What if the Excharates of the Byzantine Empire formed thier own countries?

What if the Excharcate of Ravenna and the Excharcate of Africa fromed thier own empires? Would they last long? Would Africa withstand the muslim invasion? Would Ravenna hold against the lombards?
Would the Byzantine Empire be able to focus on its home front more and beat back the arabs? Will the three roman empires be allied or at war with each other alot?
 
You could have younger princes set up as co-Emperors or Caesars and given rule over either exarchate as fiefs of their elder brother in Constantinople. Probably see lots of in-fighting and use of the exarchate's resources as a means of gaining power in Constantinople and make oneself the overall Emperor. But perhaps a definitive division could be effected eventually and lead to the creation of two other pretender Roman Empires, with both Africans and Italians calling themselves Romanoi too :D
 
This was actually sort of the plan IOTL- Maurice was planning to make his younger son Emperor of the West in charge of the two Exarchates. But anyway...

I don't think a lot would change. From Phokas onwards, Constantinople generally left the Exarchates to their own devices. They operated more as client states than as proper parts of the Empire.
 
Since Diocletian instituted the Tetrarchy in 293 AD, did any attempt to divide the Roman Empire ever work well for the long term good of the Empire?

In the best case scenario creating independent Exarchs would allow for more efficient local defenses against barbarians for a time, and perhaps more efficient administration for a time. It could also result in the weaker areas of the Empire being allowed to wither on the vine, but not draining the resources of the entire Empire along with it. Arguably the Eastern Roman Empire would have faired rather worse if it had not been divided from the West at the death of Theodosius, and had to divert its scarce resources West, rather than East.

However, it is seemingly inevitable that the "real" Roman Emperor at Constantinople would either attempt to consolidate his authority be reintegrating a exarchate, provoking a civil war, or an exarch would revolt, causing civil war.

To hold off the Arab Invasion of North Africa, the Eastern Romans needed a more efficient, centralized government, and some sense of attachment to the Empire by some of its subjects. Political fragmentation would not likely have furthered either of those goals.
 
Since Diocletian instituted the Tetrarchy in 293 AD, did any attempt to divide the Roman Empire ever work well for the long term good of the Empire?

In the best case scenario creating independent Exarchs would allow for more efficient local defenses against barbarians for a time, and perhaps more efficient administration for a time. It could also result in the weaker areas of the Empire being allowed to wither on the vine, but not draining the resources of the entire Empire along with it. Arguably the Eastern Roman Empire would have faired rather worse if it had not been divided from the West at the death of Theodosius, and had to divert its scarce resources West, rather than East.

However, it is seemingly inevitable that the "real" Roman Emperor at Constantinople would either attempt to consolidate his authority be reintegrating a exarchate, provoking a civil war, or an exarch would revolt, causing civil war.

To hold off the Arab Invasion of North Africa, the Eastern Romans needed a more efficient, centralized government, and some sense of attachment to the Empire by some of its subjects. Political fragmentation would not likely have furthered either of those goals.

I disagree with you here on most of these points. Firstly, the Tetrachy- yes, it did work well for the Empire, because despite occasional flareups of violence at the top, it more or less was able to end the crisis of the third century and open the way to a period of marked prosperity in the fourth. The Persian threat was contained and stopped from permanently overrunning Syria and Armenia, the Germanic peoples were kept very firmly north of the Danube, and breakaway regimes such as that of Carausius in Britain could be dealt with much more adequately by the centre.

What you talk about in your second and third paragraphs is exactly what happened with the Exarchates in OTL. True, the Emperor appointed the Exarch, and expected some tax to come out of the Exarchate, but in almost all other regards, the Exarchate was left very much to its own devices. I agree with what you say about a decentralised structure being quite liable to provoke civil wars though- look at all the rebellions from the Exarchates in OTL.

To hold off the Arab invasion of North Africa, what the ERE desperately needs is a period of stability, which it simply did not have in OTL. A run of decent Emperors in Constans II, Constantine IV and Justinian II (well, his first reign anyway) never became the advantage it should have been because of these Emperors' tendency to both lose the plot, and to die young. Under the circumstances, it's very surprising that it took the Arabs as long to conquer the last Roman outposts in North Africa as it did- not until the beginning of the eighth century did the last remnants of Christian control fall in modern Morroco. Contrast this with the fall of Syria and Egypt. I think the Exarchate in seventh century Africa worked as well as it possibly could have done under the circumstances.
 
I disagree with you here on most of these points. Firstly, the Tetrachy- yes, it did work well for the Empire, because despite occasional flareups of violence at the top, it more or less was able to end the crisis of the third century and open the way to a period of marked prosperity in the fourth. The Persian threat was contained and stopped from permanently overrunning Syria and Armenia, the Germanic peoples were kept very firmly north of the Danube, and breakaway regimes such as that of Carausius in Britain could be dealt with much more adequately by the centre.

What you talk about in your second and third paragraphs is exactly what happened with the Exarchates in OTL. True, the Emperor appointed the Exarch, and expected some tax to come out of the Exarchate, but in almost all other regards, the Exarchate was left very much to its own devices. I agree with what you say about a decentralised structure being quite liable to provo
ke civil wars though- look at all the rebellions from the Exarchates in OTL.

To hold off the Arab invasion of North Africa, what the ERE desperately needs is a period of stability, which it simply did not have in OTL. A run of decent Emperors in Constans II, Constantine IV and Justinian II (well, his first reign anyway) never became the advantage it should have been because of these Emperors' tendency to both lose the plot, and to die young. Under the circumstances, it's very surprising that it took the Arabs as long to conquer the
last Roman outposts in North Africa as it did- not until the beginning of the eighth century did the last remnants of Christian control fall in modern Morroco. Contrast this with the fall of Syria and Egypt. I think the Exarchate in seventh century Africa worked as well as it possibly could have done under the circumstances.
Hey Im writing a tl where the Exarchate of Egypt survives.....:):) General Artenius is the main guy responsible in my tl:)
 
Top