Augustine Sedira
Banned
As the title says, what if Heraclius fled in 615 to Carthage allowing Constantinople to fall into the hands of the Sassanids.
It's not really clear if Sassanians could really have taken over Constantinople. It would depend on Roman naval superiority to simply disappear, and even in its worst periods, Constantinople mostly managed to rely on it efficiently : it's one of the reasons Sassanians were content with a tribute in 618 instead of besieging the city.
It doesn't mean you wouldn't have a possibility relocating the Empire's chief city at all, but it might be more complex overall.
(As an aside note, why 615 out of all dates?)
Let's assume that Heraclius, or anyone really, would leave Constantinople to itself. It could allow Sassanians to win the siege, less by breaching into it than pressing on its supply lines and forcing it to a vassalic status (something close enough to the Ottoman-Byzantine relationship, let's say), with a rival emperor in the place.
In the same time, Heraclius' Roman Empire would be indeed likely relocate its centers to Africa but as well in Italy (Constans II's style), making the Empire more rooted in Central Romania where late imperial civilization survived relatively well in spite of the general western crisis and butchered Justinian's campaigns. But while the Empire would likely have lost of most its eastern provinces from Anatolia to Egypt (something reminiscent of IOTL Arab conquests), its naval power would be more or less intact and the incapacity of Sassanians to overcome it IMO would preserve Roman presence in Greece and Adriatic coastal regions (regarding the hinterland, tough...) while any Constantinopolian vassal of Sassanids could arguably maintain its control on Macedonia and Aegean Sea.
It wouldn't be insane to consider Rome or Ravenna as a Roman capital at this point, altough probably not a main one (compared to Carthage or Syracuse), but Romans would have to deal with a more independent and regionally minded Roman nobility in the former exarchates. The relation with the pope would be then different from the relation with the patriarchate of Constantinople, more negotiated than real cesaro-papism.
We'd be talking, of course, of a significantly weakened Roman Empire ITTL, altough I don't see which Barbarian kingdom would be really able to threaten them, at least immediately. Still their dominant position was already declining even before the PoD and their unability to really stress their commercial and prestige among Barbarian kings wouldn't really make appear as a "special" entity at term. The good thing is that Franks are too remote to really matter, and that Visigoths couldn't compete in naval matters (on the other hands, Byzantine Spania is done for).
Mostly, this Roman Empire would look more and more, IMO, as a special variant of the states that would neighbour it.
With enough luck, you might see a Roman state emerging out of Africa/Italy, slowly getting the upper hand on southern Lombard principalties. It's not a given of course, but their position isn't desesperate, and if the Empire managed to recover from the VII and VIIIth IOTL, I don't see why it couldn't (even if more difficultly) ITTL as per principle.
Of course there would be massive butterflies (Islam, Russia, Balkans, Orthodox Christianity, etc.) to be taken in account.
Not really : as long as Romans keep a naval prominance, that's not hugely difficult to supply grain from Africa to, say, Corinth. The proximity with Constantinople doesn't explain alone why relatively remote Dalmatian coastal control was maintained. ITTL, the same thing would apply to Greek coastal control.but what about the coasts. It would be hard to supply the coastal cities constantly from the Slavs.
As much as IOTL Greece, probably, but it was a relatively peripheral area as far as Avars were concerned. They'd likely more focus on places such as IOTL Bulgaria and Thessalonica, IMO (in fact, basically being an equivalent of the Bulgar Khaganate ITTL)wouldn't it be likely that the whole of Greece would be lost?
With the existing regionalized Roman elite in Italy and Africa, I doubt you'd have one sole center emerging ITTL. The rough central area would probably be in Sicily IMO, being fairly central compared to Italy, Africa and remaining Balkanic holdings.With the Roman Empire essentially surviving off Africa
That seems really unlikely by the VIIth century ; Beber petty-kingdoms went trough a period of important retractation from the late VIth century onward and the consequences of Justinian conquests. At this point, we're talking semi-integrated/semi-clientelized independent entities orbiting the exarchate without real mention of troubles (arguably, the region was neglected by Imperial archives).it wouldn't be impossible for the Berbers to rise in importance politically
Not really : as long as Romans keep a naval prominance, that's not hugely difficult to supply grain from Africa to, say, Corinth. The proximity with Constantinople doesn't explain alone why relatively remote Dalmatian coastal control was maintained. ITTL, the same thing would apply to Greek coastal control.
As much as IOTL Greece, probably, but it was a relatively peripheral area as far as Avars were concerned. They'd likely more focus on places such as IOTL Bulgaria and Thessalonica, IMO (in fact, basically being an equivalent of the Bulgar Khaganate ITTL)
With the existing regionalized Roman elite in Italy and Africa, I doubt you'd have one sole center emerging ITTL. The rough central area would probably be in Sicily IMO, being fairly central compared to Italy, Africa and remaining Balkanic holdings.
Italian holdings would be far from being peripheral for Romans, not only due to their renewed relationship with the Pope but as a basic security matter against Lombards. I'd expect places as Amalfi or Napoli playing an important role there.
That seems really unlikely by the VIIth century ; Beber petty-kingdoms went trough a period of important retractation from the late VIth century onward and the consequences of Justinian conquests. At this point, we're talking semi-integrated/semi-clientelized independent entities orbiting the exarchate without real mention of troubles (arguably, the region was neglected by Imperial archives).
Maybe in the longer term, of course, but that's probably much less of an issue than with Lombards.
Sassanians were interested on Jews as long they were opposing Romans. IOTL, when they prooved being too much troublesome, Sassanians stopped really supporting them.1. What will happen to the Jews.
It's unlikely the city would be breached, even less by Avars. I'd really see a clientelized/tributary Roman Empire in Constantinople in opposition to Heraclius' Empire.3. What would be the fate of Constantinople? A puppet of Persia or a part of Persia? Maybe Slavic/Avar tribes seize the city.
Depends what you mean by Greek. If you mean Hellenized Romaic culture, it's not going anywhere : it's too much rooted and would probably influence an Avar Khaganate that would act as an ATL Bulgaria.4. How much of Greek civilization will survive in the Aegean and Greece? Could it be possible to see the Greeks survive only in Anatolia?
Probably not. Too remote and fairly uninteresting strategically, at least for the capacities of the Roman Empire. Crete, on the other hand...5. Would Roman naval dominance allow them to control Cyprus?
While widely quoted, it's an high mark of Arabo-Islamic navy at this point, and largely caused by Byzantine mismanagement. The Arabo-Byzantine naval wars eventually were more of a game of mice and cats until Byzzies managed to efficiently recover from their losses.In fact, how long would the naval dominance last? The Muslims managed to build a fleet manned by Christians in a very small amount of time and defeat the Romans at the Battle of the Mast.
Berbers are more or less out, so it depends on Sassanians and Romans. You could see it being disputed between them relatively regularily.6. What would be the fate of Cyrenaica? Who would control it, the Berbers, Romans or Persians?
It depends a lot if Sassanians antagonize or not Avars eventually.8. How would the Bulgars develop? Could they gain Persian aid in holding back the Khazars and defeat them?
That's a non-question IMO. Avars were passably slavicized and most of their forces were Slavic : the Khaganate produced several Slavic secondary states on its limits, so it would probably end up as Croatia or Bulgaria.9. Who will dominate the Balkans, Avars or Slavs?
The situation would be probably much more balanced, and rather than taking over Italy in an epic fashion, I'd rather see something as Constans II's campaign in Benevento, forcing a Roman suzerainty in southern Italy, at least in the immediate future of the PoD.10. How much of Italy would the Romans lose or would their focus of resources in the Western Atlantic mean that they will maintain Italy and eventually seize it entirely?
Oh.Oooh. That's a good one.An interesting aspect I just thought of. What if the Patriarch flees to Carthage with Heraclius? What would be the consequences of this?
I doubt Constantinople would fall myself. The Eastern Roman Navy is the Royal Navy of the time. They are a superior navy in every way and the Avars had no chance of getting past the walls. Even Heraclius fleeing westward would not help them that much.
But even if they won, they have won the war, but lose the Peace. The Arabs (Even without Islam.) would still attack and the Persians would be extremely overextended. This would allow the Eastern Romans in Africa and Italy to come back and take back Greece and even maybe Anatolia. It will still have to deal with it own long-standing issues and kings who will fail to match Khosrau.
Sicily and Southern Italy would also still be very much Greek with this, maybe even today, or close to it.
Would Heraclius' flight to Africa e seen as an abdication, ad whoever commanded the forces at Constantinople be proclaimed in his place?
If the Sassanids kill Muhammad, that would cause a massive crisis within Arabia and I doubt there will be an outward expansion if all the tribes are killing one another. Plus I doubt divided Arabian tribes would be able to match a united Islamic force.
Keeping in mind that Avars ruled less an empire than a super-complex chiefdom : most of Sklavenies wouldn't be directly overseen by Avars and some being more by-products of their hegemony than vassals. Especially if Avars forcus on Moesia and Thracia, a good part of Balkans would be in murky geopolitical consideration IMO.Meanwhile, in eastern Europe, we have the Avars overrunning the Balkans
Giving that Sassanians now have a politically unrivaled influence in Arabia, it's possible that the political rise of Islam is done for. It's not as clear that it would mean a religious disappearance of Islam, that being said. You might see an ATL-Islam, both closer to excentric Christianism and less tied to a political drive and being fairly limited to the region, as Sassanians really didn't care this much on religious matter effectivelely.The Muslims meanwhile are strangled in the cradle?
if Mazdak's romanticized fate is any indication, you might see Muhammad being hanged.Out of interest, how would the Sassanids execute Muhammad if he was captured?
In spite of their likely hability to take Spania (among other reasons, because there weren't fortifications to really defend it) Visigoths would still be pretty much a limited power, while Franks (once out of the royal faida, or civil-war, in 613) would take back their place as main power of Western Romania : IOTL, that mean a sphere of influence, or rather spheres of influences stretching from South-East England to Bavaria, and from Spain (where Dagobert helped a coup in 632 with significant military support) to Old Saxony.The question I have is how would the Visigoths carry on to develop. Would they be able to seize southern France thus weakening the Franks? Would southern France then be integrated into Iberia or will it remain an independent entity?
Sasanian Empire being a decentralized polity, I'm not sure you'd even have a real religious policy regarding Pontic or Danubian chiefdoms, so, depending on how it unfolds, I'd say you'd still have a good chance having Balkans and Eastern Europe being Christianized from the Italo-African ensemble in one part, and Frankish influence from another part.If the Persians dominate the Black Sea through the conquest of Anatolia, would the steppe tribes convert to Zoroastrianism or would they turn towards Christianity as it was still the predominant religion in the Persian Empire's western territories?
That's possible they would at least attempt this : but like it happened to Romans, it's going to backfire IMO.If relations break down between the Avars and Persians, could a steppe tribe (Bulgars) ally the Persians and invade the Pannonian Basin replacing the Avars?
IOTL, while not without hiatus, Saxony was largely tributary from Franks in the VIIth century. Giving that there's no reason to believe that Franks wouldn't recover from the royal faida during Clothar II, Dagobert and Clovis II's reign, and giving that minority crises aren't set in stone; I doubt it would go this far. At worst, IMO, things go as IOTL meaning a retractation of Merovingian sphere. At best, Saxons might be christianized maybe slightly earlier than IOTL, but more on the lines of what happened in England or Bavaria.If the Franks are weaker ITTL, the Saxons would take longer to convert to Christianity and without Charlemagne to stomp them, would they develop to become part of the Scandinavian culture sphere rather than the German sphere.
More than an abdication, a real treachery IMO.You're bound to have a new emperor being chosen, and a new patriarch if Segius follows Heraclius (which I don't think he would do giving what we know of his personnality, another patriarch if Sergius dies early on, tough...)Would Heraclius' flight to Africa e seen as an abdication, ad whoever commanded the forces at Constantinople be proclaimed in his place?
Snip
More than an abdication, a real treachery IMO.You're bound to have a new emperor being chosen, and a new patriarch if Segius follows Heraclius (which I don't think he would do giving what we know of his personnality, another patriarch if Sergius dies early on, tough...)
Who exactly is let to imagination : probably someone with important ties with regional armies/population IMO.
I personally don't see that as being improbable. With Heraclius gone, Sergius would be the most powerful person in Constantinople and the Persians might allow the Patriarchs to become vassals as long as they make sure the Christian population don't get uppity.Could we even get Sergius (or his successor) assuming the government himself? Could Constantinople and the parts of Asia Minor still in Byzantine hands become an eastern version of the Papal States?