What if Herculius had moved the capital to Carthage

Ak-84

Banned
Herculius briefly and seriously considered moving to Carthage. How would history change if he had done so, especially in light of the coming invasion of the Arabs. Carthage hung on for nearly 60 years so if the capital was there the Romans had the ability to resist. But would it say have the longevity of Constantinople, which survived the loss of most of it's territory to become later a great Greek Empire. Would Constantinople survive as it did historically with Carthage the center of Roman world?
 
Herculius briefly and seriously considered moving to Carthage. How would history change if he had done so, especially in light of the coming invasion of the Arabs. Carthage hung on for nearly 60 years so if the capital was there the Romans had the ability to resist. But would it say have the longevity of Constantinople, which survived the loss of most of it's territory to become later a great Greek Empire. Would Constantinople survive as it did historically with Carthage the center of Roman world?

My guess is that Carthage is strategically much better placed than Constantinople. That's obvious.
But it is very controversial - what the results of moving the capital would be.

By this time Constantinople was the heart and soul of the Roman Empire. It was very dangerous to play against this city. The alternative emperor might be proclaimed there with the slogan: "Move the capital back to Constantinople". And as the city was close to the borders where the numerous troops were stationed they might support the pretender.

So you must be a very strong emperor to take such risks. Everybody would understand that if you move the capital to a safer place - you somehow ready to sacrifice Constantinople if things got worse.

And one more thing - Carthage was 'Latin'. For a 'Greek-speaking' Empire that's not a best choice.

btw there was an idea to move the capital to Sicily. In my opinion that idea was a little bit better. Sicily was heavily hellenized and had the best imaginable strategic location. If they did that we might still have some 'Roman Empire' nowadays on this island:D
 
Constans II had made plans to move the capital to Sicily in Syracusae... However the nobility back in Constantinople didnt like this thought at all and that lead to his assassination...
 
It's Heraclius, not Herculius. And I doubt the idea was considered particularly strongly, in all honesty. Had he done so, someone else would have just proclaimed himself legitimate Emperor in the City.
 
The bulk of the empire was in the eastern Med, so I guess it was much easier to run the show from Constantinople than it would have been from Carthage. It took about three weeks voyage to get from Italy to either Egypt or western Anatolia. And would have taken at least that long from Tunisia to Constantinople. The only reason any emperor would flee to Carthage would be if they lost most of their eastern territory without losing North Africa first.
 
The bulk of the empire was in the eastern Med, so I guess it was much easier to run the show from Constantinople than it would have been from Carthage. It took about three weeks voyage to get from Italy to either Egypt or western Anatolia. And would have taken at least that long from Tunisia to Constantinople. The only reason any emperor would flee to Carthage would be if they lost most of their eastern territory without losing North Africa first.
Fair enough. The specifics of the Roman imperial power is that emperor is supposed to wage wars personally as a rule. Exceptions are very few (like Justinian). So the emperor has to be closer to the perspective war theater.
And about the empires like this there's an old saying - 'the capital is where the emperor is'.
So Constantinople is the best choice from any point of view.
 
At the time when this was considered Avars from the west and Sassanids from the east were marauding all over the Balkan and Asian teritories of the Empire and N.Africa look like a safe place to go.
 
At the time when this was considered Avars from the west and Sassanids from the east were marauding all over the Balkan and Asian teritories of the Empire and N.Africa look like a safe place to go.
You see the Roman emperors did not look for a safe place to hide. As a rule. They were looking for trouble.
And this made Constantinople the best place as the capital.
 
If Heraclius moved the capital to Carthage, he'd essentially be demoting himself back to Exarch of Africa and then seceding from the Empire. If this happens at the trough of Byzantine fortunes (when Persia held the Levant, Egypt, and big chunks of Asia Minor), and especially if Heraclius were to take most of what was left of the army and the treasury with him, there's little a new Emperor in Constantinople could do to challenge him in Africa for some time.

Maybe the new Emperor in Constantinople could still scrape together enough of a force to stage a comeback against the Persians, as Heraclius did OTL, and then try to reconquer Africa. Or maybe he'd instead make an unfavorable peace with the Persians, surrendering most of the areas occupied by the Persians so he could concentrate on the Avars and hold onto what he had left.

This latter would leave Persia in a much, much stronger position against the Muslim conquests a couple decades down the road (just a few years after the OTL end of the war). I have no idea if they'd be strong enough to change the outcome of that war from OTL.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I doubt they would be able to do much against Khalid, he outclassed them as a general. I do think that the Muslims would not have attacked Iran itself and the Zagros would be the border as Umer and Uthman both originally intended.

Basileus Giorgios said:
It's Heraclius, not Herculius
Yes I know, I only realised that after posting.:eek:

And on the issues of Greek v Latin; it was not a totally Greek Empire just yet, they still held large undeniably Latin territories. Also, if Heraclius succeeds in doing what he did historically wrt to Persia and his strategic outflanking then I think his position might become solidified, as it was historically. In OTL he *did* abandon Constantinople and attack deep into Persia vide the Black Sea. It was a risk leaving the City, why would a move to Carthage lead to such reprecussions if he did that again.
 
Top