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?
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?