WI: Emperor Maurice isn't killed

In 602 AD the Byzantine Emperor Maurice was killed by soldiers from the Danube supporting the future emperor Phocas. The rebellion came as the fourth mutiny given Maurice's attempts to fill the treasury by cutting pay of soldiers and, in this case, telling his soldiers to spend the winter living off the land along the Danube instead of letting them return for the winter. The soldiers then rebelled and put Phocas on the throne and killed Maurice.

Phocas' reign began with a revolt in Mesopotamia that soon spiralled into the Roman-Persian War of 602-628 and severely weakened both empires and allowed Islam to seize regions such as Egypt and the Levant. In turn this led to the loss of regions in the West such as Africa, Italy and Spain to the advancing Islamic forces. Maurice's reign meanwhile seems to have been quite successful given that he ended the paying of tribute to the Persians, helped prevent the loss of lands in Italy to the Visigoths and helped consolidate the empire. But his will seems to have been to restore Diocletian's tetrachy by having his eldest son rule from the East and his second son rule from the West and some historians believing he may have intended to have his other sons rule from Carthage, Alexandria and Antioch.

My question:

Had he lived, say, another 5 years could the war have been avoided and the regions of Armenia and Northern Mesopotamia kept in the empire?

Could this have stunted the rise of Islam militarily through Egypt, the Levant etc.?

Would he split the empire successfully (either into 2 or 5)? If so could this be sustainable?

Or could his eldest son take the entire empire for himself after his death? If so would he continue his father's policies of consolidation? Could he avoid a war with Persia like his father?
 
As far as I understand, Muhammad is supposed to have had his religious "wakeup" at age 40, that is around 610. Theoretically a POD in 602 could even influence Muhammads life in unknown ways, as a different course of events in the Byzantine and Sassanid empires would create butterflies that would reach Arabia long before 610.

I leave it for others with more knowledge when it comes to the Byzantine Empire to answer your questions, but one thing that would create problems in the empire, even if the Arabs were not able to take any part of the empire, would be the religious divisions when it comes to Christology. Would this create splits within the empire?
 
Based on historical precedent, splitting the Empire into multiple parts would probably have resulted in a round of civil wars to decide who gets to be in charge. If this goes on too long, the Persians might decide to take advantage of it, and the end result could be much as OTL's Roman-Persian War. OTOH, if it's relatively short (say, one decisive battle + everybody abandons the loser) the Empire would be in a much stronger position compared to OTL, in which case the butterflies could potentially be enormous.
 
Maurice's is probley better off leaving the whole empire to the eldest son. The west is too weak to stand on its own and a 5 way split is stupid
 
The reports of the division of the empire in Maurice's will supposedly only came to light during Heraclius' reign. It could just as easily be suspect as truth. Perhaps it was Maurice's plan to name Theodosius emperor while making the rest of his sons provincial governors. You know, something along the lines of King Henry II's succession plan - Henry the Young King being named king while Richard, Geoffrey and John being named as subordinate dukes.

Just a thought.
 
The reports of the division of the empire in Maurice's will supposedly only came to light during Heraclius' reign. It could just as easily be suspect as truth. Perhaps it was Maurice's plan to name Theodosius emperor while making the rest of his sons provincial governors. You know, something along the lines of King Henry II's succession plan - Henry the Young King being named king while Richard, Geoffrey and John being named as subordinate dukes.

Just a thought.

I was wondering about that. For someone who spent their reign often consolidating the empire it seems a bit strange to suddenly split it up on his death.
 
I was wondering about that. For someone who spent their reign often consolidating the empire it seems a bit strange to suddenly split it up on his death.

Well, dividing the Empire *was* a Roman tradition -- a pretty stupid one, I'd say, but custom and tradition often counts for a lot in these things.
 
The reports of the division of the empire in Maurice's will supposedly only came to light during Heraclius' reign. It could just as easily be suspect as truth. Perhaps it was Maurice's plan to name Theodosius emperor while making the rest of his sons provincial governors. You know, something along the lines of King Henry II's succession plan - Henry the Young King being named king while Richard, Geoffrey and John being named as subordinate dukes.

Just a thought.
Yeah the younger sons would be powerful governors but not independent of theodosius
 
Top