WI: Emperor Maurice remains in power

[SwordLord]

I will give a POD. In 588, he does not cut military wages, meaning the mutineer problems which led to his fall never begin. Instead he cuts funds to other things and increases taxes to get the money he needs.

This would probably result in a much more stable Empire, as Maurice was able to keep all of Rome's enemies on the defensive, and he formed a friendship with the Sassanid Emperor. This could delay or entirely prevent the Sassanian Wars all together(I don't think they could be entirely prevented unless the Sassanids collapse entirely). When the Arabic invasions occur, both Persia and Rome would be much stronger, so they would fail entirely, assuming they happen at all(the butterflies may prevent Islam all together).

I'm no expert, so I can't say whether Maurice would be able to drive the Lombards out of Italy, but it should be possible. If he does manage to do this, then when he dies and reestablishes the Western Empire(there were no contemporary sources for his reestablishing the Tetrarchy, so I am assuming that wouldn't happen), his son Tiberius should be in a good position, with the only substantial threat being the Franks. If he doesn't, Italy would probably fall to the Lombards unless Theodosius aides his younger brother. In this period, the Berbers were on the decline, so Africa is likely secure for the time being.

This is just my(not well educated) opinion, so please discuss it and come up with your own ideas.

 

[LSCatilina]

The problem with Lombards is that they aren't an excessively threatening force to Constantinople : they certainly were for Italy but at this point, the whole region was fairly peripheral to the empire. He was probably aware that undergoing another campaign in Italy would be both costly, and probably inconclusive in the short term, while Sassanians still represented a clear and immediate danger.
IOTL, Maurice favored a policy of "Christian commonwealth" dominated by Constantinople, where he would favour rear-allies and, while not strictly client, allies in his debt (such as Ermenengild or Gondovald) against possible rivals and ennemies. It worked out good enough, not great but as power projection went in the late VIth/early VIIth, it allowed the Roman state to preserve a good part of its mediterranean leadership. I don't see a good reason why he would have noticably departed from this policy, and I think he would be more likely to accept Lombard presence in Northern and Southern Italy in exchange of a normalisation of this same presence (Niceanisation and a formal, and palatial, acknowledgement of Roman leadership. Arguably maybe we could see two Lombards kingdoms this way in a favourable scenario.

That being said, a surviving Maurice would have likely turned exarchates into de facto vice-kingdoms with his sons at their heads, which would have made them not only virtually independent (preventing large reconquest from their parts in their respective hinterlands) but possible usurpation starting point, with all that it implies (use of allies such as Berbers or Lombards; civil wars, and Persian intervention). I, like you, doubt you would be able to prevent Persian pressure, while you could delay it a bit : their empire was clearly focused on recovering/expanding on the traditionally fought-over area. It doesn't mean they have to win (in fact, I'd expect another relatively status quo situation) or that it would have to be as costly than IOTL, arguably.

Eventually note that the issue in Phocas' revolt was less wages, then the unability of Maurice's to feed his armies : at this point, the agricultural production generally declined worldwide, as a result of climetic depression. This too would have to be dealt with, at the expense of prestigious projects such as taking back Italy, even if Maurice really would have envisioned it.

 

[SwordLord]

The problem with Lombards is that they aren't an excessively threatening force to Constantinople : they certainly were for Italy but at this point, the whole region was fairly peripheral to the empire. He was probably aware that undergoing another campaign in Italy would be both costly, and probably inconclusive in the short term, while Sassanians still represented a clear and immediate danger.
IOTL, Maurice favored a policy of "Christian commonwealth" dominated by Constantinople, where he would favour rear-allies and, while not strictly client, allies in his debt (such as Ermenengild or Gondovald) against possible rivals and ennemies. It worked out good enough, not great but as power projection went in the late VIth/early VIIth, it allowed the Roman state to preserve a good part of its mediterranean leadership. I don't see a good reason why he would have noticably departed from this policy, and I think he would be more likely to accept Lombard presence in Northern and Southern Italy in exchange of a normalisation of this same presence (Niceanisation and a formal, and palatial, acknowledgement of Roman leadership. Arguably maybe we could see two Lombards kingdoms this way in a favourable scenario.

That being said, a surviving Maurice would have likely turned exarchates into de facto vice-kingdoms with his sons at their heads, which would have made them not only virtually independent (preventing large reconquest from their parts in their respective hinterlands) but possible usurpation starting point, with all that it implies (use of allies such as Berbers or Lombards; civil wars, and Persian intervention). I, like you, doubt you would be able to prevent Persian pressure, while you could delay it a bit : their empire was clearly focused on recovering/expanding on the traditionally fought-over area. It doesn't mean they have to win (in fact, I'd expect another relatively status quo situation) or that it would have to be as costly than IOTL, arguably.

Eventually note that the issue in Phocas' revolt was less wages, then the unability of Maurice's to feed his armies : at this point, the agricultural production generally declined worldwide, as a result of climetic depression. This too would have to be dealt with, at the expense of prestigious projects such as taking back Italy, even if Maurice really would have envisioned it.

I agree with most of what you've said. I wonder if the Lombards would deal with Maurice though. If I were in their position, I would see his lack of invasion as a sign of weakness, and probably refuse any deals(unless they were unrealistically good). I wonder if Maurice is too late to fully recover Italy.

 

[LSCatilina]

I wonder if the Lombards would deal with Maurice though.

I think it depends on the degree of success of Maurician policy in western Europe, as he was one of the more proactive emperors on this regard since Justinian and, IMO, with a more realist outlook, I think there's at least ground for some success, even if I agree it's not guaranteed, especially on middle term.
The policy of Constantinople towards Barbarian kingdoms could be roughly summarized as such : the empire send prestigious gifts (such as silk) but more importantly gold (generally coined locally) and subsides. These are used by Barbarians to buy Byzantine products (or products passing trough Byzantium) as they don't export a whole lot there. It helps keeping not only the economic dominance of the Empire in Europe, but as well to reinforce its political power there by appearing as a wealthy center as well providing prestigious goods that Barbarians kings have to redistribue among their aristocracy.

Thing is, this whole system begins to falter by the late VIth and growingly so by the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, with exchanges slowing down : usual suspects are the costly Persian wars, the plague, the climatic change, the growing impopularity of Romans (based on religious shenanigans, in part) and eventually the Arab conquests. Pirenne misattributed the whole decline to the Arab conquest (which isn't right as the decline began earlier, and that the conquests didn't stop Mediterranean trade), but he did spot first the problem.
In the same time (and while it was fueled by the decline of Meditteranean trade, it also came from an independent economic development), North Sea trade blossomed on other roads (fluvial and maritime), that by-passed the Empire.

With Maurice surviving ITTL, you won't be able to deal with all of this, but maybe with part of it : namely Persian wars, religious policies and the Arab conquests. It won't butterfly away the decline of Byzantine trade in Europe, but could slow it up and prevent to go as far as IOTL. Meaning that the Empire could still intervene economically and politically in its western neighborhood.
Furthermore, IOTL, the resumption of Lombard advance in Italy was directly tied to Phocas' usurpation and the new emperor was unable to really do something besides acknowledging Agilulf's conquests due to pressing matters in Persia and, arguably, a serious dose of incompetence. ITTL, Maurice could maybe settle the situation a bit better, possibly trough a support of Nicean factions among Lombards (all the more easily since the king converted to Nicean Christianity at this point), possibly fueling their alliance against the Frankish kings of Burgundy.

Basically, we're talking a lot about soft power there, that did work relatively correctly IOTL during Maurice's reign. Without a too great pressure, you could see the possibility of a military intervention in the early VIIIth to make a point (possibly, even if I think it's relatively implausible, dividing Lombards in North and South parts politically)
The issue is that his plans to form semi-apanages for his sons in Italy and Africa could destabilize enough the situation : as said above, it could turn these as hotbed for usurpation tentative and civil disorder, especially as exarchates (especially Italy) would still be more or less dependent of Constantinople. It's not as much that these exarchates does exist, than they would be ruled by the sons of Maurice with all legitimity to claim imperium at swordpoint.

Now, while you could (and, IMO, probably would) have a situation where ERE's presence would be declining in Europe and in Italy, with enough room for Lombards to resume their advance in Italy in middle term as soon as the personal agreement with Maurice would be seen as obsolete, there's enough room to preserve enough of ERE's political power in the region compared to IOTL. How much is depending of what happens in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries.

I wonder if Maurice is too late to fully recover Italy.

It depends what you mean by recover. If you mean making Italy a central core and region to Roman Empire, it's probably not really doable at this point.
If you meant recovering Italy as a peripheral and growingly autonomous region, there's no real reason IMO why it couldn't be gradually done (with pieces and regions lacking there and there) in the long term; even if I think a partial Roman control of Italy, even as semi-independent, is more or less likely in the forseeable future of this PoD.

 

[y3k]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Sassanid wars. The OTL war's escalation was due to a unique set of circumstances (a three-way Roman civil war, Khosrau being in an unusually good position to take advantage of the situation both legally and strategically) that led to the collapse of the Roman frontier. With a surviving Maurice there's a very good chance the two empires will remain at peace until either Maurice or Khosrau kick the bucket, at which point all bets are off. Even then though, chances are you'll just see a resumption of the costly-but-not-apocalyptic border wars that defined the fifth and sixth centuries.

Of course, that pretty much ensures that the empire's attention will always be in the east. Its time in the west is slowly drawing to a close.