wi Byzantine reconquest of Lombard Italy

How could the Byzantines under Maurice or Heraclius successfully reconquer Italy from the Lombards ?
 
Both emperors were far too busy elsewhere, defending against threats to far more critical ERE territory. Maurice primarily in the Balkans, Heraclius going mano y mano with the Persians.

Neither had the resources to also tackle significant projects in the West.
 
Both emperors were far too busy elsewhere, defending against threats to far more critical ERE territory. Maurice primarily in the Balkans, Heraclius going mano y mano with the Persians.

Neither had the resources to also tackle significant projects in the West.

Well Maurice intended to make one of his sons Western Roman Emperor correct? Or at least make him de facto ruler of Italy and the western territory of the ERE.
 
Well Maurice intended to make one of his sons Western Roman Emperor correct? Or at least make him de facto ruler of Italy and the western territory of the ERE.

Yes, it was an idea transmitted through a sickbed will. Whether or not it would have been carried out if he was not assassinated is any one's guess. Although he set up the Exarchate military governorship in Italy (which slowed down Lombards gains in the peninsula) he seems to have let it rely on its own resources. The Empire was financially stretched which led Maurice to implement things such as cutting military salaries by 25%. That went over well....
 
Well it at least shows that it was on his mind, so that shouldn't be too much of a stretch for a WI.

You'd need a POD before Maurice probably. An Empire not bled dry economically and less pressure from the Avars and Persians. Installing a son in Rome does not equal reconquoring Italy by itself.
 
You'd need a POD before Maurice probably. An Empire not bled dry economically and less pressure from the Avars and Persians. Installing a son in Rome does not equal reconquoring Italy by itself.

Not necessarily.

By late 602, the Avars were a spent force, having been repelled from the provinces and beaten even in Pannonia itself. If we have Peter removed from command in the winter of 602, and replaced with Priscus, or hell even Comentiolus (not Phocas’ brother), the dreaded revolt might not have happened. With the respite, the Avars would put up a fight come the spring, and the war would go on for a few more months, maybe even into the summer of 603, and then that’s that; their collapse would ensue (they might disappear from the map, however.)

With the Danube secured, and the friendly Khosrau on the throne in Iran, there’s the west. Maurice might busy himself with repopulating the Balkans for the next few years, but, if he was to make good of his alleged plans, the re-conquest of Italy was mandatory at some point. And truly, by then, the Lombards are at one of their weakest points, with the somewhat unpopular Agilulf at their head. The best approach to take would be to defeat the Lombards in steps: one duchy at the time. Even the defeated Avars might be persuaded, from a position of strength, to attack northern Italy, while the Imperial forces move in from the south.
 
The best bet as far as Maurice goes might be to have one of his earlier initiatives involving reining in military spending cause a revolt big enough to make him wary of pissing of the army too much in the future while not big enough to derail the war effort in the Balkans or you know get him and his entire family slaughtered. After that it may be possible to have him make inroads in Italy but the man was a born penny-pincher which at best will likely limit his gains at worst you'll get a coup much like otl at some point.

As far as Heraclius goes unless you manage to get him or his father on the throne within a couple years of Phocas taking over, the Empire will simply be too spent in both coin and manpower to launch of a war of conquest in Italy or anywhere else for that matter.
 
Heraclius? Not a chance. As long as Maurice wasn't on the throne (and even that's debatable) Khusrau II was going to invade and most of Byzantium's resources would have been taken up by the Sassanian War.

I'm not sure if the conquest of Italy is even a good thing for the Byzantines, to be honest. Maurice reconquering Italy in the 600s, decades after the Lombard invasion, would be a tremendous manpower and money sink that would give very little back, save for the psychological satisfaction of recovering the birthplace of Rome. A Byzantium that retakes Italy is going to pay dearly for that in the form of losing even more land in Anatolia to the Persians/Arabs, which is by far the more important territory.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if the conquest of Italy is even a good thing for the Byzantines, to be honest. Reconquering Italy in the 600s, decades after the Lombard invasion, would be a tremendous manpower and money sink that would give very little back, save for the psychological satisfaction of recovering the birthplace of Rome. A Byzantium that retakes Italy is going to pay dearly for that in the form of losing even more land in Anatolia to the Persians/Arabs, which is by far the more important territory,

Taking Italy would at least solidify Imperial power in the west. If the alps could be retaken and secured alongside the Danube before Maurices death then the Empire has a great chance to hold it. Besides the cost of fighting the Lombards constantly is much heavier and it saves at least some troops. With the west/north/east safe from invasion, and the South incapable of doing much of anything dangerous assuming Islam gets butterflied away; then holding Italy would do tremendous goods once money started flowing through the old heartlands.
 
Taking Italy would at least solidify Imperial power in the west. If the alps could be retaken and secured alongside the Danube before Maurices death then the Empire has a great chance to hold it. Besides the cost of fighting the Lombards constantly is much heavier and it saves at least some troops. With the west/north/east safe from invasion, and the South incapable of doing much of anything dangerous assuming Islam gets butterflied away; then holding Italy would do tremendous goods once money started flowing through the old heartlands.

The cost of fighting the Lombards occasionally is not higher than the cost of a full scale invasion, especially the costs of "the men and money spent here are not available elsewhere" - extremely relevant in the time period we're talking about.
 

nomisma

Donor
I'm not sure if the conquest of Italy is even a good thing for the Byzantines, to be honest. Maurice reconquering Italy in the 600s, decades after the Lombard invasion, would be a tremendous manpower and money sink that would give very little back, save for the psychological satisfaction of recovering the birthplace of Rome. A Byzantium that retakes Italy is going to pay dearly for that in the form of losing even more land in Anatolia to the Persians/Arabs, which is by far the more important territory.

Is Anatolia really that important? Except Aegean Region (and some other coastal region), Anatolia was a backwater in the Empire. It did not become the heartland of the Empire until losing most of her valuable provinces to Arab.(I think the Byzantine mostly likely only losing Armenia and some land in Syria to Persian if they lose the limited war)

Also Lombard at that time was still fragment, I am not familiar with the area, but I don't think reconquering Italy would really be that money sink. (Thought the Empire would spend many resources to rebuild it political infrastructure.)
 
Is Anatolia really that important? Except Aegean Region (and some other coastal region), Anatolia was a backwater in the Empire. It did not become the heartland of the Empire until losing most of her valuable provinces to Arab.(I think the Byzantine mostly likely only losing Armenia and some land in Syria to Persian if they lose the limited war)

Also Lombard at that time was still fragment, I am not familiar with the area, but I don't think reconquering Italy would really be that money sink. (Thought the Empire would spend many resources to rebuild it political infrastructure.)

Well technically I said Anatolia was more important than Italy, not that Anatolia was the most important part of the Empire. But I believe that too.

But even allowing for the fact that Anatolia was a backwater on the cusp of the Arab invasions, Anatolia provided 1) a buffer zone between Constantinople and the Arab/Persian frontier, 2) a comparatively stable zone (i.e. no massive nomad invasions) on which the Byzantine thematic system could be built upon, and 3) a large-ish Monophysite base from which the Patriarch of Constantinople could derive his power and authority from. Italy gives none of these advantages to Byzantium.

And Khusrau II was not going to just get Armenia and Syria - because if that was the case, he would have accepted Heraclius' offers of peace well before 626. It's safe to say that he wanted to recreate the Achaemenid Empire - and to do that meant the complete destruction of Byzantium. This is not to mention the subsequent Rashidun and Umayyad Empires, which explicitly had a hadith calling for the conquest of Constantinople.

Well the problem with a Byzantine reconquest of Italy is that the Byzantines were operating on 'external lines' - they had to attack inland Lombard positions in the mountains of the Apennines, while simultaneously having to deal with potential Lombard invasions (which would be even more frequent with fragmented Lombardians) on every city they held. Add to this the fact that local duchies and especially the Pope might not have helped the Empire whole-heartedly (since the Byzantines were still foreigners of a different sort), and you see that even securing what they had was a task that required intensive investment of troops and cash.
 
Not necessarily.

By late 602, the Avars were a spent force, having been repelled from the provinces and beaten even in Pannonia itself. If we have Peter removed from command in the winter of 602, and replaced with Priscus, or hell even Comentiolus (not Phocas’ brother), the dreaded revolt might not have happened. With the respite, the Avars would put up a fight come the spring, and the war would go on for a few more months, maybe even into the summer of 603, and then that’s that; their collapse would ensue (they might disappear from the map, however.)

With the Danube secured, and the friendly Khosrau on the throne in Iran, there’s the west. Maurice might busy himself with repopulating the Balkans for the next few years, but, if he was to make good of his alleged plans, the re-conquest of Italy was mandatory at some point. And truly, by then, the Lombards are at one of their weakest points, with the somewhat unpopular Agilulf at their head. The best approach to take would be to defeat the Lombards in steps: one duchy at the time. Even the defeated Avars might be persuaded, from a position of strength, to attack northern Italy, while the Imperial forces move in from the south.

I have to wonder if the POD and subsequent effects would create the cliche "no Islam" butterfly.
 
Thank you everybody. You have given me a lot of fantastic ideas for my own TL and i also have a greater understanding of the Lombard's now.

To be they dont teach kids in school about this stuff.
 
Top