The ERE falls in 617 - Consequences to the West?

Yesterday I posted a thread about an eventual scenario with a stronger ERE which had avoided the Gothic Wars and thus keep a good shape for dominating Persians and Arabs at later stage.

Today's scenario is just the opposite: what would happen if an ERE more weakened by a harsher and longer Gothic War eventually falls by 617, during the Persian-Roman War (in 617 the Sassanians had captured Chalcedon and they had a good chance for assaulting Constantinople). The Sassanians then subdue the Byzantines and reduce them to a bunch of client states and become the hyperpower of the East (no Arab expansion then).

But which would have been the consequences for the West here?

- Would any Germanic King be tempted to claim the vacant title of Emperor?
- Would the Sassanians venture into Central Europe or it would be too challenging? Would any Germanic power try to capture Constantinople when the Sassanian power in the Balkan area might decline?
- Would the fall of the powerful Eastern Churches boost the hegemony of the Papacy in the Christendom? Would it favor an earlier West-east Schism or rather the opposite?
- Would the Franks expand into the Balkan-Adriatic area? And the Lombards?
- Would a Slavic power rise in the Balkans earlier tan IOTL?

Please comment.
 
Though the idea interests me I don't have the knowledge to give any large contribution. That said I think it's pretty unlikely for the Sassanids to venture into Central Europe, their powerbase was around Mesopotamia/Western Iran, IIRC. Taking out the Romans for good would exhaust them and while they might try to move into Greece if only for the propaganda value, I don't think they would be able to extend their Empire beyond it.
 
Though the idea interests me I don't have the knowledge to give any large contribution. That said I think it's pretty unlikely for the Sassanids to venture into Central Europe, their powerbase was around Mesopotamia/Western Iran, IIRC. Taking out the Romans for good would exhaust them and while they might try to move into Greece if only for the propaganda value, I don't think they would be able to extend their Empire beyond it.

For sure they will not venture into Central Europe right after crushing the Eastern Romans, this would be unnecessarily exhausting. But maybe after one century or two, with their presence in Greece and the southern Balkans well consolidated, they might try if there is not a big opponent.
 
For sure they will not venture into Central Europe right after crushing the Eastern Romans, this would be unnecessarily exhausting. But maybe until one century or two, with their presence in Greece and the southern Balkans well consolidated, they might try if there is not a big opponent.

That would depend on how the other European powers react to the sudden appearance of the Persians in Europe and how well the Sassanids are able to deal with the Arabs. Even in the event of Islam being butterflied, the Arabian peninsula would still be suffering from overpopulation
 
That would depend on how the other European powers react to the sudden appearance of the Persians in Europe and how well the Sassanids are able to deal with the Arabs. Even in the event of Islam being butterflied, the Arabian peninsula would still be suffering from overpopulation

The problem in this scenario is that there is no alternate European power by the 620s:

- The Franks are divided due to the internal fight between Austrasia and Neustria.
- The Lombards, even if they can now take over all Italy after the fall of ERE, are unable to do anything outside Italy.
- The Visigoths are in the same situation of Lombards. Outside Spain, nothing.
- The Avars are maybe the only relevant power in Eastern Europe. They might just keep Persians out of Pannonia, but nothing more.
- The Slavic tribes are still too divided to make anything together.
 
I'd be concerned for all parties here. Europe hasn't really got an opposition to Persia in this scenario, which could lead to a slow and steady conquest.

A Persia that is actually in charge of Greece has the problem that they are now firmly involved in European politics. Vandal raids, Gothic invasions, etc. The forces required to keep Greece under control would make Greece this Persias Britain.

Then we have what might contradict my first statement - Just as the Roman Empire split, I think this Persian Empire would have to split if it goes further west. This isn't the Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamia and Central Asia - these are all quite close together. We have Anatolia, Egypt, Greece, the Levant (y'know, the entire ERE) - meaning that if Persia wants to go further they have to trust someone to act as a viceroy on their behalf. Anatolia? Perhaps. Egypt? (Both?) Someone will need to act akin to Moscovy for the Mongols, an enforcer. High Satrap. This creates the problem that it will inevitably involve Romans.

So we have a High Satrap advised by, or who is a Roman. In charge of maintaining order over the Satrapies of the former ERE. At which point do we really think that this High Satrap isn't going to try and either overthrown the Persian Emperor, or just take those Satraps under his control, and either defacto or dejure become an independent Emperor?

TL;DR I don't think keeping that Empire is feasible without splitting the Empire with an equal at this point in history. At which point you create a whole new (Slightly Persianified) foe. Although a Neo-Roman Mithrandantes is a fantastic story premise. "The Pontic Empire"/"Byzantine Empire" stops having a nebulous start and becomes when the Romano-Greek High Satrap rebels and claims the title of Roman Emperor.
 
- Would any Germanic King be tempted to claim the vacant title of Emperor?
Romano-Barbarian, rather than Germanic, rulers may claim the imperial title, if one does manage to take the hegemon on Western Romania. So far, Merovingian Francia is the best candidate to do so, as their influenced more or less spawned from southern England to Central Europe.

It's not that likely however : with such scenario, you'd likely see the ERE relocating its core areas to Africa or even Italy, meaning that if something, the imperial reality would be closer to Romano-Barbarian entities.

- Would the Sassanians venture into Central Europe or it would be too challenging?
Probably not : it would be even likely that Sasanians wouldn't annex Constantinople, but as you said, turn it into a client state (at least for some time)*. The regions they focused in were the most prosperous of the Roman Empire : Syria, Egypt, southern Anatolia. The rest suffered still from consequences of the IVth/Vth centuries, and had to deal with Avars.

*I don't think it's likely, that said, to say it would be reduced to a "bunch of client states" : that was outside the possibility of Sassanians. Defeating the Roman Empire, making him tributary and unable to really intervene in Asia for a while, is perfectly doable however.

ITTL, the Roman Empire would be likely in an equivalent situation than IOTL after Arab conquests : meaning not broken and still able to recover, but severly weakened.
Eventually, what happens in Eastern Europe is bound to depends on Avar, Frankish and Roman policies, not Sasanian.

Would any Germanic power try to capture Constantinople when the Sassanian power in the Balkan area might decline?
Romano-Barbarian kingdoms would have little possibility to go for Constantinople ITTL : with which fleet? which ressources? Even a declining Sassanian Empire (assuming that it would annex Constantinople, which is extremely unlikely) would still be a superpowern after all.
They could technically have a better chance with a weakened ERE whom cores are now Byzantine Africa and Italy, but again, Romans would have the maritime edge on them.

That said, Lombards could be tempted to benefit from this situation by advancing in Byzantine Italy, furthermore weakening Romans.

Would the fall of the powerful Eastern Churches boost the hegemony of the Papacy in the Christendom?
Maybe not, mostly because you don't have western Romano-Barbarian imperal or quasi-imperial structures to base Pontifical universalism on a more important scale. At this point, the basic political organisation of Latin Church is made along the lines of Romano-Barbarian or Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
The ERE relocated in western Europe (making it the Western Eastern Roman Empire) would still be the "natural" background of a Papacy in this regard.

Would it favor an earlier West-east Schism or rather the opposite?
Both : non-Chalcedonian churches are going to blossom and take the lead in Asia, while Chalcedonian will mostly be limited to whatever remains of Romania in Asia and Balkanic Europe.
However, the ERE would be at this point forced to recenter in the West, in a crushingly Chalcedonian region, and having less to deal with theological opposition, may simply go in par with western clerical evolution.
So, Western and Eastern Christiendom would likely be even more distinct than IOTL, while Latin and Greek Christiendom would likely be more similar and not-schismatic.

- Would the Franks expand into the Balkan-Adriatic area? And the Lombards?
I fail to see why Franks would go for that, even if they had the opportunity, at this point : their main focus is mostly on Northern and Central Europe at this point, and the brutal rupture of mediterannean continuum (compared to IOTL where it was slower) would certainly make Mediterranean basin less attractive than IOTL. IOTL, Franks mostly went for Balkans as a sphere-of-influence by proxy, in order to check Byzantine influence and Slavic raiders. ITTL, you have neither the geopolitical or economical interest to do so in a big scale in te he peninsula.

Lombards, however...I could see them having the same policy than Bavarians IOTL, meaning sattelizing various slavic principalties (such as Carinthia) and possibly some of Adriatic points (would it be only to keep in check some piracy).

And of course, the ERE (now relocated mostly in Italy or Africa) is in a good position to re-expand in Balkan-Adriatic coast from its new cores, mostly for the same reasons than Lombards from one hand, and to santuarize whatevever they can from Romania in Balkans (meaning Greece, Thrace, Epirus)

- Would a Slavic power rise in the Balkans earlier tan IOTL?
Not strictly speaking : Avar hegemony ITTL is virtually unopposed, meaning that instead of an hanfdul of slavic principalities pushing Roman borders, you have a big confederacy doing so. I doubt it would conquer the whole region, but will be a nuisance : think Bulgarian Khaganate-scale nuisance.

Why "not strictly speaking"? Because Avar hegemony mostly included a lot of Slavic entities (more or less Sarmatized/Avarized) : most of these were peripherical peoples (as Croats, Crovars, Sorabs, etc.) and I think you'd likely see the same think happening in Balkans. Not only, if Avar Khaganate does survive longer ITTL it might turn to an equivalent of Bulgaria (meaning having a slavic nation calling itself Avar), but it would imply the existence of slavic semi-autonomous (at first) principalities at its inner borders.
 
The Franks are divided due to the internal fight between Austrasia and Neustria.
Actually, they were undergoing a large unifying trend at this point : Dagobert I, considered as one of the most powerful Merovingians, ruled from 629 to 639.
I think your biggest mistake there is to consider Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy as rival kingdoms when they were much closer to the Roman Empire in the IVth century : two, three or even four rulers for the whole of Romania.

It's probably what made Francia the hegemon in Northern and Central Europe at this point : each king was trusted with a "frontline" (against, Vascons, Saxons, etc.) to deal with, avoiding dispersion of efforts.
The Lombards, even if they can now take over all Italy after the fall of ERE, are unable to do anything outside Italy.
I disagree on both accounts : Roman Italy is still going to hold out, maybe better on the long run, as Roman Empire cores would be relocated to Africa (if not Italy itself). On the other hand, they could pull the same strategy than Franks and attempt to sattelize peripherical Barbarian or Slavic entities.
- The Visigoths are in the same situation of Lombards. Outside Spain, nothing.
Not exactly : while undergoing a similar anti-dynastic institutions, Visigoths did managed to repel Byzantines and Franks out of Spain, were the only Romano-Barbarian kingdom at this point to have a fleet worth of notice, etc.

If something, this period may be considered as the highest point reached by Visigoths IOTL.
- The Avars are maybe the only relevant power in Eastern Europe. They might just keep Persians out of Pannonia, but nothing more.
Persians aren't going to annex Lower Danube, let alone Pannonia.
As for being the only relevent power, while they're going to be the dominant power (altough for how much long, giving the limited resources at hand), not only they would still have Franks advancing in Central Europe, but the region was mostly outside their scope (basically, Avars could project themselves up to Dniepr and up to Carpathian mountains, but that's it).

The Slavic tribes are still too divided to make anything together.
At this point, southern Slavic peoples would be included into the Avar hegemony, while northern Slavic people did made a run for Elbe already IOTL
Not that it would turn suddenly as a Wendish Empire, but as far as I can tell, Northern Slavs are going to do as much as IOTL.

May I ask : which kind of sources are you using? It seems a bit off.
 
I don't think keeping that Empire is feasible without splitting the Empire with an equal at this point in history. At which point you create a whole new (Slightly Persianified) foe. Although a Neo-Roman Mithrandantes is a fantastic story premise. "The Pontic Empire"/"Byzantine Empire" stops having a nebulous start and becomes when the Romano-Greek High Satrap rebels and claims the title of Roman Emperor.

I don't think that Persians would opt for splitting the Empire in a classical Roman way. Persians had a very different conception of territorial administration where this idea might not fit. Achaemenids manage to control Egypt, the Levant and great parts of Anatolia ruling from Persepolis, so Sassanians would not struggle for that ruling from Ctesiphon.

The only really peripheral area is Western Anatolia - Greece, and they would prefer to establish a client or client states there rather than a radical division of the Empire.

Romano-Barbarian, rather than Germanic, rulers may claim the imperial title, if one does manage to take the hegemon on Western Romania. So far, Merovingian Francia is the best candidate to do so, as their influenced more or less spawned from southern England to Central Europe.

I agree with Merovingians being the best candidates but could they claim the Imperial title without having a foot in Italy?

It's not that likely however : with such scenario, you'd likely see the ERE relocating its core areas to Africa or even Italy, meaning that if something, the imperial reality would be closer to Romano-Barbarian entities.

I find the patch Rome-Ravenna or the fragile coastline in Africa not very suitable for an ERE relocation. Might be Sicily...?

Probably not : it would be even likely that Sasanians wouldn't annex Constantinople, but as you said, turn it into a client state (at least for some time)*. The regions they focused in were the most prosperous of the Roman Empire : Syria, Egypt, southern Anatolia. The rest suffered still from consequences of the IVth/Vth centuries, and had to deal with Avars.

However we could expect that Constantinople would lose most of its importance and become a sort of border city.

Romano-Barbarian kingdoms would have little possibility to go for Constantinople ITTL : with which fleet? which ressources? Even a declining Sassanian Empire (assuming that it would annex Constantinople, which is extremely unlikely) would still be a superpowern after all.
They could technically have a better chance with a weakened ERE whom cores are now Byzantine Africa and Italy, but again, Romans would have the maritime edge on them..

An ERE made by some Italian patches and the African coastline does not seem a good rival for that hyper-Persia.

The ERE relocated in western Europe (making it the Western Eastern Roman Empire) would still be the "natural" background of a Papacy in this regard.

I find difficult this relocation.

And of course, the ERE (now relocated mostly in Italy or Africa) is in a good position to re-expand in Balkan-Adriatic coast from its new cores, mostly for the same reasons than Lombards from one hand, and to santuarize whatevever they can from Romania in Balkans (meaning Greece, Thrace, Epirus).

The Exarchate of Ravenna had great difficults to keep Lombards under control (they lost Genoa by that time), so I can't see how they could expand through the Adriatic in these conditions.

Actually, they were undergoing a large unifying trend at this point : Dagobert I, considered as one of the most powerful Merovingians, ruled from 629 to 639.
I think your biggest mistake there is to consider Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy as rival kingdoms when they were much closer to the Roman Empire in the IVth century : two, three or even four rulers for the whole of Romania.

Neustria and Austrasia had a civil war in the early 600s. I consider that Franks would not act as a united force until the Carolingian era, but I respect your point of view.

I disagree on both accounts : Roman Italy is still going to hold out, maybe better on the long run, as Roman Empire cores would be relocated to Africa (if not Italy itself). On the other hand, they could pull the same strategy than Franks and attempt to sattelize peripherical Barbarian or Slavic entities.

Not exactly : while undergoing a similar anti-dynastic institutions, Visigoths did managed to repel Byzantines and Franks out of Spain, were the only Romano-Barbarian kingdom at this point to have a fleet worth of notice, etc.

In my opinion, Lombards and Visigoths (after the Ostrogothic fall) had not much interest in 'international' conflicts, surely not at the level of the Franks. Visigoths did not care about the fate of the Papacy threatened by the Lombards, for example, while Franks did.
 
Realm of Emperor Eleutherius upon his coronation in Rome in 618
upload_2016-11-17_17-39-3.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleutherius_(exarch)

OTL, this guy tried to claim the purple while Exarch of Ravenna, but the army remained loyal to Heraclius. ITTL, with Heraclius dead and everything east of Attica lost to the Persians (we'll assume they built a fleet or something), the Pope and Army rally to him.
 
I don't think that Persians would opt for splitting the Empire in a classical Roman way. Persians had a very different conception of territorial administration where this idea might not fit. Achaemenids manage to control Egypt, the Levant and great parts of Anatolia ruling from Persepolis, so Sassanians would not struggle for that ruling from Ctesiphon.

The only really peripheral area is Western Anatolia - Greece, and they would prefer to establish a client or client states there rather than a radical division of the Empire.

I see your point, but this isn't the Achaemenid period - the Eastern med is much richer, has larger populations, and has a radically different faith that is rather unwelcoming to heathen rule. Plus, after centuries of fighting the Persians (god, actual centuries - I forget this sometimes), I'd say they'd be hard to please.

Plus, the near-defeat of the Romans IOTL meant that the Sassanids were nearly bankrupt - heck, Heraclius managed to completely turn around the invasion in the early 600s with a nearly destitute ERE. The resources of the Sassanids would be stretched further to do this, and whilst there may be some benefit in terms of additional income there, they're still wide open to invasion by the Arabs.

Combine the shortage of resources, the new lands they need to garrison/support the establishment of Satraps, repairing the damage done during the wars is going to be too much - and if the east is heavily taxed to make the difference, we saw what happened when that happened IOTL - having a restive east and west makes the Sassanid empire VERY fragile.
 
Yesterday I posted a thread about an eventual scenario with a stronger ERE which had avoided the Gothic Wars and thus keep a good shape for dominating Persians and Arabs at later stage.

Today's scenario is just the opposite: what would happen if an ERE more weakened by a harsher and longer Gothic War eventually falls by 617, during the Persian-Roman War (in 617 the Sassanians had captured Chalcedon and they had a good chance for assaulting Constantinople). The Sassanians then subdue the Byzantines and reduce them to a bunch of client states and become the hyperpower of the East (no Arab expansion then).

A weaker ERE with a POD in the Gothic Wars would mean that the Byzantine-Persian War of 572-591 would go very badly to the ERE so you don't even need the 602-628 war to crush the ERE.

With a weaker army they would be forced to keep the subsides to the Avars and while that would ensure peace in the European provinces that would make the Avars turn even faster against the Longobards so Italy would fall and the ERE would probably keep even less land than OTL, if they can keep any. While this would free soldiers to the East it would drain the treasury and then the loss of Mesopotamia and Syria would be even worst. This would hurt their ability to pay for the truce on the Mesopotamian front.

Sassanid direct conquest would be unlikely but they could accept a Puppet Emperor in Constantinople chosen by Ctesiphon ensuring that the Roman State there would be a Client State but I think the Emperor would just leave and establish a new center of power in Africa or Italy. OTL Heraclius considered going to Carthage to establish the government there.

- Would any Germanic King be tempted to claim the vacant title of Emperor?

We already explain on the other thread that the Barbarian-Kingdoms didn't want to be associated with the Roman Empire and had no interest on being Imperator Romanum.

Making such a move would give no benefit to the King so why would he do it?


- Would the Sassanians venture into Central Europe or it would be too challenging? Would any Germanic power try to capture Constantinople when the Sassanian power in the Balkan area might decline?

They have to ensure that the Roman Client in Constantinople is loyal, they have to keep Egypt and the Levant from revolting, their lack of navy in the Med would mean that the possible Roman State in Africa/Italy would keep control of Crete and Cyprus and they would serve as bases for raiding so they have to divert resources into fighting them, they have the Göktürks on the East and they have to ensure that their possessions in Arabia are secured and free from raid.

More expansion would be almost impossible and would only hurt the empire.

- Would the fall of the powerful Eastern Churches boost the hegemony of the Papacy in the Christendom? Would it favor an earlier West-east Schism or rather the opposite?

The Eastern Churches wouldn't fall, the Sassanids accepted the Eastern Churches and encouraged them to break from Constantinople. A Sassanid victory would by extension be a victory to the Nestorian Church, that had the official support of the Persian Emperors. With the Nestorians being the favored over the Nicenes you can see the Sassanids appointing Nestorians to the several patriarchies.

There would be a break but only because the Nestorians and the Nicenes had already been divided since the Council of Ephesus.

- Would the Franks expand into the Balkan-Adriatic area? And the Lombards?

The Frankish powerbase is too far way for a expansion into the Balkans.

The Lombards depends on how their Kingdom evolves. They might take some adriatic coastline but they now have the remains of the Roman Empire at their door step so they might first try to finish the job of conquering Italy.

- Would a Slavic power rise in the Balkans earlier tan IOTL?

There would be a power vacuum in the Balkans so the Avars are going to achieve dominance in the area but the Southern Slaves are already establishing themselves in the area.

The evolution of this area would depend on how powerful the Avars are able to become and how powerful the Roman Client in Constantinople becomes. If the Persians block the Roman Client to form a decent army then their power would be too weak to block the Slavs and they could form some principalities or kingdoms earlier than OTL.
 
I agree with Merovingians being the best candidates but could they claim the Imperial title without having a foot in Italy?
I don't think so, or at least only with big difficulties : imperial legitimacy in post-classical western Romania depended a lot from its identification as an imperium over Christiendom. Meaning that without pontifical support, you won't have imperial legitmacy or at least not nearly as much.

I find the patch Rome-Ravenna or the fragile coastline in Africa not very suitable for an ERE relocation. Might be Sicily...?
As Magnum pointed out, you did have enough resources and support in Italy to preserve an imperial structure : Latium and Pentapolis were safe enough that they fall IOTL only in the mid VIIIth century.

Africa itself would be admittedlt safer : IOTL, Heraclius seriously tought about relocating the siege of the Empire in Carthage, for exemple. While Berbers rushed to the coast and were an actual threat to a coastal power in the Vth century, by the VIIth century they were in a phase of political contraction : most significant Mauri communauties under Carthagian overseeing were usually undergoing a modus vivendi where Berber princes were integrated to the exarchate's organisation.

Basically Africa could provide with a similar situation than IOTL Thrakia, were Slavs are replaced by Berbers, and with the benefit there's no big players pushing Berbers to the coast.

Sicily is another very possible idea, would it be only because it may have been planned IOTL : Constans II was rumoured to make Syracuse the capital of the Roman Empire in the late 660's, which eventually caused its downfall. I'll add the caveat, however, that an imperial court in Sicily might be a bit more isolated from both Africa and Italy than it's entierly healty to.

However we could expect that Constantinople would lose most of its importance and become a sort of border city.
Well, maybe not a border city strictly speaking, but to grow more autonomous (an exarchate of Constantinople would be both doable and hugely ironic), and prone to usurpations (maybe supported by Sasanians).

An ERE made by some Italian patches and the African coastline does not seem a good rival for that hyper-Persia.
Hence why I said technically. Romans had just more strategical resources to attempt this (that and the fact they would probably still keep under their control Greece and possibly some patches in Anatolia).

I find difficult this relocation.
Difficult to do? Indeed, that wouldn't be exactly smooth, but nothing insanely hard.
Difficult to believe? It was planned, several times, in the VIIth century IOTL.
I think you're unerestimating how present Romans were in western Mediteranean basin at this point.

The Exarchate of Ravenna had great difficults to keep Lombards under control (they lost Genoa by that time), so I can't see how they could expand through the Adriatic in these conditions.
Mostly because Adriatic coast didn't host a political ensemble able to push back Romans, when Italy had with the kingdom of Lombards?

Neustria and Austrasia had a civil war in the early 600s. I consider that Franks would not act as a united force until the Carolingian era, but I respect your point of view.
Okay, that's not a "point of view", it something that is issued from what I learnt both for years in university with some specialists of the era, and from specialized readings and exchanges since.
Frankish political situation was quite close of what existed in Romania in the IVth century : that's not a matter of interpretation.

We can disagree on this, sure, but not on the grounds that it's all about point of views.

In my opinion, Lombards and Visigoths (after the Ostrogothic fall) had not much interest in 'international' conflicts, surely not at the level of the Franks.

I'd disagree : just look how Gondovald's revolt in southern Gaul involved Visigothic, Lombardic and Roman interventions or agreements.

Of course, they didn't intervened as largely Romans did IOTL, but that's about projection capacities which were reduced (again, lacking a fleet is a huge problem in Mediterranean basin, surprisingly) : Visigoths for instance, were able to project themselves in North Africa.

Franks, on this regard, beneficied from both having a border with Barbaricum (allowing territorial extension) and sitting on the Mediterranean/North Sea trade road.

It's less about interests, than geopolitical capacities.

Visigoths did not care about the fate of the Papacy threatened by the Lombards, for example, while Franks did.
Wait, you mean that Visigoths not acting to help Papacy by the virtue of, I don't know, being conquered decades before actually points something about them not being interested on international events?
 
Last edited:
- The Franks are divided due to the internal fight between Austrasia and Neustria.

The internal fighting was during the 570-613 period and died when Chlothar became King of the Franks.

By the 620's the Kingdom was unified even if the King was losing powers to the nobility.

- The Lombards, even if they can now take over all Italy after the fall of ERE, are unable to do anything outside Italy.

With the Nestorian Church being the main in the East I think that the Nicenes will be more than willing to work things out with the Arians and this could butterfly the religious conflicts in Lombardia in the 620's. So you can actually have a stronger Lombard kingdom and I don't dare to guess how they would evolve and OTL doesn't helps because they spent more time in internal fighting than in external expansion.

- The Visigoths are in the same situation of Lombards. Outside Spain, nothing.

With your POD the ERE would never expand to Hispania so you could see greater influence over northern Morocco. Also at this time following the events Liuva II would be king for a longer time as Witteric would never be given command of the army to fight the ERE so you could just see the birth of a dynasty in Visigotia as Liuva was the third king of the Liubagild Line.

- The Avars are maybe the only relevant power in Eastern Europe. They might just keep Persians out of Pannonia, but nothing more.

With the huge power vacuum in the are you could see the Bulgars going to the area earlier than OTL and with the Persians having a weak client in the area they could even loose all of their European possessions.

- The Slavic tribes are still too divided to make anything together.

The Slavs are part of the Avar Khaganate at this point and the Bulgars could go south so you can't just rule them out from doing damage in the area.
 
I don't think so, or at least only with big difficulties : imperial legitimacy in post-classical western Romania depended a lot from its identification as an imperium over Christiendom. Meaning that without pontifical support, you won't have imperial legitmacy or at least not nearly as much.?

Don't you think that they would have been eventually tempted to promote the Archbishop of Cologne to a quasi-papal state in order to "relocate" papcy from Rome to i.e. Cologne? Specially if Rome falls to the Lombards and they ransack the city.

As Magnum pointed out, you did have enough resources and support in Italy to preserve an imperial structure : Latium and Pentapolis were safe enough that they fall IOTL only in the mid VIIIth century.

But then the Empire would be reduced to an Italian patch, unless they could crush the Lombard Kingdom. If the see is set back to Ravenna, it would be hard to control Sicily and Africa from there.

Africa itself would be admittedlt safer : IOTL, Heraclius seriously tought about relocating the siege of the Empire in Carthage, for exemple. While Berbers rushed to the coast and were an actual threat to a coastal power in the Vth century, by the VIIth century they were in a phase of political contraction : most significant Mauri communauties under Carthagian overseeing were usually undergoing a modus vivendi where Berber princes were integrated to the exarchate's organisation.

I agree, but then the Empire becomes a more peripheral entity.

Sicily is another very possible idea, would it be only because it may have been planned IOTL : Constans II was rumoured to make Syracuse the capital of the Roman Empire in the late 660's, which eventually caused its downfall. I'll add the caveat, however, that an imperial court in Sicily might be a bit more isolated from both Africa and Italy than it's entierly healty to.

At least Sicily looks like a safe land where all the Byzantine 'refugees' could feel like home, due to its Greek-Latinness. They could control Africa from there, but the risk of a Lombard full takeover of Italy is very high in this case.

Hence why I said technically. Romans had just more strategical resources to attempt this (that and the fact they would probably still keep under their control Greece and possibly some patches in Anatolia).

I think that keeping all Greece is complicated. I think that the Aegean area would look like Lombardic Italy, with Persian patches mixed with Roman patches. If the ERE does not recover, these Roman patches are likely to fall one by one with the pass of time.

Difficult to do? Indeed, that wouldn't be exactly smooth, but nothing insanely hard.
Difficult to believe? It was planned, several times, in the VIIth century IOTL.
I think you're unerestimating how present Romans were in western Mediteranean basin at this point.

Of course it's doable, but I find it hard to succeed in the long time.

Mostly because Adriatic coast didn't host a political ensemble able to push back Romans, when Italy had with the kingdom of Lombards?.

Probably in this case Avars would try to do the same and outcompete Romans.

I'd disagree : just look how Gondovald's revolt in southern Gaul involved Visigothic, Lombardic and Roman interventions or agreements.

Well, southern Gaul was the backyard of both Visigoths (who already held Septimania) and Lombards and they had obvious interests in this región. But 7th century Visigoths did not care about matters in Italy, Neustria or Bavaria.

Of course, they didn't intervened as largely Romans did IOTL, but that's about projection capacities which were reduced (again, lacking a fleet is a huge problem in Mediterranean basin, surprisingly) : Visigoths for instance, were able to project themselves in North Africa.

Visigoths only held Septa (Ceuta) in North Africa and even this issue is debatable.

Wait, you mean that Visigoths not acting to help Papacy by the virtue of, I don't know, being conquered decades before actually points something about them not being interested on international events?

The Papacy was uncomfortable with Arian Lombards since the late 6th century. The Franks already warned Lombards to do not intervene in Rome, but Visigoths did not care at all, even after their conversion to Catholicism.
 
Don't you think that they would have been eventually tempted to promote the Archbishop of Cologne to a quasi-papal state in order to "relocate" papcy from Rome to i.e. Cologne? Specially if Rome falls to the Lombards and they ransack the city.
Well, the short answer would be "no", giving Cologne had no archbishop at this point.

More seriously, I don't think you really understanding how Latin churches worked out in Early Middle Ages : long story short, the national councils were gathered by the political power (the king usually, while more local synods gathered by largely autonomous dukes aren't unheard of) which made "national churches" being largely autonomous from each other, but they still hugely depended on roman pontifical legitimacy that if it was largely moral, dogmatic and symbolic (but not just this : pope had an important degree of autonomy in religious matters at this point) matters.

As long as you don't have any claim to imperium over all Christiendom as Carolingians went for IOTL, there's strictly no reason to attempt a rush for Papacy control : and even less to try for a counterfeit pope that would probably make illusion for 2 minutes.
Romans, then Ottonian/Salians could do that because they had their claim to imperium over Christiendom at least technically acknowledged. Any one else would just look as an idiot, and his own bishops would probably go "well, maybe we should support one of his rivals instead".

But then the Empire would be reduced to an Italian patch, unless they could crush the Lombard Kingdom. If the see is set back to Ravenna, it would be hard to control Sicily and Africa from there.
Not it wouldn't : with Roman Italy (that still represented a good chunk of the peninsula : it wasn't reduced to a patch yet ITTL) you'd have to count Roman Africa, Roman Greece and possibly Roman Thrace and western Anatolia in the reduced empire.
It's important, in order to have a reasonable expectation about this scenario, that Romans still had the upper hand in maritime matters. Meaning they had far more projectible capacities than all Romano-Barbarians taken together.

I don't see what's the difficulty there : Rome would have the military, political and fiscal resources to not only prevent Lombard take over for the forseeable future, but as well to gain back some foot in the western Mediterranean basin because there's no good chance for any other entity in the region to really prevent them to do so (not that it would be that of a good idea for Romans to attempt that at any cost, tough).

Ravenna itself is a good strategical point hence why it hold out so long IOTL, especially when it comes to combined fleet/land maneouvres. Now Ravenna is only the most obvious choice, and one of the most sensibles strategically and politically if the emperors choose to relocate their court in Italy. Among the other choices, you'd have Bari or Reggio in southern Italy but I feel they would be to uncentered to be really efficient on the long run, and these were located on a narrow coastal band when Ravenna wasn't.

I agree, but then the Empire becomes a more peripheral entity.
Again : fleet, ressources, relatively strong presence in Italy and Greece. It would probably as peripherical in the region as Carthagians were during Antiquity or Vandals two centuries earlier.

If something, as for Romano-Barbarians kingdoms are concerned, Roman Empire just became less peripherical.
At least Sicily looks like a safe land where all the Byzantine 'refugees' could feel like home, due to its Greek-Latinness.
THat's another AH.com meme that needs to die slowly and painfully : most of the historical "Greekiness" of southern Italy does come from medieval times, due to the progressive hellenization of the empire. Don't get me wrong, you had an ancient Greek presence but it was limited to the coast and virtually absent in the hinterland.

If something, the imperial court (largely in the continuation of late Antiquity Romania, meaning not that hugely hellenized) may feel more at home in Italy, if we're about cultural closeness.

They could control Africa from there, but the risk of a Lombard full takeover of Italy is very high in this case.
Lombards took control of Italy quite slowly and while Constantinople was busy...basically everywhere else.

With an ERE that, willy-nilly, have to focus on its western provinces and will be much more wary about what happens in Italy because they won't have much other places to be wary about, it's dubious that Lombards will somehow go Blitzkrieg on Romans.
In order to cut short to some misunderstandings : no, I'm not saying Romans would be bound to reconquer Italy at the latest. But they'll be in a better position to deal with Lombards ITTL. There's an equivalence to be made on how the Empire of Nicea, forced to focus on Anatolia because they had no other choice, actually managed to do better in the region than Byzantines did before the Fourth Crusade.
I think that keeping all Greece is complicated.
If we're thinking about modern Grece boundaries, I agree : you'd still have a Roman presence up to Thessalia and coastal Thrakia and Epirus, but the rest is going to fall.

with Persian patches mixed with Roman patches. If the ERE does not recover, these Roman patches are likely to fall one by one with the pass of time.
As said above, Persians simply didn't were interested on European parts of Romania. As long Rome was unable to intervene in Middle-East in any kind of significant fashion, Sasannians were content : their own geostrategical focus was much more centered on the control of south-western Asia than bullying Rome for the evulz.

And even Sassanians knew how much of a problem it would be to manage territories on the other part of the sea without a big fleet in the region, especially when it was about ruling clearly hostile populations (no huge heterodoxial groups in Europe to make friends with as in Syria or Palestine).

Of course it's doable, but I find it hard to succeed in the long time.
Again : fleet, ressources, military. They could fail at it, of course, but there is as much reasons for the Empire to survive on this as it did on a really limited territory during the VIIIth/IXth centuries.

Probably in this case Avars would try to do the same and outcompete Romans.
Avars weren't an empire as were Persians or Romans, or even a institutionally structurated ensemble as Franks : it was an hegemonic confederacy, meaning that it was less about projection of political power (including military) than the capacities of the core group(s) to impose its own authority to junior partners of the hegemony. IOTL it declined because (among other things) the Avar prestige among slavs was significantly reduced before their defeats and the lack of redistributive loot.
ITTL, it may hold more by plundering Balkanic Romania, but giving Avar would have played no role in the 617 defeat (contrary to the 626 siege), they would end relatively empty-handed.

Meaning that their hegemony, while it won't fall apart, isn't going to transform japanese-mecha style into a superpower : I'd go with a less important decline, but still some form of stagnation for a while, a bit like the Bulgar Khaganate went in the IXth century after its big takeover.
Well, southern Gaul was the backyard of both Visigoths (who already held Septimania) and Lombards and they had obvious interests in this región.
I'm not sure if you know much the situation of Gondovald's revolt actually : basically when I say southern Gaul, I don't mean "mediterranean coastal Gaul", but southern half of Gaul up to Lower Loire basin (on which visigoths were fairly absent since the early Vth century).

Not only the visigothic province of Gaul was increasingly autonomous at this point (it was often specifically mentioned as not bound to obey counciliar obligations), but Gondovald's revolt is part of a system of alliances that concerned a general reshuffle in politics between southern Spain and Frankish Germany. I won't go into details : they're present if you click the link and read the post.

But suffice to say that because Goths never really attempted a move North of Pyrenées since two centuries, doesn't mean they didn't have huge ties with southern Gallic ensemble, even if by proxy : a lot of families in their province of Gaul had huge ties with Aquitain/Auvergne ensemble for exemple, and Aquitain policies are hard to understand if you don't point to how the bilateral relation in Vasconia didn't played out.

(Long story short, as I don't intend to translate my short memory on transpyrenean relations in Late Antiquity : these tended to form a one-way link, roughly following trade, and then court, roads from Spain to Gaul or from the province of Gaul to Spain. While visigothic tremisses are hard to find, being probably melted on arrival, but that associated with the early al-Andalusian coinage found in Gaul indicate that Visigoths were probably quite present on the flux between western mediteranean basin/Aquitaine/Atlantic)

But 7th century Visigoths did not care about matters in Italy, Neustria or Bavaria.
And it doesn't have anything to do with, for exemple, the fact they didn't bordered either of these?
We can't say both that they were overshadowed and less devellpped than the Merovingian ensemble, and then blame them to not act exactly as Merovingian did.

Visigoths only held Septa (Ceuta) in North Africa and even this issue is debatable.
While I agree the question of visigothic presence in North Africa is blurry at best, and that we should probably say "sphere of influence" when it comes to IOTL North Morroco, that they intervened in some form or another is undisputable, as were the relatively strong links between Roman Africa and Visigothic Spain (culturally, but economically as well).

The Papacy was uncomfortable with Arian Lombards since the late 6th century.
Rather than Arians, we should say Homeans.

The distinction is important, as Homeism was far less radically distinct from Chalcedonian beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or the reverse : see Suevi or Burgundians).

Not that the Pope wasn't incomfortable at the prospect being dependent from Lombards, of course : but one shouldn't exagerate the differences. IOTL, in the VIIIth century, Papacy found some sort of modus vivendi with Lombard (Ductatus Romanus being largelty autonomous at this point) that was backed by the possibility of a Byzantine intervention if it was broken.

Of course IOTL, Byzantines were unable to do that, and Rome had to find another champion.

ITTL, that said, Byzantine could very well support roman Papacy : giving that they're closer to Rome they were since centuries, it's even dubious you'd see the pope having its own territorial policy (he would rather be much more the relation between the Patriarch and the Basileus IOTL)

The Franks already warned Lombards to do not intervene in Rome, but Visigoths did not care at all, even after their conversion to Catholicism.[/QUOTE]
 
If the Persians conquer Egypt and the Levant and the Byzantines retreat to Syracuse/Ravenna/Carthage, but then the Persians face a succession crisis, it could be likely that Egypt tries to gain independence like they did against the Achaemenids. If they, along with Syria and the Levant, did break away, someone would have to/try to fill the void left by the Byzantines. A local Greek/Syriac/Coptic noble? The Ghassanids? Any Byzantine remnants in Anatolia?
 
Well, the short answer would be "no", giving Cologne had no archbishop at this point.

More seriously, I don't think you really understanding how Latin churches worked out in Early Middle Ages : long story short, the national councils were gathered by the political power (the king usually, while more local synods gathered by largely autonomous dukes aren't unheard of) which made "national churches" being largely autonomous from each other, but they still hugely depended on roman pontifical legitimacy that if it was largely moral, dogmatic and symbolic (but not just this : pope had an important degree of autonomy in religious matters at this point) matters.

Of course the Archbishopric did not exist yet, I was thinking more in the following couple of centuries if the Papacy gradually loses that legitimacy you pointed out.
It is not mad to think that later Carolingian could be tempted to imitate the Eastern Patriarchies, which had de facto similar authority to the Pope. I think it would depend on the ability of the Papacy to keep its symbolic hegemony in such troubling situation.

As long as you don't have any claim to imperium over all Christiendom as Carolingians went for IOTL, there's strictly no reason to attempt a rush for Papacy control : and even less to try for a counterfeit pope that would probably make illusion for 2 minutes.
Romans, then Ottonian/Salians could do that because they had their claim to imperium over Christiendom at least technically acknowledged. Any one else would just look as an idiot, and his own bishops would probably go "well, maybe we should support one of his rivals instead".

As I said above it would depend on the status of Papal legitimacy at that right moment and how it had developed the concept of Imperium without an actual one (if ERE had completely fallen). Which notions of Papacy and Empire would have the generations after a couple of centuries with a Pope puppetized by the Lombards or maybe in a situation similar to the Tuscolans, and without an actual Emperor for such a long time? We can't know it.

Not it wouldn't : with Roman Italy (that still represented a good chunk of the peninsula : it wasn't reduced to a patch yet ITTL) you'd have to count Roman Africa, Roman Greece and possibly Roman Thrace and western Anatolia in the reduced empire.
It's important, in order to have a reasonable expectation about this scenario, that Romans still had the upper hand in maritime matters. Meaning they had far more projectible capacities than all Romano-Barbarians taken together.

I don't see what's the difficulty there : Rome would have the military, political and fiscal resources to not only prevent Lombard take over for the forseeable future, but as well to gain back some foot in the western Mediterranean basin because there's no good chance for any other entity in the region to really prevent them to do so (not that it would be that of a good idea for Romans to attempt that at any cost, tough).

As Karolus Rex pointed out, a PoD implying a harsher Gothic War might probably mean a larger Lombardic invasion, so forget that good chunk of the peninsula. Just the surroundings of Rome, Ravenna and maybe the southernmost coastlines.

IMO a chain of harsh defeats (post-Gothic Wars = almost wipeout from Italy) + lost of some Eastern province first at the Persian War of the 580s + final defeat at Constantinople in 617 should lead the ERE to a point of no return, just some shadow of rump state in Africa-Sicily-little patches in Italy and maybe Greece.
 
Top