[Rome Query] - Possible Alternate Byzantium?

I've been playing around with some different diversion possibilities in a sort of ASB setting mixing together a lot of my individual musings. One that's recently come into play as a result of the excellent From Exile to Triumph timeline is the possibility of the Roman Empire undergoing the Migrations and subsequent Islamic period and only holding onto Dacia, Dalmatia-and-Illyria, Greece and Italy as their mainland holdings, along with islands such as Corsica, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, etc.. with outlying regions like Africa, Anatolia, Armenia, Egypt, Gaul, Hispania, Palestina and Syria falling to outsider forces like the Arabs, Armenians, Germans, Slavs or Persians. At least until the 900s or so, anyway.

First of all, is something like this possible, or too dependent on a careful construction of butterflies at the right moments to keep things from not collapsing entirely or rebounding too quickly?

Secondly, what could be some of the more interesting cultural, ethnic and linguistic developments of this more contiguous empire, with elements like the Goths and Lombards either repelled or assimilated entirely.

How would the Church develop, in a situation where the Roman Emperors only possess Rome and none of the eastern seats? Would it be entirely under the authority of the Emperor as per caesaropapism or would some sort of Papacy or Patriarchy still exist?

Would Latin retain a stronger hold over the Illyrian region in the long term, and successfully replace Greek in Greece proper? Perhaps leaving Greek as a legacy of whoever holds Anatolia, Egypt and the Fertile Crescent (Greco-Armenians, perhaps?), while Greece itself is better Latinized?

Socio-politically, could the Senate in anyway make a comeback? I know the Roman Senate wasn't worth much at the end (and the Byzantine one even less), but any possibilities? In a situation where Rome has lost most of their eastern territories, just how valuable is Greece proper to the empire as a recruiting and tax base?

Any other critiques or ideas on the possibility and potential ramifications would be most appreciated.
 
First of all thank you, it’s always a pleasure to know that people enjoy reading my timeline. Now back to the topic:

Basically you want a “central” roman empire that includes the european territories of the original “Praefecture of Italia, Africa and Illyricum” (I’m not sure if your Dacia refers to Classical Dacia or “Serbian” Dacia) and personally I think this is really feasible. Since you didn’t specified any particular conditions, our POD could be located anywhere from the III to the VII century. A couple of examples could be a failed “restitutor orbis” or alternatively a more successful Constans.

Culturally speaking this would be a majority latin-speaking empire centered around Italy and the Adriatic. A good capital for this empire would be either Ravenna or Thessalonika, Rome could even retain its status but I would rule out Constantinople (assuming someone found the city) since it would be too exposed to any threat coming from Asia. Control of the sea would be crucial for the empire.

Religiously speaking I think the church would go the “orthodox” way (assuming a post Constantine POD). Rome would not be the only patriarchate controlled by the emperor since Greece and its patriarch are still loyal to Rome. A christian neighbour in the east would probably ensure some relevance to Jerusalem Antioch and Alexandria but the emperors would still probably follow the OTL theological path were Chalcedonianism prevail over the eastern branches of Christianity. The organization of this roman church would probably be less pyramidal and hierarchical compared to our Catholic church, since it would be against the interest of the emperor to allow the rise of one bishop over the others. Anyway without the threat of the Lombards, the Pope has no chance to create his own autonomous powerbase in Italy. Of course he wouldn’t be completely subjected to the empire considering that even OTL eastern patriarchs were able to defy the empire and influence events in the capital (Cerularius).

Even with a majority latin-speaking empire, I don't think the Romans would ever try to enforce the use of the latin language:

1) They never something like did this before;

2) Greek is a prestigious language culturally and religiously;

3) It would facilitate contact and trade with the lost hellenized region of the East;

4) Despite the use of their own language, the Greeks are by now completely romanized and thus they don’t pose any threat to the political unity of the empire.

About the Senate, probably I’m a little bit biased here since, as you probably already know, I see the Senate as the the ideological heart of the empire. Anyway I think that without the Gothic war, the Senators would be able to retain their influence over the empire, considering the amount of lands and wealth they controlled throughout the empire and probably they would hold a sort of monopoly over the administrative offices in Italy. About Greece is all up to the POD you choose, before and after the slavic invasion of Greece: the former would allow the region to thrive the latter would make the region just a peripheral province of the empire (like OTL Greece represented a secondary concern for Constantinople).
 
I think this is more than possible, it is downright practical. The perfect PoD would be to effectively focus on Europe rather than Anatolia. The judgement being that it is easier to take those territories than retake Anatolia - for now. I think this is probably your common pattern. An Empire that is likely ruled from Constantinople (the Danube is a godsend here) for as long as is tenable before relocating a capital to somewhere near Belgrade, taking easy opportunities like Pannonia, or N.Italy, whilst always wanting to retake the Anatolian Plateau - but not being strong enough, so focusing on "Easy" successes like snatching parts of N.Italy.

What is interesting is the potential of this state to adopt some of the successes of Venice, since it has every chance of actually controlling the lagoon. It controls the easy routes into Central Europe (in many cases BEING central Europe) - and it is likely to tie regions like Georgia far closer to the economies of places like Germany because a secure Danube would be so important. In fact, I'd be willing to take a stab at a rough list of the most important cities (even if it doesn't take Italy).

1) Constantinople (Capital/Bulwark)
2) Noviodunum - major city near the mouth/delta of the Danube.
3) Venice - major trading city for the Western site of the Empire.
4) Belgrade/Alt-Belgrade
5) Buda/Pest
6) (Potentially) Vienna + Bratislava, makes a fantastic western bulwark and these two effectively secure an overland route into Italy, but also protect against moves from Germany and Bohemia.

I don't mean to discount cities off of the Danube - but I don't think it can be overstated how important (and busy) that waterway would be for this Empire. Sure the Adriatic and Aegean are importand for the SW and SE respectively, but for the heartlands and north the Danube is its lifeblood, and its connection to the Med.
 
I think the biggest challenge here is the Slav and Bulgar migrations. IOTL they pretty much assumed control over the entirety of the Balkans save the coastlines and approaches to Constantinople. Keeping them on the other side of the Danube could be achieved but I think if we’re talking about the loss of Anatolia, the trauma of the Arab invasions, etc. it would hard to keep a solid hold on the Danube frontier.
 
I think the biggest challenge here is the Slav and Bulgar migrations. IOTL they pretty much assumed control over the entirety of the Balkans save the coastlines and approaches to Constantinople. Keeping them on the other side of the Danube could be achieved but I think if we’re talking about the loss of Anatolia, the trauma of the Arab invasions, etc. it would hard to keep a solid hold on the Danube frontier.
The loss of Illyricum was a consequences of Justinian’s failure/unwillingness to defend the region and Justin’s failure to understand the importance of peace with Persia yet Maurice showed that the region was not completely lost for the empire as his campaign could have saved the Balkans.

The loss of Anatolia would be immensely compensated by Italy and Illyricum, the former would ideally provide the money while the latter would provide the manpower (or alternatively the Romans could always resort to the use of foederati).
 
Perhaps to add a little more context regarding the eastern frontiers to have something to work with? Keep in mind this was a mishmash of ASB stuff to stick to certain rails:

My mentality was that Rome initially loses those territories in first and third centuries, with Arsacid Armenia pushing into Anatolia proper to serve as a buffer state to their Parthian cousins, plus some free populaces like Galatia or what have you. The Fertile Crescent would be under a mix of native (Aramean, Jewish, Phoenician) and Parthian rule, and Egypt might be ruled by another Arascid branch or a native dynasty.

This shifts the frontlines of the Persian-Roman conflict closer to the now Roman heartlands, with borders flowing back and forth. As the Sassanids or some alternative possibly rise to the throne, the Arsacids in Armenia and perhaps Egypt are more aligned with Rome and considered a peaceful frontier as they deal with Germanic migrations going into the third and fourth centuries, as well as internal issues and difficulties in controlling outlying regions like Britannia. With areas like Africa, Gaul and Iberia gradually being populated by Germanic tribes, Rome has their hands full to really change the realities in Western Africa and Asia. By the 500s and 600s, Christian and Pagan Arab Migrations would be occurring, earlier than the OTL Islamic wave, first into Egypt and the Fertile Crescent before Anatolia-and-Armenia, North Africa and Persia. Which would be at the same time as the Bulgar and Slav migrations into the Balkans, so again Rome has it's hands full. That said, it'd be far less of a conqueror's situation and more of an assimilation wave, with Arab-Berber kingdoms in North Africa, Arab-Egyptian rulers in Egypt, Arabs warrior caste under the Armenians, some sort of native Arab state in Mesopotamia, Arab-Arameans in the Levant...

To be clear, there's a lot of other elements in play for me (significantly surviving Phoenicians, a lot more Christian and religious diversity, Magyar migration into northern Russia, etc...), but this the bare-bone thought patterns.

That said, I'm far more interested in discussing the shape of this different Roman Empire than the specifics of my ASB plotting. :p
 
This probably imply a POD before Alexander Severus/Caracalla. Honestly I would be surprised to see Christianity becoming once again the dominant religion of this “European” Roman empire, with a completely different III century and the loss of the East. Assuming that something similar to the OTL crisis happens (the causes for the crisis would likely still be there), we can’t be totally certain that the empire would adopt the same OTL solution: the new coin, the political and military reorganization under Diocletian-Constantine, the Dominate even the history of the church itself (Donatism) would not be the same here.

If the Romans survives this traumatic III century and the huge Arsacid empire next to his border, then I think that, sooner or later, they would attempt a partial reconquest, since their germanic and arab enemies would probaly be divided and the Romans can’t realistically be constantly at war with the Slavs and the Bulgars. However you really need something drastic to happen in the East during the VI/VII century for the Arsacids/Persians along with the Armenians, Egyptians and alt-Vandals to collapse against the divided Arab tribes.
 
Like I said, ASB galore. I was also thinking Arsacid vs. some sort of Sassanid expy to replace the OTL ruinous Sassanid wars, with Rome in the position of using the Armenians and Egyptians as client state buffers ala the Arab kingdoms. Possibly over a cultural backlash to Christianity or something to effect the dynasty change in Persia proper.

And it wasn't so much collapse as assimilation. Was going to have a Romano-Berner state of some kind welcome them for use against Germanics after they'd already beaten back the Vandals and expelled some sembeleance of the various Roman governors. Berbers getting a chance to be foederati of sorts, before fully spinning off.

That said if Christianity is unlikely to spread in the empire that only makes things more interesting. With the Persian influence once again on Greek borders, perhaps Mithras ascends higher. Or if Rome somehow takes Egypt in their expansion efforts during the western ceasefires, a greater role for the Isis Cult.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to this since there was some interesting discussion regarding cities and waterways. With Anatolia held by either client states or hostile nations, Constantinople might not wind up the capital of the empire for too long or even at all depending on the point of diversion. There was a comment about a location like Belgrade being a potential alternate capital and that's very interesting given that Constantine the Great was said to be born in Naissus, another territory in Serbian borders. So perhaps we might have a situation where Singidunum becomes the alternate Constantinople? It was of course sacked several times after Constantine, with Attila the Hun, Theodoric the Great, the Gepids, Slavs, Avars, White Serbs and Bulgars all trampling through the area, so maybe the defensibility of the area could be in question if alternate Walls of Constantinople aren't built (both Constantinan and Theodosian).

Would a Belgrade! Constantinople be sustainable as a capital of this alternate empire or would there be another city that could be more suitable, perhaps in southern Italy or Epirus?
 
Sirmium would be a good base for military campaigns beyond the Danube (like it was during the IV century with Constantius II) however it would also be too exposed to foreign threats.

However with no Constantinople, probably there wouldn’t be any permanent capital and so the tradition of moving the seat of government where the emperor (or emperors) wishes to spend his time, would continue. So if the emperor wishes to campaign beyond the Danube, then he could temporarily move his capital in any of the Illyrian cities.

Speaking about southern Italy and Epirus the obvious choices would be Syracuse and Thessalonika: not exactly a city of Epirus but with no Constantinople Thessalonika would probably become the greatest city in the region and since Epirus doesn’t have any particular advantage, there wouldn’t be any prompt for the foundation/refoundation of a new city.
 
Sirmium would be a good base for military campaigns beyond the Danube (like it was during the IV century with Constantius II) however it would also be too exposed to foreign threats. However with no Constantinople, probably there wouldn’t be any permanent capital and so the tradition of moving the seat of government where the emperor (or emperors) wishes to spend his time, would continue. So if the emperor wishes to campaign beyond the Danube, then he could temporarily move his capital in any of the Illyrian cities. Speaking about southern Italy and Epirus the obvious choices would be Syracuse and Thessalonika: not exactly a city of Epirus but with no Constantinople Thessalonika would probably become the greatest city in the region and since Epirus doesn’t have any particular advantage, there wouldn’t be any prompt for the foundation/refoundation of a new city.

Would Thessalonika be considered too exposed to eastern threat (even if there is a buffer of Roman or Roman-friendly territory in Asia Minor?). Perhaps Capua in southern Italy could serve purpose as a capital? The idea of a roving capital does sound like a good compromise to Rome proper.
 
Would Thessalonika be considered too exposed to eastern threat (even if there is a buffer of Roman or Roman-friendly territory in Asia Minor?). Perhaps Capua in southern Italy could serve purpose as a capital? The idea of a roving capital does sound like a good compromise to Rome proper.
No more exposed than any other Mediterranean city. No matter what, the Romans need to dominate the sea if they want to keep all those islands while ruling over both Italy and Greece. Probably the island of Crete would help countering any threat coming from the sea.

Why would the emperor move the capital to a city so close to Rome? Capua doesn’t offer anything that Rome already has. Its not a prestigious city, not suited for the needs of the imperial court and not close enough to any important military theater (compared to the alternatives).
 
About the Senate, probably I’m a little bit biased here since, as you probably already know, I see the Senate as the the ideological heart of the empire. Anyway I think that without the Gothic war, the Senators would be able to retain their influence over the empire, considering the amount of lands and wealth they controlled throughout the empire and probably they would hold a sort of monopoly over the administrative offices in Italy.
But the Byzantine Empire was in the time of the Dominate. The Senate had no tangible power except for say key instances when an angry mob in Constantinople riots against an emperor. Diocletian and Constantine destroyed their powers. Diocletian ruled in the fashion of a living god emperor. Constantine ruled in a divine right style absolute monarchy. Though he restored some privileges to the Senate they had no real power. In Constantinople and Rome they were little more than a town council with most of the power deriving from the army's loyalty to the emperor.
 
But the Byzantine Empire was in the time of the Dominate. The Senate had no tangible power except for say key instances when an angry mob in Constantinople riots against an emperor. Diocletian and Constantine destroyed their powers. Diocletian ruled in the fashion of a living god emperor. Constantine ruled in a divine right style absolute monarchy. Though he restored some privileges to the Senate they had no real power. In Constantinople and Rome they were little more than a town council with most of the power deriving from the army's loyalty to the emperor.

As per the title, Byzantium is simple a neat way of saying a remnant of the larger empire. Getting to the geographic point of Greece, Illyria and Italy as the heartlands can mean anything in regards to the actual governance of Rome. Flavius's desire for a renewed Senate wouldn't be any different than the great landholding families of OTL Byzantium.
 
But the Byzantine Empire was in the time of the Dominate. The Senate had no tangible power except for say key instances when an angry mob in Constantinople riots against an emperor. Diocletian and Constantine destroyed their powers. Diocletian ruled in the fashion of a living god emperor. Constantine ruled in a divine right style absolute monarchy. Though he restored some privileges to the Senate they had no real power. In Constantinople and Rome they were little more than a town council with most of the power deriving from the army's loyalty to the emperor.
You’re right about the Senate of Constantinople, where the the rank of senator was basically awarded to anyone who held certain offices or enjoyed the favour of the palace. Different was the situation of the West: inside the Senate of Rome sat some of the wealthiest and most powerful men of the entire Mediterranean world, men who could claim to be related to some of the most prestigious families of the past, had assets scattered all around the empire and sometimes even rivalled with the emperor himself when trying to conquer the heart of the people of the capital with games and patronage.

Avoiding the Gothic war, the persecution suffered by the senators under Totila ( with his anti senatorial policy) and the Lombards, the devastation of their properties in Italy and the loss of those located outside the empire and most importantly the decline of Rome ( to which their fate and prestige was linked), that forced them to flee from the city and sometimes even from Italy, would drastically change the history of the Senate and its interaction with the late/byzantine empire.
 
Top