobilized their troops, and called on soldiers from the other themes in the Republic, to attack their neighboring regions in AD 805. Leo began sieging frontier fortresses in Abbasid-held Armenia, both to assist the rebels and to make sure that the post-war border was as favorable to the Republic as could be. Maurikios, meanwhile, launched attacks into Cilicia, where the Romans had previously failed to oust the Abbasids. Neither force encountered anywhere near the oppostion that the Republic had seen in their prior campaign, and the decision was made to gamble on the opportunity to recapture Antioch. Leon's force was re-directed to reinforce the Amonos mountains, that formed the southeastern border of Cilicia, while Maurikios would attack the city that was one of the most revered in all of Christianity. The final siege of the city was relatively anti-climactic, with the defenders negotiating a surrender quickly, reserving the right to leave, fully armed, to join the fight against the Fatimids to their south. So, it was, in early AD 806, that the Roman Republic had expanded its borders with such ease that the earlier struggles seemed almost laughable.

The Republic could have pressed their advantage further, but they were now bordering the newly ascendent Fatimid Caliphate, and they did not want to extend that border any further than need be. For the time, the Abbasids and Armenians would be quite helpful as buffer states, so overtures were sent to their former enemies in Damascus that there should be peace between the Romans and Abbasids. Whether the Republic could have beaten the Fatimids to the punch of toppling the that realm would have to remain unknown, as the Fatimids, cautious at the prospect of fighting both powers to their west, settled for their current conquests.

This renewed peace in the east allowed the Republic to pivot once more to their western concerns in the Mediterranean. Prepration was made similiar to a major campaign against a great rival empire, and the strategists in the capital poured over every source they had on the campaigns of Pompey against the Cilician pirates, nearly a millennium prior. The ultimate decision made was to sieze whatever key cities were necessary to support anti-piracy measures in their respective regions, without focusing on any major territorial expansion. If the sea lanes were safe, the Republic would be satisfied.

Ironically, however, the early targets of the Republic's efforts to quell piracy were, as it turned out, conquered in a total territorial sense. Though far less organized than their North African brethren, the fact remained that Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearics were all in the hands of Muslim rulers who recognized no outside authority, and who made up for their lack of resources with near perfect positioning to prey on the Christians of Europe. This would not do, and so the Republic moved in force to invade each of the regions and totally suppress the raiders. Sardinia fell in AD 810, Corsica the year after, and the Balearics in AD 813. The conquests of the territories were facilitated by the strong Latin and Christian population that resided on the islands, who were all too happy to see their homelands reclaimed by the auspices of the Roman State, after nearly a century of foreign rule.

The Berber and Arab raiders of North Africa, however, would prove more difficult. The Republic simply did not want to expend the resources necessary to launch major campaigns deep into the hinterlands of North Africa, which was likely to entail endless fighting in hot desert mountains. So, the Republic stuck to its focus on the major coastal cities. By controlling areas that were both bases of operation for piracy and the markets in which the pirates would sell their ill-gotten gains, the Romans hoped to starve their enemies out of their pursuits. What followed was a series of port sieges, a type of warfare that the Roman Republic had grown increasingly sophisticated. Tunis fell in AD 814, Tripoli and Susa (formerly Hadrumentum) in AD 815. In AD 817, Annaba (formerly Hippo Regius, home of the esteemed Church Father, St. Augustine) came under Roman control, with Tingis falling shortly after. There were a variety of other coastal sites that the Romans garrisoned, largely ruined ports that had not survived the waves of invasions that had swept across North Africa, such as Septum and Icosium, but still made excellent hideouts for brigans. The garrisons would eventually form the cores of future cities that would re-emerge.

Other than their campaigns along the coasts, the Romans did their best to remain on good terms with the Berbers and Arabs living further inland. They maintained a policy of relative free trade, allowing business to continue on as it had before. They also heavily fortified their new posessions, while also regularly supplying them, making sieges almost impossible to maintain against the Roman garrisons. And the classic tactic of divide and conquer was utilized, just absent the 'conquer' part. The Romans did their best to keep the Arabs and Berbers living outside their new cities at odds with each other, and did everything they could to stoke the ethnic and religious tensions between the various groups, which was hardly a challenging task.

By the close of the second decade of the ninth century, the Roman Republic could stand satisfied that it now firmly controlled the sealanes of the Mediterranean. Perhaps not as firmly as it had at the height of its power, but the only other powers along the coasts were now large states which could be relied upon to honor trade agreements and the international laws of the sea.

End

Just as a heads up, Septum is Ceuta, and Icosium is Algiers.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Death of Drogo

Drogo, first as King of the Franks, and then as Emperor, ruled over the realm known as Francia since AD 771, and, by and large, he ruled it quite effectively. It was a powerful realm at his ascension, but he brought the Franks to new heights that had never even been dreamed of before his rule. The Frankish realm stretched from the Pyrennes, to the Po Valley of Italy, up to the Elbe river, and across the English Channel. Beyond that, the various tribes between the Elbe and Oder rivers all paid homage, to varying degrees, to the might of Drogo and the Franks, while the petty Anglo-Saxon kings died likewise. Drogo oversaw the independence of the Christian Church within his realm from the political control of the Romans, while still paying them respect, while the Franks and Romans became increasingly at odds, politically.

Drogo was an Emperor in both name and fact, and his passing in AD 818 marked the end of an era. Never again would the Franks be quite as unified and threatening to their neighbors, and, from his death onward, it was towards the maintenance of their empire that they directed their energies. It cannot be under estimated just how critical the Frankish custom of dividing inheritance was to the coming disunity, just as it had been debilitating for the Merovingian monarchs of old. Drogo knew this, but knew that his power was not absolute, and there was only so far he could go, even as Emperor.

At his death, he had three legitimate sons that the realm would be divided between, and Drogo did his best to both honor their rights as his heirs, while also keeping the realm stable. To his youngest heir, Alfred, went the lands generally east of the Rhine river, as well as the Po Valley, with the tribes beyond expected to pay homage to him. To the middle heir, Lothair, went the lands of Aquitaine and Burgundy, along with small marches in the Pyrennes between the Franks and the Imamate of Cordoba and Kingdom of Asturias. To the eldest heir, Charles, went to the title of Emperor and the bulk of the Frankish heartlands of Austria and Neustria, as well as Kent and Frisia, and the fealty of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Thus, each brother bordered each of the others, each had a sizable realm of their own, and allies outside of the realm proper of their own, but Charles' position was ever so slightly greater than either of his brothers', even before their fealty as Kings to him as Emperor were considered.

However, Charles was not his father, and, whereas Drogo had the good fortune for his own brothers to meet untimely ends at the most convenient time for himself, Charles' brothers settled in to rule their kingdoms under his auspices, with each of Drogo's sons setting about their own goals. Charles wanted to tighten his control over the Anglo-Saxons, seeing England as a secure base from which to project his own power over his brothers. Alfred wanted to do similarly to the Slavic tribes beyond the Elbe, in order to preserve his rule. Lothair's goals were less dramatic, and he focused mainly on infrastructure and building within his territory, in order to maintain his autonomy from his elder brother.

It was not long, however, before the three brothers were at odds with each other, and open warfare between the sons of Drogo broke out in AD 825, first as Alfred attempted to totally break from the rule of Charles, and Lothair eventually joined in on the rebellion. The rebel brothers found some encouragement in the increase in raids along the coasts of Charles' realm by men from the North, who became known as Vikings within short order. For the time being, they were still more of a nuisance than anything else, but they did afflict Charles' territory far more than his brothers'.

Charles was not without his own advantages, and he took advantage of them. The eldest of the brothers was not as ruthless as his father had been, but that did not mean he was not calculating. He'd done his best to improve relations with the Roman Republic upon his ascension to the Imperial throne, and his deft diplomacy had paid off. His envoys had hammered out the disputes between the Republic and the Franks regarding the Frankish Imperial pretensions and their recently-declared religious autonomy. Both were settled, in form, in favor of the Franks, with the legal technicalities favoring the Republic. In addition to being so generous to this new Frankish Emperor, the Roman Republic also offered to assist him in case of a rebellion on the part of either of his brothers. It was a truly magnanimous offer on the part of the Romans, to send their armies into Northern Italy and secure the Alpine passes against both Lothair and Alfred. Though, on paper, Charles would lose one of the most valuable parts of his empire once the Romans moved their forces into the one part of Italy they did not control, it was not as though Charles saw a single soldier or a single coin of tax from Italy, once Alfred rebelled.

So, as Alfred and Lothair began attacking Charles' territory, the Roman Republic began to attack northern Italy, marching up the Po Valley to the alpine forts that guarded the Frankish heartlands from any possible invaders to the south. Such as the Romans. As the Republic moved its armies into the valley, they faced little resistance in the field of battle, though a few cities held out against prolonged sieges, such as Milan and Pavia. However, most of the major settlements simply waited to see how the war would end, and this dis-interest enabled Rome's armies to focus on securing the Alpine passes, and then worry about their rear. Other than this invasion, the Republic did not involve itself in the civil war between Drogo's heirs, and simply maintained a sizable army to threaten to the rebels.

Alfred took the loss of Italy poorly, as it was, by far, the most valuable part of his portion of the Empire. However, he still had the bulk of his army, and fought on. However, neither side could truly gain much on the opposition. Charles' position was still stronger than his brothers', but, together, they outnumbered him. As the fighting wore on, and the armies were supported more by raiding than anything else, the nominal Emperor had enough. In AD 829, Charles agreed to effectively recognize his brothers' independence, if they recognized his title and nominal authority. Alfred and Lothair agreed to pay Charles tribute, but, otherwise, they had complete and utter independence. Even this nominal fealty would not last their deaths, and the next generation of Frankish rulers would be entirely independent of each other. Drogo's Empire would be truly dead, even if the title lived on.

End

 

[DominusNovus]

Petar the Pious, King of Bulgaria

In AD 806, the Khan of the Bulgar people, Tervel died, leaving the realm to his half-Greek son, Petar (or, as his mother called him, Petros). Petar was a capable young man in his own right, and had great visions for how to govern the vast realm that dominated the bulk of the Danubian drainage basin, from the Black Sea to Frankish Bavaria. Petar was, as his name suggests, a Christian, and his mother had been a fundamental force in his upbringing, determined that her pagan husband's heir would be a devout follower of Christ. She was quite successful in this regard, and, for that, both she and her son would eventually be canonized as saints.

Tervel was fully aware of his son's religious inclinations, and did not object. In fact, the canny Khan had used the inevitable Christianization of his khanate as a powerful diplomatic tool, discouraging either the vast Frankish or Roman states from attacking his still-pagan people. However, Tervel did not wish to alienate the warrior elite of his people, and impressed upon his son and heir that, when he came into power, that he should not bring his new faith upon the Bulgars by force or other heavy-handed measures. That would only divide the land and make them weak and vulnerable to invasion; he reminded his son that the Bulgars had many more neighbors besides the Christians to their west and south.

So it was, when Petar was crowned as Khan, he adopted a conciliatory policy to the many pagans in his land, promising to respect their rights and privileges and not force any man to join the true faith - though he impressed upon them that his sincere hope for their salvation that many would join of their own free will. The warriors and nobles of the Bulgars, the various smaller slavic tribes that his father had subjugated, and the remains of the Avars that had been brought into the Bulgar government, all were almost universally pagan. The Christians were largely in the south, in the small towns and cities that had been settled by Romans and Greeks for a millennium by this time. Some were slavic or slavicized, some where Greek, some were Latin speakers of one form or another. They were the more civilized parts of his empire, and Petar was inclined to favor them over others in his government, an impulse he had to moderate throughout his reign.

Petar's first goal as a Christian monarch was to establish a truly Bulgarian Church. Not just a church for the Latins or Greeks or Bulgars, but one that was united in practice. He invited envoys from the church in the Roman Republic and the Frankish Empire to bring missionaries to help him organize his new church. The Romans, of course, wanted it to be subordinate to the Roman church, and the Franks, while not expecting to be able to subordinate this new church under their own authority, strongly wished that it would be autonomous, as their own church was. Petar favored the Frankish approach, but wanted to keep close ties to the Romans, so he negotiated a limited form of autonomy for his church. Administratively, the Bulgarian church would fall under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, but they would have their own Archbishop as an intermediary, and they were able to develop their own rite, so that they could worship and spread the Gospel in their own way.

It was this decision that led to the creation of an entirely new language, Slavonic. It was an attempt to make a mutually intelligible written language for the various slavic people - not just in the lands of the Bulgars, but beyond, to their north, in many smaller tribes little influenced by either the Bulgars or the Franks. The language was written in a modified version of the Latin alphabet, and borrowed from both Latin and Greek where needed, but, as much as possible, the missionaries preferred to use language familiar to the Bulgars and the Slavs (a very small number of words from the Bulgar's original Turkic language were included in Slavonic). Once the Bible was translated into Slavonic and missionaries were taught in it, Petar commissioned them to preach to the common people the Gospel. He hoped that, if the leader of the Bulgars and the common people of the Bulgars were united in one faith, that the nobility would come around, as well.

However, even as Petar was engrossed in the project of designing a new language and church for his people, his realm was not entirely at peace. A semi-sedentary civilization like the Bulgars was often held together only by force of will, and Petar was a young untested monarch. It was only natural that the more peripheral parts of his territory would test him. The first to try were the slavic tribes living south of the Danube, where his father had spent so many years subjugating the hill people between the Bulgar lands and the Roman coast. Though their lands were relatively poor, the trade routes to the Adriatic were vital to the Bulgar economy, and Petar could not afford to lose control of the region. So, he assembled his forces and began to remind the local tribal leaders of the might of the Bulgar Khanate. It was around the time of this first rebellion, in AD 809, that the idea of a Bulgar Khanate began to give way to the idea of a Bulgarian Kingdom.

Petar was methodical in his campaign. His first goal was to ensure that a series of secure routes to the Adriatic would be maintained, so his early battles were fast and risky affairs, as he determined to not lose a single year of trade to the rebels. Once that was achieved, Petar campaigned much more cautiously, focusing on only a few tribes at a time, broadening the narrow corridors to the sea that he had bloodily blazed through the tribal lands. All in all, the entire rebellion lasted almost 5 years, but it was not time wasted by the young King. He rewarded those few tribes that stayed loyal with wealth and titles. Those who fought found their leadership removed and replaced with younger scions that happened to be amenable to Petar's faith - he had said that he would respect the faith of the tribal elders, but that only applied to loyal tribes. In a land so unruly, it was hard for his work to stay done, and many tribes overthrew his appointed leaders when he left, or some even renounced Christianity. But, Petar was undeterred, and finally, by the spring of AD 815, he could be confident that the Balkan territories in his realm were pacified, and largely Christian.

However, despite having proven himself on the field of battle, Petar's challenges were not over. With his attention drawn to the south, and with all the resources he spent there, he was weakened in the face of the latest threat, as a rival claimant to the throne was raised up by the still largely pagan nobility of the Bulgars. This rival, Kardam, brought many to his cause, and was either a bastard brother of Petar, or of Tervel. Regardless, Petar went from wrapping up a rebellion in AD 815 to fighting a civil war in AD 817. The new uprising started with an attempt on his life, which failed, but did succeed in killing his beloved mother, Anastasia.

The civil war raged for 3 years, and its battles were far larger affairs than the brush fire fighting that Petar had engaged in while in the Balkans. However, though Petar was not without his own defeats in this war, he maintained one key advantage: in any of his defeats, he and his best commanders were always able to remove themselves and their best troops from the battle. Conversely, the pretenders lost many of their best generals in reckless attacks, even in the battles they won. Such disparities in attrition for the leadership of a war were most crucial in these sorts of conflicts: if Petar or Kardam died, the war was over. If either side's supporters died, they would be replaced by loyalists of the victorious faction. In point of fact, that is what happened. Supposedly, in the final battle of the war, in AD 820, Petar personally slew Kardam in single combat, and a dozen of his retainers were also killed. Though the battle itself was small, it was the conclusion of a decade of violence, and Petar was happy to rebuild his kingdom.

Of course, now, the nobility counted far more Christians among them. A fair number of the loyalists had been Christian before the war, the pretenders had been replaced, and others had simply converted to ease any concerns of their loyalty. Petar, now having time to actually govern instead of fight, threw himself into his passion of spreading Christianity. And, ironically enough, that would eventually lead to the third uprising he faced.

As Petar's realm was consolidated and he saw that, day by day, more and more of the population was embracing the new faith, he began to look outward. He sent missionaries to the north, beyond the Carpathians, all the way to the Baltic coast. He sent missionaries to the east, into the Magyar and Khazar lands. Petar maintained a expansionistic policy on religion, but he had no intent of spreading his faith by the sword, both because he found the notion repugnant on a theological level, and because he knew how troublesome that very idea had proven for the Franks.

It was this reluctance that ultimately led to the final war that Petar faced. While he had been quite successful in winning over converts among the entire population, from the common farmer to the warrior elite, those same warriors had not abandoned their martial outlook on the world. They had fought for plunder and glory before. In the civil war, they fought for Christ and King... and maybe some plunder and glory. However, Petar was firm that they would not invade their neighbors and force them to the Truth. And the grumblings began. And grew for 12 years, before, in AD 832, after a series of insults from tribes such as the northern Croats, the Sorbs, and the Magyars, the prickly pride of the Bulgarian warriors would not accept the passivity of their king. They rose up and kidnapped him, and demanded that he lead them into the battle against their pagan neighbors.

Petar refused, and was confined to a small keep until he relented. However, many were opposed to the treatment of the king, and, in the fall of that same year, Petar's supporters were able to free him, and Petar gathered up the soldiers loyal to him. He offered some small concessions to the rebels, but maintained his policy of peaceful relations with the neighboring lands. It was not enough for the rebels, and the final war of his reign began. It was short, not even 2 years long, but it exhausted that Bulgarians, with many of their best leaders killed in the fighting. Petar had emerged triumphant again, but he was shaken by all the carnage. He retreated further and further into his theological studies, and relinquished much of the administration of his kingdom to key members of the court, such as his queen, Maria, and his heir, Georgi.

Petar would died in AD 839, after 3 decades of rule. He had successfully Christianized the Bulgars, transformed them into the Bulgarians, and maintained peace on his borders. However, the wars he fought within his land weakened the military caste of the state, and left it vulnerable. He would be beloved by the people for generations afterward, and all of his failures as a king would be blamed - not entirely unjustly - on those within Bulgaria who could not accept his moderate reforms.

End

For the record, Slavonic in this timeline is similar, but not identical, to Old Church Slavonic. No Cyrillic alphabet, just the Latin alphabet with a few extra characters, and more Latin influence. I based this on the idea that the Latin and Greek parts of the Roman church are more unified, and, well, Rome is the senior See of the Christian faith. Plus, the existing Christian populations in the Danube basin were largely Latin speaking (most of Bulgar territory in this timeline is north of the Jirecek line that divides Latin and Greek).

 

[DominusNovus]

The Viking Age

The 9th century saw the rise of various seafaring raiders from Scandinavia, collectively known as the Vikings. Their earliest recorded raids in Western Europe took place in the waning years of the prior century, but it was in the 9th century that they truly become a force that shaped history. The collapse of the vast Frankish Empire provided fertile soil in which the Viking raiders could prosper.

It was the north-sea focused territory of the nominal Emperor of the Franks (his territory became known as that of the Northern Franks) that bore the brunt of Viking attacks. Charles, the eldest heir of Drogo the Great, died in AD 834, and was succeeded by his son, Pepin. Pepin had spent much of his childhood in the Anglo-Saxon parts of his father's realm, and some historians have accused him of focusing too much attention on defending the island, to the detriment of his continental holding. Whether this is fair or not, both Britain and northern Francia suffered heavily from the raids. Pepin died in battle, fighting against a raider known as Sigurd, in AD 838, and was succeeded by his brother, Herbert. Between the death of their monarch, and the continued raids of the Vikings, the Northern Franks were certainly down on their luck.

The Western Franks, under the reign of Charles the White (son of Lothair), who ruled the southwestern portions of Drogo's empire, opportunistically attacked their brethren, taking many of the continental holdings of the theoretical Emperor. The historical lands of Neustria, one of the homelands of the Franks of old, with its great city of Paris, fell to Charles, who quickly made the city his own capital, and he began work on fulfilling what he saw as the natural borders of his Frankish territory: the sea, the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Rhine. However, as Charles continued to push further and further north, he himself had to deal with more and more of the same Viking raiders that had plagued his cousins Pepin and Herbert. In a historical irony, Charles also died fighting the Vikings, in AD 844, leaving behind a son in his minority, Drogo.

The Eastern Franks actually came out the best of all the Frankish states from the early period of the Viking raids. They'd suffered greatly when they lost Northern Italy to the Romans, and had only relatively poor lands to govern after that defeat. But, that made them less appealing of a target to the Vikings, and, indeed, there were never be any great raids east of the Rhine that came near rivaling that which Britain and Gaul had to suffer. As Alfred, the youngest of Drogo the Great's sons, saw his kin fighting the Vikings, he saw more opportunity than the other Carolingian monarchs had. While Charles the White of Western Francia simply invaded when Vikings were distracting his rival, Alfred actually entered into negotiations with the Vikings. He sought alliances with them, and offered them the rights to lands within his territories. Of course, those territories he offered them weren't under his control at the time, but surely the Vikings would not mind helping right that wrong.

So, as the Western and Northern Franks both reeled from the raids, the Eastern Franks backed a more permanent settlement of Vikings in their lands. From Frisia in the east to the Cotentin Peninsula (Normandy) in the west, a near unbroken string of Viking fiefdoms sprouted along the coast during the middle decades of the 9th century, all under the suzerainty of Alfred and, later, his son, Henry. However, this control was, as with so many other notions of fealty at the time, nominal, at best. All the Eastern Franks reliably got out of these coastal Viking settlements was a series of buffer states.

The chaos of all this period would actually spell the doom of the Western Frankish Kingdom. With Vikings settling in lands on the coast, their capital at Paris was under constant threat. The Western Franks attempted to push the invaders back to the sea, but a series of defeats led many to conclude that the Vikings were there to stay. The Bretons, never brought into the Frankish fold, allied with some Vikings and invaded eastward, taking land down to Tours. What truly doomed the Western Franks was that the heartland of their state, southern Aquitaine, rebelled in AD 851, under the leadership of a charismatic duke, Robert.

Robert governed from the city of Toulouse, and led many disaffected southerners who had grown disillusioned with the northern focus of the past several decades. They were content to let the half-barbarian northerners fight over who would rule Paris and the North Sea, they stated that they wanted to just be left alone so they could tend to their vineyards and sell to the gradually re-civilizing markets along the Mediterranean. Accordingly, Robert sought the support of Cordoba and Constantinople in his bid for independence, and both states were more than happy to see the Frankish realm fragment just a little more. To add legitimacy to his rebellion, the Pope offered to crown Robert as King of Aquitania, so long as he brought the administration of his Church back under Roman authority. Robert gladly paid such a small price for his crown. The rebellion was over as soon as it started, simply because there was almost no real resistance to Robert's cause in the south, and the north was too weak to stop them. The southern third of Gaul, with Toulouse and Lyon as its great centers, was now independent as Aquitania (though the territory did not perfectly align with the previous territories of Aquitaine).

In summation, the Vikings were a key catalyst in the total upending of the Frankish political order, and that was in the first half century of their arrival on the world stage. They raided and travelled far beyond just the lands of the Franks, and settled in places such as Scotland and Ireland. There were raids against Asturias and Navarra, but the big prizes were the lands of Cordoba and the Roman Republic. However, these two states were far more organized, and had far better navies than the Franks had. Though the Vikings would launch many raids on the Western Mediterranean coastal cities, and often profited greatly from those raids, they never held even a fraction of the sway they did in the lands of the Franks. Their greatest influence on the government of Constantinople would be that of the Vikings that would settle in the eastern slavic lands, where they could become known as the Varangians, or the Rus. These Vikings would occasionally raid the Black Sea coasts, but, more often than not, simply arrived in Roman lands as traders.

End

The more I wrote this, the more I realized I wasn't really focusing on the Vikings. The problem with them is that, in general, they're pretty much a force that is pretty similar no matter how you nudge the parameters around. In other words, if the history is remotely recognizable, the Vikings are going to stay more or less the same. So, I started focusing on the domino effect they had on the Franks.

 

[DominusNovus]

Developments in the Roman Republic

As the various realms bordering the Roman Republic experienced convulsions of one form or another in the early years of the 9th century, the Romans did their best to maintain stability in their own realm. This was not to say that they did not make efforts to expand their territory and influence, with the conquest of Cilicia and Antioch during the Fatimid-Abbasid war, and the conquest of Northern Italy during the Frankish civil war. Further, the Romans also re-established a presence in North Africa during these years, though they confined their presence to the coastal ports. However, beyond these notable conquests, the Roman state was hesitant to over-extend themselves at this point.

Internally, they were aware of their organization of their Republic was still undergoing various evolutions, and they were not united on how to handle these changes. The fundamentals of this second Roman Republic were fairly well established, having over a century of pedigree by this era, but the particulars were hotly debated. There was much dispute over the balance between the military and civilian aspects of the goverment, and the competing drives of centralization and decentralization.

Though the government afforded great political power to the themes, in allocating the election of the chief magistracy to the thematic armies, the leaders in Constantinople were constantly afraid of the centrifugal forces that affording too much power to the outlying regions could have. To this end, they were determined to make Constantinople itself the beating heart of the Republic. This was a relatively easy task, considering the massive population of the city and its strategic location, but additional nudges to prominence were welcome. Every political career started and ended in the capital, with all important positions, ceremonial and practical, centered on the city. The Church hierarchy was the notable exception to this, with the Pope in Rome outranking the Patriarch in Constantinople, but the Patriarch was the only individual that could challenge the authority of the government.

The state embraced a relatively cynical policy of awarding high salaries to almost every position of note. These salaries were an enticement for the ambitious members of Roman society to ingratiate themselves into the urban fabric of Constantinople, knitting them into the state, rather than seek their fame and fortune out in the peripheral regions, where they might forget their loyalty to the state. Of course, bribery and corruption was rampant, but that was par for the course, and even expected; if up and comers were bribing Senators in Constantinople, they weren't bribing commanders on the frontier. Further, a sizable portion of the corruption still ended up in the state coffers, mitigating the costs of the salaries.

While this general practice ameliorated the conflict between centralization and decentralization, the military dominance of the elections was proving problematic as the Republic began to push its borders outward. When every territory under Roman control was at risk of foreign raids and invasions, it made sense to call up all able bodied men and enfranchise them in return for service. However, as more and more territory became insulated from danger, the thematic system of elections began to break down. Conscription in the interior territories dropped year after year, as many farmers were willing to forego the vote in order to spend more time working their farms - farms that were safe regardless of their own service. This meant that the interior themes were represented in the elections equal to their border brethren, despite having fractions of the actual armies.

The Republic looked back to the old practice of contracting out much of the governmental functions to publicani, during the classical era, for a solution. The interior regions were still locations of signicant government action, particular in regards to infrastructure. The state began to outsource contracts to build roads, walls, canals, fortifications, supplying the armies, and other such projects, to various companies. Anyone that worked for a company that entered into one of these government contracts was enfranchised just as though they were in the thematic army itself. These companies would compete vigorously for the contract, knowing that they could pay their workers less, as agents of the government. A nearly identical dynamic emerged in the coastal regions, where the government contracted out various merchant houses for long-term shipments of bulk goods, such as grain, lumber, and other essentials to the state.

End