The exarchates survive

Hi everybody and welcome to my first thread.
So i wanted to ask you how could the romans have avoided the fall of the 2 exarchates of Africa and Italy with a POD after 685 (rise of Justinian II)? what would be the effects of a preserved west on the romans, the visigoths and the lombards? could this change the destiny of the latin language?
But most important can a skilled emperor (or more than one if you need more generations) use the bases the empire still have in the west to attempt a recover of the italian peninsula?
 
By 685, it would have taken a lot of effort for the Byzantines to avoid losing Ravenna.

-The Byzantine administrators, ever since the beginning of Justinian's conquest, were hated for their rapaciousness. The Germanic tribes were quite preferable in comparison.
-The Byzantines were no longer viewed as Roman by the Italians. They were seen as foreign oppressors.
-The relationship between Rome and Constantinople was quite bad, and the locals would invariably side with the Pope in any dispute.

In order for the Exarchate to survive, the Pope would have to be permanently humbled before the Emperor or the Exarch would have to be seen as an Italian rather than an agent of the hated Greeks. In the former case, I can only imagine a war more devastating than Justinian's, which would seriously risk drawing in the Franks at this stage. In the latter case, the Exarch would have to distance himself from Constantinople, which was his only source of support.

As for Africa, it could have held if the Byzantines adequately maintained their fleet, and were not so hard-pressed elsewhere. But until the Arabs came along, they had undisputed mastery over the Mediterranean, so why sink tons of money into a fleet that won't be used?
 
Hi everybody and welcome to my first thread.
So i wanted to ask you how could the romans have avoided the fall of the 2 exarchates of Africa and Italy with a POD after 685 (rise of Justinian II)? what would be the effects of a preserved west on the romans, the visigoths and the lombards? could this change the destiny of the latin language?
But most important can a skilled emperor (or more than one if you need more generations) use the bases the empire still have in the west to attempt a recover of the italian peninsula?

I think this is largely impossible, as the reign of Constans II showed. He moved to Sicily and ruled the empire from there - until he was felled with a soap dish, by a bath attendant.

The exarchates face two different enemies. By the 8th century, these regions were effectively on their own. There was no prospect of help from Constantinople due to the dire situation in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Byzantine rule was just waiting to die in both places by then. I see no real hope of success in either. If Byzantium couldn't even hold the Peloponese against the Slavs, and a march from Constantinople to Thessalonica involves fighting a way through enemy territory, they have no chance of projecting any power in Italy nor Africa at all. The Berbers were restive, and the Lombards were expanding.

The exarchates fell for a reason, and saving them after 685 will require nothing less than divine intervention, imo.
 
By 685, it would have taken a lot of effort for the Byzantines to avoid losing Ravenna.

-The Byzantine administrators, ever since the beginning of Justinian's conquest, were hated for their rapaciousness. The Germanic tribes were quite preferable in comparison.
-The Byzantines were no longer viewed as Roman by the Italians. They were seen as foreign oppressors.
-The relationship between Rome and Constantinople was quite bad, and the locals would invariably side with the Pope in any dispute.

In order for the Exarchate to survive, the Pope would have to be permanently humbled before the Emperor or the Exarch would have to be seen as an Italian rather than an agent of the hated Greeks. In the former case, I can only imagine a war more devastating than Justinian's, which would seriously risk drawing in the Franks at this stage. In the latter case, the Exarch would have to distance himself from Constantinople, which was his only source of support.

As for Africa, it could have held if the Byzantines adequately maintained their fleet, and were not so hard-pressed elsewhere. But until the Arabs came along, they had undisputed mastery over the Mediterranean, so why sink tons of money into a fleet that won't be used?
I know that right after the recover of Italy, the romans imposed heavy taxes on the natives and for this reason they were hated. i recognize that the empire had its own necessity like to pay for the army and for the bureaucracy, but couldn't they lower the burden of the taxes a little. A lower taxation, in my opinion, is still better than no taxation at all due to the definitive loss of province.

Regarding the eastern romans as foreign oppressor, why couldn't the romans appoint native Italics to important and prestigious role like the exarchate? why was in this period the italic partecipation to the general affair of the empire so low, both military and administratively?

I will avoid to talk about the religious side because i feel i don't know much about this aspect.
I think this is largely impossible, as the reign of Constans II showed. He moved to Sicily and ruled the empire from there - until he was felled with a soap dish, by a bath attendant.

The exarchates face two different enemies. By the 8th century, these regions were effectively on their own. There was no prospect of help from Constantinople due to the dire situation in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Byzantine rule was just waiting to die in both places by then. I see no real hope of success in either. If Byzantium couldn't even hold the Peloponese against the Slavs, and a march from Constantinople to Thessalonica involves fighting a way through enemy territory, they have no chance of projecting any power in Italy nor Africa at all. The Berbers were restive, and the Lombards were expanding.

The exarchates fell for a reason, and saving them after 685 will require nothing less than divine intervention, imo.
Totally right about Constans II but my impression is that he wasn't really an emperor at the same level as Basil II or John I

I want also to add the exarchate of Africa fell to the arabs during a turbolent period for the romans (first deposition of Justinian). If somehow we can prevent this event than maybe history would take a different path.

Regarding the exarchate of Italy,i remember that it was conquered definitely by the lombards in 751 during the reign of constantine V, who had to face first a civil war and than again the arabs. However the Isaurian dinasty represented a period of rebirth for the roman empire and for his army, with subsequent dimished arabs activities in the late VIII/early IX century. If the empire manages to avoid these civil wars, could the romans buy some time for their exarchates, until the dimished eastern threat allow them to focus on the west?
 
I think you need this reform around the time of Maurice really, to maintain control over the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, and Italy.

Let the Basileus make the Exarchates to maintain the political loyalty and union of differing ethnic and religious populations. To me this means the Exarch is set up as an embodiment of the "sebastos" and "augustus". The position is to guard the republic, but lack the caesaropapism of the Basileus. So what if it establishes a freedom of religion in each exarchate?

The guys next door might be heretics, but they leave us alone, and help us fight against the infidels or the Goths. A Federal Byzantium?
 
The Byzantines did keep parts of Sicily into the early 1000s. Do the Byzantines have to keep the city of Ravenna continuously, or do they just have to keep the exarchate? If the latter, it's a lot easier because they can withdraw to a more defensible position in the south and then attempt to reconquer the rest later, when the situation in Greece and Anatolia isn't so dire.
 
The Byzantines did keep parts of Sicily into the early 1000s. Do the Byzantines have to keep the city of Ravenna continuously, or do they just have to keep the exarchate? If the latter, it's a lot easier because they can withdraw to a more defensible position in the south and then attempt to reconquer the rest later, when the situation in Greece and Anatolia isn't so dire.
In Italy they need to keep Ravenna, Latium, Sicily, Sardinia and the enclaves in Apulia and Calabria, everything else (Istria,Venetia) can be leaved if you want,however the more you can keep the better. A temporary loss is acceptable, like Ravenna in 732 as long as it is recovered within 5/10 years.
 
Concerning to the "italic partecipation" is it possible to restore/preserve, by this point, the Senate in Rome? Is it possible to involve it in Imperial (or at least Italic) matters like the Ostrogoths did, or is it too late for this relic of the past? What can be done to replace the increasing power of the bishop of Rome with the power of a civic officer?
 
Top