WI: Byzantine Emperor Maurice isn't deposed in 602

I am actually working on a pretty fleshed out ATL on this, and have some of it below. I had always wondered what might happen if the East Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire hadn't completely torn themselves apart just before the Muslims showed up. In this ATL I have Maurice lingering on for awhile, continuing to hold most of Justinian's Empire together in time for Heraclius to ascend to the throne of an empire that isn't torn apart. For the first 50 years or so most of the players are the same, but the results are wildly different. First of all the Exarchates become much stronger under Maurice and Heraclius, eventually resulting in a semi-independent "Latin Empire" which replaces the Holy Roman Empire from OTL. Byzantium stays more "Roman" for a longer period of time. The Franks, in the absence of any other sort of northern power, develop in a similar manner as OTL, before eventually founding a rival Empire to the "Latins." We thus wind up with three powerful states which trace some sort of linear descent from Rome... The Latin (Western) Empire, The Greek (Eastern/Byzantine) Empire and the Frankish Empire of Gaul and Germany. Smaller states, such as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (which never know a norman conquest) and a many others will also make their appearances. The Sassanid empire still falls, but takes a much longer time to do so, and isn't completely absorbed by Muslims.

In this timeline we find the war between Islam and Rome/Byzantium becoming less one-sided and more along the lines of two rival super-powers duking it out. Technology advances more rapidly as a result of the "200 years war" and the complete depopulation of entire regions which creates a massive labor shortage in both empires resulting in an "early" semi-industrial revolution, though it would be geared (pun) almost exclusively to warfare production. Islam, forced by tougher resistance in Byzantium and Persia, conquers further east, making it to the fringes of China much earlier.

In our timeline, Maurice pushed his candidate onto the Sassanid throne, and thus the Sassanids had no excuse to attack Rome/Byzantium while Maurice ruled. Maurice was also a military man with an excellent grasp of strategy, and had the Avars, Slavs and Lombards on the defensive. As long as he held the throne, no one really wanted to take the risk of all-out warfare. When Phocas overthrew him in 602, Khosrau II had the perfect excuse to launch a massive attack, that of avenging his 'friend.' It didn't help that Phocas was a hopeless incompetent. Heraclius saved the Empire and smashed the Sassanids, but the war had destroyed the power base of both empires.. religious controversy didn't help, and the Arabs showed up.. the rest is history.
 
Last edited:
602 AD: A large roman army, forced to winter across the Danube, revolts and elevates one of their own, who assumes the name Constantine (a worse incompetent than Phocas was OTL), to the purple. Maurice, fully aware of the danger, cobbles together a mixed force of Alans, Mercenaries and Roman soldiers from the East, moving to meet the usurper on his march to Constantinople. Many of the aristocratic families remain neutral, not particularly liking Maurice's parsimony, but unsure of the leadership of a lowborn soldier who claims the name Constantine. The battle is joined at Adrianople. The professional army of Constantine, trained by Maurice's own generals, fares well in the battle, nearly winning the day. Maurice's hodgepodge army is unable to directly challenge Constantine in the field, and retreats during daylight with most of his army still intact, making camp under the walls of the city. That night Maurice takes personal command of the army (as he often expressed a desire to do OTL, but never had the opportunity), ordering a charge late at night into Constantine's camp with an elite group of Roman cataphracts. The heavy cavalry from the East quickly smashes the lighter troops of Constantine's army, and drives them from the field.

Actual casualties are light, but the morale of Constantine's army is broken and when a message from Maurice is distributed thorughout the camp, offering amnesty and the relief from the frontier warfare, most of the men accept and desert during the night. Constantine finds himself with only a few of his most loyal men, and rides north to seek help from the Avars. With the army once again under his control, Maurice marched north to capture Constantine, but when he realized the Avars will reach him first, he decided to send a typically byzantine proposal to them. In exchange for the head of Constantine, Maurice will restore the old Danube frontier and will no longer campaign north of the river (which would anger the troops again anyway). He will also deliver a vast sum of gold and silks to the Avar Khan and undertake a modest annual tribute. Though this is nothing like what Maurice's predecessors offered them, the Avars grudgingly accept, having been through the terrible war with Maurice, though adding that they will not kill Constantine until the gold is delivered. Though posessing a nearly empty treasury by now, Maurice nonetheless raises additional money by confiscating the property of some of the aristocrats who didn't lift a finger to help him. As agreed, the Avars hacked Constantine to pieces and dumped his body in the Danube, a sign of their pact with the Romans and also a warning against further trespass. The Danube would remain unbroken during Maurice's reign, and the Avars eventually came around to a cautious alliance with the Romans against the Lombards and Franks.

The experience changed Maurice, and henceforth we see him being very accomodating with the army. His parsimonious nature continues with other aspects of the empire, however, and the aristocrats never forgot his seizure of property which would cause difficulties towards the end of his reign. Many of them bide their time and seek to undermine him at every turn. Meanwhile, Sassanid Persia continues to expand in every direction except towards the Romans, and builds a line of castles along the Roman border, sending a clear message to the Romans...

610 AD: With the help of a contingent of Avars, Maurice invades Pavia and defeats the Lombards in a pitched battle near Milan. Moving south he forces the Lombard lords of Tuscany and Benevento to submit to his authority, though he allows them to keep a measure of local autonomy, under the careful watch of the Exarch Heraclius (same as OTL, but installed as an Exarch in Ravenna instead of Carthage). The bulk of Italy is thus restored to Imperial rule, though Exarch Heraclius would have much work to do to rebuild the shattered economy of the area, which had been depopulated since Justinian's time. The extreme northern regions of Pavia remain under the control of a few local Lombard lords holding out against the Romans.

613 AD: The Franks, wary of the waxing power of the Romans, march east to Pannonia and begin raiding northern Italy and Dalmatia. Childeric II ascends to the throne of the Austrasian Kingdom, and conquers Nuestria. After raiding the porous frontier in Pavia, which is littered with the remnants of Lombard power and the newly formed Exarchate of Ravenna, Childeric sends a sizable army to occupy Pannonia. Exarch Heraclius sends a small but well-trained army north in response, and it meets a larger Imperial force with a sizable Avar contingent sent by Emperor Maurice. The combined army defeats Childeric, but fails to destroy the bulk of his army, and Childeric is able to preserve the majority of his forces.

615 AD: The economy of north africa is recovering under Exarch Tiberius and Italy begins it's long journey to restoration under Heraclius. The constant raids of the Franks and Lombard remnants continue to plague Heraclius, who struggles to hold on to the conquests of Maurice. Maurice, for his part, seems to be slipping slowly into ill-health, and the question of succession becomes all the more prominent. His son, Tiberius, already invested as an Exarch, seems a logical choice, but the popular (at least among the military) Heraclius weilds enormous support as well. The aristocratic families seem keen to exact some sort of revenge on Maurice and his family.

616 AD: Maurice dies in his sleep, and the succession is almost immediately contested. Tiberius possesses the strongest claim and was named successor by Maurice (who, until his dying day, suffered from a bit too much nepotism), but Heraclius is supported by the bulk of the military and is raised to the purple by the army. In any event, Tiberius's inept behavior in the following months arouses the general hatred of the citizenry, who are desperate for relief from Maurice's tax policies. Heraclius marches on Constantinople with a massive army, and is crowned emperor in St. Sophia without too much violence. Tiberius is captured and brought before Heraclius, who spares him in an act of mercy and ships him off to a monastery. Maurice's daughter Sophia is married to Heraclius to strengthen his claim to the throne.

620 AD: The Franks, stymied by Heraclius, are forced to turn elsewhere for conquests. Marching south with a massive army, Childeric II attempts the conquest of Spain. The Visigoths manage to lose several battles in the Pyrennes, and the Franks easily overwhelm the several key territories in northern Iberia. When King Sisebut appeals to the Romans for aid, Heraclius responds with strict neutrality. While intensely interesed in developments in the region, he does not wish to distract the resurgent Franks and possibly provoke a war with them. Peace more or less falls over the Empire for the next decade.

627AD: Most of northern Spain has been conquered by the Franks, but wary of the growing power of the Franks, Heraclius begins to tacitly support Sisebut.

629 AD: Franks take Toledo and nearly destroy the Visigothic kingdom until Heraclius launches a massive attack on Frankish territories. His armies push into Gaul for the first time in well over a century. Childeric, desperate to stop the advances, offers to withdrawl from most of the conquered territories and cede some minor cities in Pavia. The Visigoths are forced to become vassals of Constantinople as part of the agreement. Heraclius abandons the conquests in Gaul as it is doubtful he ever really wanted them in the first place. Nonetheless the Romans and Franks maintain very troubled relations over the next century.

635 AD: Massive Islamic armies under Caliph Omar cross into Palestine, officially beginning the Holy War. As one of the most brutal and long-lived conflicts in human history, this war was to proceed uninterrupted for nearly 200 years. At Damascus, the local Roman army was defeated and badly mauled. Heraclius sent his son Constantius, by now a military genius educated in the Maurican mold, with a large Roman army with a core of heavy cataphracts. The battle of Antioch results in a draw, leaving both sides horribly mangled. The Arabs are forced to retreat from Antioch, but the Roman army, so thoroughly devestated, is unable to oppose a second Islamic army and is soon forced into the city, already beleagured with supply problems.

636 AD: A third Roman army is dispatched from Egypt into Palestine, recovering Jerusalem and forcing the Islamic army beseiging Antioch to rush south to defend their rear. By now a third Arab army has also entered the region, and Roman limitanei are dispatched to hassle them and keep the two main armies from uniting. An embassy dispatched to Ctesiphon to seek a Sassanid alliance against the Arabs fails to reach Ctesiphon and is intercepted by Arab raiders. Nonetheless, the Sassanid armies, badly mauled and reeling into central Media, are unable to help the Romans in any case.

638 AD: Constantius's army is annihilated at the battle of the Jordan. Constantius himself is among the fallen and Heraclius flies into a rage, demanding the heads of the Arab leaders (some begin to suspect he has gone insane). Arab armies advance over Palestine and Syria, overruning the area except for Antioch, which holds out for a time. They begin the invasion of Egypt the following year. An inventor in Alexandria creates the first explosive powder, a napalm-like concotion that is later called "Greek Fire." In the battle for Alexandria shortly thereafter, the Arabs are surprised and defeated after the use of the invention on the walls of the city and by the ships guarding the harbor against the improvised Arab fleet. Another Roman army is hastily assembled, with a large contingent of Alans, Avars and Slavs, most of them mercenaries. The army is hurriedly shipped east and manages to halt the Arab advance in the Tauras mountains.

Sassanid King Khosaru II is killed by disgruntled nobles in central Media. The Sassanid Empire falls into anarchy with each noble fighting each other and the muslims. Islamic armies occupy Media and push on to the outlying lands of Persia, which still resist them somewhat effectively. The Interregnum lasts for 3 years.

Frankish armies, taking advantage of the general mayhem, invade Italy. However, with their recent war with the Visigoths, the Exarch of Italy manages to forge an alliance with the Visigoths and stir up enough trouble to slow the Franks down considerably. Nonetheless several cities in Pavia fall to the Frankish army.

641 AD: A different branch of the Sassanid dynasty ascends to power with the crowning of Yazdigerd III. With a somewhat Heraclian effort (couldn't resist the pun), he manages to cobble together a large army and defeat an Arab army near the Caspian sea. Although Mesopotamia cannot be recovered, the frontier begins to stablize around the remnants of the Sassanid Empire. Yazdigerd begins the long process of rebuilding a government largely destroyed by the muslims. An embassy from Emperor Heraclius finally reaches Yazdigerd, and he readily accepts, beginning to coordinate attacks with the Romans. The desperation of Yazdigerd for preserving his empire even reaches China, establishing a flow of technological exchange between China, Persia and Romania.

643 AD: Roman armies are pushed out of southern Egypt after a the Arabs cross by sea instead of the Sinai. Alexandria and the Nile delta hold out. Sensing danger, Exarch Pelagius marches out with a large army cobbled together from local Roman garrisons and north african tribes. The Arab army is utterly annhilated near Cyrenica, but they manage to hold on to their conquests in southern Egypt. The bloody warfare in Egypt halts grain shipments to Constantinople, causing panic and some say directly leading to the death of Heraclius to sickness shortly thereafter. Theodosius III ascends the throne peacefully, and his first action on the throne is to coordinate a massive push with the Sassanids. Roman armies pour from Anatolia and the Balkans (denuding the Danube frontier again, allowing hordes of Slavs to pour through) into Syria at about the same time a Sassanid army launches an attack on Media.

644 AD: Roman armies reoccupy Syria, meeting little resistance from the Muslims. Muslim armies retreat into Palestine for extended warfare. Portions of Media are recovered by the Sassanids. Heraclius dies peacefully and is succeeded by son and co-emperor Theodosius III.

647 AD: Arabs regroup and mass an army to retake Syria. The resulting war completely depopulates the region and it eventually falls to the Muslims. Only Antioch holds out against them.

Avar and Slav raiders beseige Adrianople and ravage much of the Balkans. Theodosius III dispatches a hodge-podge army of mercenaries and Italians against them, and manages to lift the seige. Many concessions toward autonomy are made to the authority of the Exarch of Ravenna for providing most of the troops for the campaign.

648 AD: Arab fleets take to the sea for the first time. Though they are outclassed at first by the Greek-fire equipped dromons of the Romans, the situation becomes increasingly desperate in following years.

652 AD: Sinai is taken and held by the Muslims. Alexandria and the nile delta hold out. Yazdigerd III personally leads a massive Sassanid army with a core of noble heavy cavalry into mesopotamia in a bid to retake Ctesiphon. The campaign begins well with a Sassanid victory near the Caspian sea. The next two years result in many easy gains for the Sassanids.

654 AD: Battle of Pontus, a series of smaller engagements in the Pontus region, result in a Roman victory. Arab advance into Anatolia is halted. The Romans are too weak by this point to take much advantage of the situation, and fail to launch any sort of counter-attack. Despite their defeat, the Arabs are able to derive great benefit from the brief lull in the war against the Romans. The full weight of the Arab forces comes down hard on the Sassanids and Yazdigerd III is defeated and captured. Brought before the Caliph, he is executed on the spot. Sassanid nobles immediately squabble over the throne, and the Arabs easily reconquer the lost territories. Many puppet Sassanid kings are created and subsequently deposed over the next decade.
 
map650.jpg

The Situation just before the Arab Invasion




And the situation after it begins:
map661.jpg
 
Last edited:
Xeal II

Let me 3rd the congratulations and welcome. Interesting timeline. Not sure if the Arabs would have the strength to conquer so much without the serious weakening of their opponents by the long historical war. However a lot would depend on how the internal situation in the empire developed, especially in terms of religion. Given attempts to enforce orthodoxy I could see Syria and Egypt having a lot of unrest and support for the conquerors. Not sure the war would be as bloody as you suggest as suspect both sides would wish to keep as many non-combatants alive as practical - since they would be valuable as taxpayers.

Is Tiberius's poor leadership based on historical evidence or basically to allow the historical accession to the throne of Heraclius without a ruinous civil war. [One potential problem with this is that since Khosrau was prepared to go to war over Maurice's overthrow in 602 historically he might be tempted to do the same over his son's disposition]. As such you could have the big Roman-Persian conflict delayed a bit, although probably a lot less destructive with a more capably led Roman empire.

Just to check is the Heraclius you mention the father or the son? Historically I think it was the father, who was Exarch of Africa, who sent his son, also called Heraclius, with the fleet to overthrown Phocas in 610.

Looking forward to seeing more.

Steve
 
Well, the strength of the Arabs was that the suppressed non-Orthodox Christians (Nestorians, Monophysites) welcomed them as liberators. At least this wouldn't be too different ITTL. It explains after all why the Muslims conquered half of Byzantium during one decade, but later had to fight much harder to get only a small part of Anatolia, despite having the much bigger power of the Caliphate now.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Very interesting timeline and welcome to the board Xeal. I have actually been thinking about just such a POD for quite some time, and I'm happy to see that someone is doing one.

Yes, same question as stevep. Heraclius the Elder was Exarch of Carthage in 610. So I'm guessing he died earlier thus allowing his son to become Exarch here instead? Or was that a simple slip-up? Happens to all of us, so don't feel bad if that is indeed what it is.

Excellent maps. I'd love to do that fading colour effect on the edges that you've done there in my maps. Haven't got around to figuring out how to do that in MS Paint yet (is it even possible?). I guess there's a tool for it in Paint Shop Pro though...

Looking forward to more!


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
 
Well, the strength of the Arabs was that the suppressed non-Orthodox Christians (Nestorians, Monophysites) welcomed them as liberators. At least this wouldn't be too different ITTL. It explains after all why the Muslims conquered half of Byzantium during one decade, but later had to fight much harder to get only a small part of Anatolia, despite having the much bigger power of the Caliphate now.

Max

That's basically what I meant. From most reports the initial Arab armies were pretty small. This was part of the reason for their popularity as they could get by with a lot less taxes to maintain them. However that was from a Rome and Persia virtually gutted by a long conflict which saw heavy defeats by both sides. Furthermore to maintain control and start putting things together again they needed higher taxes from an exhausted population.

In this scenario the armies in both powers will be markedly more capable and the economies much stronger. There will be resentment in Syria and Egypt but this is unlikely to become open revolt unless the Arabs look like they are likely to win. Furthermore, while its unclear the nature of the Arabs and what they are offering, the local population will be cautious about accepting a new foreign invader. Unless the religious persecution is very bad, which is why I was asking about it.

Steve
 
To clarify a few points: Yes there are saxons... I didn't label every tribe or small kingdom on the map, just a few obvious ones.

Exarch of Ravenna and then Emperor Heraclius is not Heraclius the Elder (who has no real role here), but rather the son who OTL became emperor. Sorry for any confusion there. I was pretty sure that he was installed as Exarch in Africa in his father's place shortly before sailing to Constantinople though, at least according to some sources. I could be wrong though.

Khosaru II might well have the excuse of Maurice's son Tiberius being deposed... but OTL he had the excuse of Maurice himself being killed AND an easy mark with an incompetent on the throne. In this ATL Heraclius is quite competent, and excuse or not is an effective deterrent to invasion.

Religious division was at it's worst when the Arabs showed up OTL. Religious strife was not as bad under Maurice as it had been under Justinian (or Phocas in OTL) and thus I am operating under the assumption that though religious strife does continue, that the threat posed by the Arabs at least temporarily unites the region instead of dividing it. Also in OTL the Arabs walked all over the Roman armies, and with both religious strife and ineffective armies, it is no wonder Egypt, Syria and Africa wound up almost preferring Arab rule, or at least doing very little against it. In this ATL, the roman army actually manages to win a few battles here and there. However religious strife will make it's appearance eventually even in the ATL. It is inevitable, but able rulers and a stronger empire manage to hold it down a lot longer than in OTL.

Tiberius's incompetence is not really mentioned one way or another... however Maurice did suffer from nepotism and often promoted or elevated relatives who were incompetent... it was one of his biggest flaws, so the story is entirely plausible.
 
Last edited:
I like the timeline so far, but it does seem like you're Arab-wanking a bit here. Why do the Persians seem to just fall down in the Arab assault? Why do the Byzantines armies fail against the Arabs? This isn't our timeline with the disatourous 25 year confict that obliterated Persian and Byzantine power in the middle east. Also Heraclius is very sympathetic to the Monophysite cause, it's doubtful without the brutal suppression of the East that Phocas did during the civil war and with a sympathetic emperor that the eastern provinces would melt away to the Arabs. If you want religous suppression to be the reason much of the east falls to the Arabs still you need a divisive very Chalcedonian emperor ruling to accomplish that. I could see them taking the Roman east and Egypt with that maybe.. but it's doubtful they'd be able to take on both empires at once and survive let alone reap such a huge victory.
 
The Persians are in a more vulnerable position against the Arabs. Their capital is within easy striking distance, their armies comprised mostly of poor infantry with a core of excellent cavalry dominated by nobles who in this ATL are feuding with each other over who will become King. Nonetheless they are already standing up much better than they did OTL. By 650 OTL the Sassanids were gone... they hold on until the early 700's in this timeline. It also bears mentioning that I have portions of the Sassanid Empire breaking up and remaining as Zoroastrian states instead of falling to the muslims.

The Romans are doing far better than OTL, where by 660 the Arabs were practically at the gates of Carthage. In this timeline, the Arabs don't quickly absorb provinces but are forced to conquer them outright, which by and large they are managing to do thus far, but at a much higher cost in manpower and destruction. This also takes them much longer. And these eastern provinces aren't just melting away... they are fighting very hard and significant parts of it still remain in Byzantine hands.

This is very plausible, as this isn't the first time in Roman history that we see palestine, syria and egypt taken. Palmyra did the same thing during the crisis of the third century and in OTL the Persians managed to do it too.

I allow for a certain degree of strength for the Arabs mainly due to the enthusiasm they had for their new religion and sudden surprise factor of a new enemy appearing on a front which neither the Sassanids or Romans had to pay any mind to in the last 400 years. Despite both empires being stronger than OTL, they are still taken by surprise by a strong and dynamic movement and that has to count for something in the wars to follow.
 
Last edited:
I allow for a certain degree of strength for the Arabs mainly due to the enthusiasm they had for their new religion and sudden surprise factor of a new enemy appearing on a front which neither the Sassanids or Romans had to pay any mind to in the last 400 years. Despite both empires being stronger than OTL, they are still taken by surprise by a strong and dynamic movement and that has to count for something in the wars to follow.

Xeal II

From what I have read I don't think the two empires would have been that unprepared. Rome had strong trading links with the region and the Sassanid’s had been involved in fighting as far SW as Yemen. Also I believed that both powers supported allied tributary tribes along their respective borders with the Arabian desert, partly to help prevent tribal raids from those regions. However in the desperate plight of both states after the long war the subsidies were dropped. In this scenario this is a lot less likely and the two empires would have buffers of tribal states that would be quite handy for resisting Arab incursions. Could however be that the long peace makes them rather complacent. Plus Rome is having its attention directed a long way west until the storm breaks. Also just possibly in this scenario, with a different background, Heraclius could be very orthodox - and/or have some political mess like his historical marriage to his niece.

Thanks for the information about Maurice and Tiberius. Didn't know a lot about Maurice's character other than that he was supposed to be a good general plus rather miserly. [Although forced to a degree after the excesses of Justinian's reign and the problems of prolonged war, plague etc].

Steve
 
That's exactly it, Rome's attention was diverted further west with the assumed peace in the East (war with the franks, lombards, etc...). You can see that once armies start to arrive from the west, the situation begins to stablize some. Remember that OTL by 678 the Arabs were beseiging Constantinople, and in this scenario they are nowhere near there. They get parts of egypt and syria and most of palestine... that's it. And some of that proves temporary as well.

Of course the Romans and Sassanids had their buffer states, but that's part of the complacency... they assume that the Ghassanids and Lakmids respectively can handle the problems posed by Islam until it's more or less at their doorstep with large armies. Their main focus is each other until it's almost too late... I have Heraclius more or less in line with thie historical figure religiously speaking. In this scenario though there is some strain in the eastern provinces... they are still loyal to Byzantium and fight back with some effectiveness as opposed to OTL where they more or less roll with the advancing Islamic tide.

Basically my 'plot' if you will is to have the Romans bounce back somewhat by the early 700's, but have the empire feeling a lot of east-west strain, with the exarchates becoming more and more independent, eventually forming a Latin Empire. The Eastern Empire fights the muslims predominantly and cannot really exercise effective control over the Exarchs. The Sassanids are ousted by the early 700's, their territory divided by the Caliphate and a few smaller, but still powerful Zoroastrian successor states (which eventually merge together again). The border between byzantium and the caliphate fluctuates over egypt and syria, but the caliphate more or less keeps palestine for the time being.
 
Here are some additional snippets from the ATL: I have a lot more to work on, and am researching possible names for leaders during this period. When I have this whole thing fleshed out, I will be tying it all together in a final ATL thread in the proper forum. Let me know if anyone has any thoughts on this idea.

Snippets from the gradual rise of an independent Exarchate, the story of Pelagius (different from OTL), considered to be the founder of the Latin Empire:

712 AD: Beginning of Visigothic war of Succession. Many Visigoths flee to Italy to find service with the Romans. Pelagius is among them, and soon rises to prominence in the army of the Exarchate.

715 AD: Pelagius appointed to become Magister Militum in the Exarchate of Italy. The only real power remaining to the Emperor in Constantinople over the Exarchate is the established tradition of the Emperor personally selecting the ruler to be appointed.

718 AD: After earning fame in the campaigns against the Franks, Pelagius is appointed as Exarch in Italy. He begins plans to conquer the divided Visigothic kingdom.

722: The Visigothic kingdom finally falls to Exarch Pelagius, ending the war of Visigothic Succession and restoring the entire penninsula of Iberia to Roman Rule. Pelagius assumes the dual title of King of the Goths and Exarch of Ravenna. The cultural assimilation fo the Visigoths to Roman ways eases the transition and conquest. With the death of Exarch Justinian III in africa, Pelagius assumes control of the entire west, asking for and recieving the appointment of Exarch of the West from Constantine VI (who is too weak to deny him, and has his eyes on the East anyway). The Exarchate of the West has become a quasi-independent state that is still a nominal part of a united Empire, though the Exarchate of the West is still not strong enough to stand on it's own entirely. Eastern Armies continue to secure the northern frontiers of Italy against the Franks and the frontiers of North Africa against the Muslims. Only subsidies, granted by Constantinople, continue to give the Exarchate it's edge against neighboring kingdoms.


Snippets from The Restoration of an Empire in the West and the Decline of the Caliphate, the end of the 200-Years War:

812 AD: The Latin-speaking western provinces of Romania have been diverging from the Greek east for some time now, and though the government of Constantinople claims to continue the traditions of the Roman Empire, it had become increasingly obvious that Latin Romania and Greek Romania were very different. Exarch Giustiniani, ruling from Ravenna, declares himself Emperor of the West. The governors of North Africa, excepting the Greek-speaking Cyrenica, quickly switched allegiance to the new-born Western Empire. Nevertheless Cyrenica was occupied by Western troops. Emperor Leo III was furious and almost immediately began building up a massive army with the mission of killing Giustiniani and restoring Imperial authority in the West.

813 - 817 AD: The Roman War of Independence. With the Greek-speaking East stronger in almost every way, the contest between East and West seemed a foregone conclusion. But the West had been rebuilding strength for decades now, and presented a much tougher target than Leo III realized. The first offensives in Dalmatia proved to be a disaster, and the Eastern armies reeled in defeat. Emperor Giustiniani cultivated Islamic allies, and a dual offensive against the Eastern Empire was launched, with the goal of convincing the Easterners that further war was pointless.
Leo III was overthrown by a military coup and Basil The Great was elevated to the throne (a different Basil than OTL). Basil immediately instituted a fully military economy and sent a core of cannon artillery and hand-cannon fighters supported by a massive, well trained army recruited from the frontier regions of Anatolia, into Muslim lands, defeating the Caliph and capturing Baghdad, a thunderous act which shocked the entire Muslim world and finally exposed the growing weakness of the Caliphate. With most of Mesopotamia in East Roman hands, he turned to the Balkans, which were being ravaged by the armies of Giustiniani. At Sirmium, Giustiniani's army was almost completely destroyed. On all fronts, the Eastern Empire pushed forward. Dalmatia fell almost by default to Basil, and his army continued to march forward, reaching Pannonia and northern Italy by 816. In early 817 Venice fell to Basil, who personally led his army's final assault.
Desperate now, Giustiniani sent peace offerings to Basil, offering to fix the border of the new-founded Western Empire in Dalmatia instead of the ancient borders running south of Sirmium. He also offered to restore the ancient alliance of Eastern and Western Rome. At first, Basil saw little reason to stop the offensive, which had been going extremely well. But armies from the Slavs and Magyars beginning to raid along the Danube frontier and the frequent raids of the Rus as far as Trebizond convinced him that despite these successes, the Eastern Empire could ill afford to fight everyone at once. Giustiniani was recognized as Emperor of the West under the condition that Dalmatia and Cyrenica were to be returned to the Eastern Empire. Giustiniani was forced to pay tribute for a further 10 years. Venice was returned to the West as a show of good faith.
The wisdom of this decision was almost immediately contested in Constantinople, where many of the citizens felt that Basil had allowed the Westerners to go unpunished for their impudence. The counter-offensive by the Muslims in 817 quickly convinced many of them of the wisdom of Basil's decision, however. Though the counter-offensive was ultimately halted in Mesopotamia, Baghdad was recaptured by the Muslims. Despite the reconquest, the Abbasid Caliphate is beginning to weaken. The Caliphs are increasingly marginalized by the governors, who are already practically independent. In particular, the governor of Egypt, cut off from the rest of the Caliphate during the last few years, began to openly flout it's independence.

840 AD: The 200 year war between the Caliphate and the Eastern Empire begin to grind to a halt as the Caliphate, split by many internal divisions, finally begins to fall apart. The Islamic Empire splits into three primary divisions, the Caliphate of Egypt, The existing Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad and the Empire of Delhi. Smaller states form on the borders of the three Islamic empires and in western China. Though the split is at first relatively peaceful, war soon breaks out among many of the smaller states.
 
I was writing quickly since I had to leave for work earlier, so my quibbles may have seemed greater and less realized than they actually are. So I'll reconstruct them a bit more constructively. I can see things going the way you have them going but I think you might want to edit or flush out somethings a bit better.

Your assumption about the religious strife wouldn't be quite right without the insertion of a vastly Chacledonian biased emperor like Phocas. Maurice and Heraclius were very sympathetic to the Monophysite cause, so unless their personalities are different in this timeline then I don't see a willingness to fall under Muslim rule for these reasons. Tax reasons may be a compelling substitute, since Roman taxation was quite harsh ever since the Justinanic Plague.

This is very plausible, as this isn't the first time in Roman history that we see palestine, syria and egypt taken. Palmyra did the same thing during the crisis of the third century and in OTL the Persians managed to do it too.
Not really, your comparisons don't hold up well. A minor war with the Franks doesn't compare with the calamity of the third century crisis, nor with the utter insanity of Phocas' rule. The times that Syria, Palestine and Egypt are taken by an outside power in Roman history are times when the empire is collapsing from within with bad to mediocre emperors at the helm or utterly exhausted from the previous. Rather in this instance these provinces are taken, when the Empire is ruled by one of its greater emperors and has been ruled well for over a century, by a new upstart power which is fighting two of the three great powers of the world at the time. You need at the least a mediocre emperor for this to seem more plausible.

Now the empire's resources had been severely drained by the plague and Justinian's unending drive to reunite the empire. So the empire would be quite strained to fight a two front war at this time, even with Maurice's reforms. Yet once fighting is stopped in the west, the empire would be able to fully bear down on the Arabs and would be quite able to beat them back and retake all of Egypt at least very easily. The Arabs are very overextended, fighting a two front war and are without the resources of the a much more powerful empire. They were very lucky in OTL, they hit at the exact time that both powers were completely exhausted from an extremely long, extremely painful war and occupation. Plus the Romans really didn't fight back, after Yarmuk they practically just let the Arabs have the East. It was a total war weariness in the Emperor and the people of that region. Imagine what the Germans and French would have done if the Soviets invaded right after WW2 ended. This does not exist here, and the Romans will do what it takes to recapture these areas especially Egypt which is the tax and food foundation for the Eastern Empire.

The Persians, I really just wanted it more flushed out. It is believable that the Arabs could take them down at their height, but it just seemed too easy maybe.. More detail perhaps. My main suggestion is to perhaps make Heraclius die before the invasion, and have a period of instability during it.. or maybe have the Arabs focus on Persia first and then use that power to fight against the Romans once that region is conquered.. and I really don't see the Arabs holding on to any part of Egypt for a long period with the Roman power depending on it so much.

Just to repeat though.. I do really like it so far, and it reads really well.. Congrats on a good start to a timeline and I do really want to see more... just wanted to put my input out there. Also good maps!
 
Any conquest of Mesopotamia by Constantinople is going to put them in contact with Nestorian Christians in the Assyrian Church of the East living there. There's always the chance, like in Egypt, the Romans would establish their own Patriarch of the See of St. Thomas at Baghdad. With the return of the Caliphate, it would have little time to make an impact in gaining a tremendous amount of followers with the exception of some opportunists. What it would do is create a new situation in Mesopotamia, one that could have tremendous butterflies later.
 
Xeal II

I agree with elomire678 that I think the empire needs to be under much greater stress to lose so much permanently. Especially as he says Egypt with its importance for both food supplies and revenue. Possibly they re-conquer Egypt totally for a while then a period of bad rule under an repressive governor results in a serious rebellion when a new Muslim army crosses the desert and attacks. Possibly leading to a state which when it breaks from the main Caliphate is more clearly Egyptian in culture and language than Arabic, which would emphasis its independence. [A bit like what occurred in Persia/Iran]. Or simply that for most of the period the empire controls Egypt and the Arabs concentrate on Palestine and Syria as their frontier positions in the west. [Although this would mean no real Muslim presence in Africa. This might make the western empire's independence more realistic however as it only has to really worry about the Franks and the border for NE Italy].

Otherwise I think its a possibility and a very interesting idea. Not sure the western provinces would be strong enough to establish a viable state at this time but then, avoiding a lot of the disorder and also the Arab invasions and you have some potentially rich territories in Italy, Africa and Spain. Would this be overwhelmingly a Latin speaking/cultures state, possibly claiming to be the true revival of ancient Rome, which would cause a lot of tension with Constantinople? Or one with much more influence from various German tribes [other than the Franks] with a clearer break from classical culture.

You would have to give more detail in terms of the partial technical revolution occurring with gunpowder weapons and the like. Not sure how likely that would be as would probably need a lot of social change but might be possible given the events. Going to result in some very big butterflies.

On the break-up of the Caliphate you have had the Muslims be successful a lot earlier in India I think. Given how much they are having to fight in the ME I'm not sure how likely it was. With the actual break-up you might want to consider a couple of other options. Possibly an Iranian one, or this could be prevented if the Zoroastrian revival occurs at this time. Or say a more radical religious one in the Damascus area that is more devoted to jihad. [Thinking of what kind of thing happened with the Ottomans in Anatolia, where the frontier warrior state, invigorated by religious zeal and possibly desire for loot and fame, succeeds more than the richer more settled lands further from the frontier]. Although this depends on whether you see Islam maintaining a strong presence in the area or ultimately being finally defeated by the empire. [Wondering what sort of population the region would have at the end of the 200 year war. Both in terms of race and religion].

Anyway some very interesting ideas and looking to see how things develop. Hope some of the above are of interest.

Steve
 
The Latin Empire is a hybrid state, it's predominantly Romance-language speaking (and there is still a lot of similarity to Latin among Romance languages at this time) but it isn't a true revival of the Roman Empire... consider it to be rather like the Gothic kingdoms were previously... very Roman in their culture, but still having much Germanic influence and obviously by this time a lot of Byzantine influence as well. The East-West schism, religiously speaking, still occurs, though the influence of the Pope is much reduced, becoming more like a Latin version of the Patriarch, where the Emperor has the power of appointment. The Latin Empire, despite definate differences with classical Rome, still does claim every inch of the title of Roman Empire, however. It's questionable how much weight the claim really has, but this ATL has them nonetheless claiming to be the "true" Roman Empire.

With the Visigoths incorporated into the Latin Empire, the real enemy becomes the Franks, whom the empire will be more or less constantly at war with for awhile. The Byzantines are, of course, preoccupied with the Middle East and aside from the initial civil war, don't pay the empire much mind for awhile.

Some notes on the Eastern provinces: Egypt and Syria are to be recovered by the Byzantines after many see-saw battles in the region. However by the time they are, Egypt isn't anywhere near as useful to the empire as it was before and the lack of agricultural resources and the depopulation of much of the area is what pushes a partial industrial revolution (Egypt is actually the region where I have the revolution beginning, though quickly spreading across the Empire and eventually influencing the Caliphate)... there is not enough labor to support the economy and there is the inventive push that warfare brings along with a still strong connection to the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans before them. Steam power comes early, and an early form of gunpowder along with it... though this is roughly at the level of 14 century gunpowder, very unsafe and prone to explosion. The revolution cannot go too far, however, due to the inferior metals of the era. In other words you have steam-powered and/or clever devices and simple factories, but no locomotives or giant metal steamships, etc...

The 660 map is the Byzantine Empire at it's lowest point during the war. Egypt is more fully recovered in the early 670s, with considerable help and resources from the Exarchate of Africa. The coastal regions are never really lost, as the Byzantine navy maintains complete dominance during this time. During a later period (760 AD or so) religious controvery fully rears it's head during a time of incompetent rulers and much of Egypt falls to the Muslims during this time, though the Caliphate is already splintering by this time, and the new Muslim invaders are more or less already independent of the Caliphate, giving only nominal recognition to the Caliph. Their brand of Islam is more fanatical and aggresive, but by this time the Egyptians more or less welcome them. It is also during this time that the same incompetent Byzantine rulers allow the Exarchate of the West to steer things their own way without any real attempt to bring them back into the fold, eventually leading to the Latin Empire. The early 800's once again have the empire restoring itself under stronger rulers. I do like the idea of having the Egyptian state maintaining more Egyptian cultural traditions in the mold of Persia OTL... and I think I may implement that.

The Sassanid Empire breaks apart eventually, but tabaristan, bactria and much of the northern portions of the empire remain Zoroastrian and in the hands of local dynasties who resist the Muslims. The southern regions become more Islamicized and provide a bridge to India for expansion in that direction, along with greater seapower, given the Muslims contact and experience with the Greek-fire wielding Byzantines. Also, with expansion stymied against the Romans and Zoroastrian Persians, the Arabs are forced to search elsewhere for conquests, i.e. India. With the stronger resistance in the middle east, jihadist tendencies are amplified somewhat.. I definately agree with the idea of having more violent, fanatical sects of Islam.

Persia essentially becomes divided much along the lines of the Southern Slavs during the Byzantine and Ottoman periods OTL... where part of the populace goes Muslim, and part of the populace remains adhering to the local religion. Like the Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Bosnians... you'll have Zoroastrian Persians, Muslim Persians and even a significant amount of Christian Persians in the ATL.
 
Last edited:
Top