WI Basil II makes it to Sicily?

IOTL, when Emperor Basil II died in 1025 he was preparing for a campaign to recover Sicily. If he had survived long enough to actually make it there, how could things have turned out - annexation like Bulgaria or vassalization like Aleppo?
 
While creating a buffer region in Syria was sound politics, as it allowed to contain Fatimids trough local ambitions, Sicily was a bit too far from Constantinople for this policy being really useful.

So, probably more of an annexation : furthermore, it was too close from Zirids (and Fatimids in a lesser way) to be really let to mere tributarisation/vassalisation I'd think, as contrary to Syria (again) ties with these dynasties were more important and rule trough proxy could vanish after the expedition was gone : I don't think Basil would have wanted to pull Sicilian campaigns too often.

If George Maniakes' experience is any clue, there was indeed few local allies to count on the island.
 
Sicily would have been the first Byzantine conquest of a large Muslim population, right? I wonder how that would have played out.
 

Spengler

Banned
Sicily would have been the first Byzantine conquest of a large Muslim population, right? I wonder how that would have played out.
Probablylike what happened in Crete. The Muslims in the cities get kicked out, except for the Merchants and replaced by Romans.
 

trajen777

Banned
It would have been a solid victory -- Basil's army's were well equipped, trained, and experienced. Manices 30 years later captured half the island quickly and would have finished the rest in next couple of years. The island was prosperous and tied to the Byz holdings in southern Italy. So the southern theme would have had major impact on history,

1. Sicily would have been incorporated into the Italian theme
2. No Norman Kingdom
3. The rich resources of the island would have allowed for a greater garrison and force in Italy
4. Possible expansion into Tunisia (also rich land)
5. Conversion or expulsion of Muslims from Sicily
6. Lack of Norman invasions allows for Byz to not offer access to Byz markets to Venice.
 
Given the succession is still screwed- his elderly useless brother Constantine and Constantine's daughters (who are past childbearing age)- it's likely any gains he makes are lost after his death (especially if the conquests haven't been properly consolidated).
 

trajen777

Banned
It really comes down to butterfly's -- lets assume that history in the East is not massively effected so will try and run down some possibilities -- and you are right one of the greatest prob is the Byz (and Roman) civil wars which destroyed the empire -- (years 610 -- 986 -- 1071 -- 1280).

So from 1010 (really no Bulgarian war until heated up in 1019 where they were completely destroyed)

1. Basil attacks Sicily -- defeats main army -- takes from 1010 - 1015 for sieges etc -- raids and low level warfare / conversions etc till 1025 / profits and themes created with a good size garrison (Byz army at this time 220,000 +Treadgold )
2. The control of Sicily means prob no mercs (Normans) used there. So hi prob of of no Norman kingdom.
3. Theme of Italy stable -- Basil dies
4. Events stay the same
5. 1067 - 71 --- Romanus does not attack the Normans -- will these extra 2 years attacking the Turks help ?
6. I think in 5 it would however -- lets say it does not --- so Manzikert to Alexis stays the same
7. No Normans -- so Alexis does not lose 3 armies fighting Normans -and can focus on Turks before they become established in Anatolia (remember the Seljuk were more interested in fighting Egypt.
8. Alexis record against the Turks was very good
9. He reestablishes Anatolia and the Tagmatic and Thematic army is reestablished and modernized.
10 Crusade happens but Alexis is much stronger and becomes the Emperor that leads crusades (what was expected by the Pope and the Crusaders). Also the hatred and mistrust generated by the Norman wars and the perceived abandonment of the Crusaders at Antioch never happens
 
Top