WI: Heraclius Fled to Carthage

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.
 
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.

The hinterland of Greece is highly likely to be overrun by the Slavs/Avars but what about the coasts. It would be hard to supply the coastal cities constantly from the Slavs. OTL the Byzantines had a hard time with their centre of control in Constantinople. With their centre of control now in Carthage, wouldn't it be likely that the whole of Greece would be lost?

With the Roman Empire essentially surviving off Africa, it wouldn't be impossible for the Berbers to rise in importance politically essentially fullfilling the role of the Greeks in OTL Byzantine Empire. An African-Romance speaking empire might be the fate of Rome.
 
but what about the coasts. It would be hard to supply the coastal cities constantly from the Slavs.
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.

wouldn't it be likely that the whole of Greece would be lost?
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 Roman Empire essentially surviving off Africa
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.

it wouldn't be impossible for the Berbers to rise in importance politically
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.
 
upload_2018-10-14_12-40-6.png

So here is a map of the Roman and Persian Empires following the fall of Constantinople.

1. What will happen to the Jews. From my research, the Sassanids were favourable to them and had they maintained control over the region, a Third Temple might have been constructed. Would tolerance of the Jews allow a Jewish majority to develop in the region with many migrating from Europe here due to expulsions of Jews or is the European Jewish population not large enough for this? If a Jewish majority develops in the region, how likely is it that it would survive as a regional force?
2. How would the Persians treat the Ghassanids? I feel that they will be absorbed into the empire like the Lakhmids were.
3. What would be the fate of Constantinople? A puppet of Persia or a part of Persia? Maybe Slavic/Avar tribes seize the city.
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?
5. Would Roman naval dominance allow them to control Cyprus? 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.
6. What would be the fate of Cyrenaica? Who would control it, the Berbers, Romans or Persians?
7. With Khosrau II being a legendary figure, it is unlikely that the Governor of Yemen, Shabhan, would convert to Islam and thus he would likely have either captured or killed Mohammad. This would strangle Islam in its crib and I could imagine tribal infighting to suck up the military potential of the Arabs meaning no Arab invasions.
8. How would the Bulgars develop? Could they gain Persian aid in holding back the Khazars and defeat them?
9. Who will dominate the Balkans, Avars or Slavs?
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?
11. How would the Avars fare in such a Timeline? Would the Magyars still come rolling through or will it be another tribe? With Charlemagne butterflied away, would the Avars survive into the modern era?
12. How would the Berbers react to the retreat of Rome to Africa? Would the Roman Empire become a Beber entity as the Byzantines became?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-14_12-39-4.png
    upload_2018-10-14_12-39-4.png
    289.7 KB · Views: 40
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.

All very good points to take into account.
 
An interesting aspect I just thought of. What if the Patriarch flees to Carthage with Heraclius? What would be the consequences of this?
 
1. What will happen to the Jews.
Sassanians were interested on Jews as long they were opposing Romans. IOTL, when they prooved being too much troublesome, Sassanians stopped really supporting them.

3. What would be the fate of Constantinople? A puppet of Persia or a part of Persia? Maybe Slavic/Avar tribes seize the city.
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.

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?
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.
Sassanians themselves were passably hellenized in some areas and giving the decentralized nature of their empire, whoever would rule in Anatolia would be.

5. Would Roman naval dominance allow them to control Cyprus?
Probably not. Too remote and fairly uninteresting strategically, at least for the capacities of the Roman Empire. Crete, on the other hand...

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.
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.


6. What would be the fate of Cyrenaica? Who would control it, the Berbers, Romans or Persians?
Berbers are more or less out, so it depends on Sassanians and Romans. You could see it being disputed between them relatively regularily.

8. How would the Bulgars develop? Could they gain Persian aid in holding back the Khazars and defeat them?
It depends a lot if Sassanians antagonize or not Avars eventually.

9. Who will dominate the Balkans, Avars or Slavs?
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.
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?
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.


An interesting aspect I just thought of. What if the Patriarch flees to Carthage with Heraclius? What would be the consequences of this?
Oh.Oooh. That's a good one.
First, you'd obviously have a rival Patriarchate in Constantinople the minute Heraclius and Sergius goes away. Probably the new election is what would lead (among other things) the new patriarch and emperor to accept being tributary/clientelized by Sassanians.
There would be a really increased chance of religius drift with time, especially if Antioch and Alexandria would follow Constantinople on this (Jerusalem had somewhat a special relationship with Rome, so it's more murky).

Then, Heraclius and Segius will be confronted to the already existing religious hierarchy in Africa and Italy : the archbishops of Carthage were relatively prestigious religious heads, having been considered as much as quasi-patriarchs during the Late Empire which, contrary to what happened in Aquilea, was acknowledged by Rome. While definitely within Roman broad ensemble (in spite of Alexandria's patriarchate claims), Carthage was still looking towards Constantinople in some matters.

It depends if Heraclius wants to affirm his power bluntly or not, and giving he was not blind to realities, I think he would prefer not to antagonize too much Africans and Romans giving his vulnerable power base. IMO, Sergius would probably act as a patriarch-in-exile, the role being transmitted eventually to Carthage's metropolitain. It would be a move out of necessity, and I think it would be one of subordinate patriarchates of Roman church (basically as Aquilea became in 700 and probably would be earlier ITTL).

So, an earlier West/East drift (altough not litterally schism except for Constantinople), depending a lot of the autonomy of Rome as patriarchal seat for the whole West, being able to mend the difference.
Meaning a lesser religious role for the Emperor as such in ecumenical church, but thanks to a sub-patriarchate in Carthage, being able to rule the Roman state's church as did Barbarian kings (as in, managing regional councils and direct intervention).
 
Very interesting points put forward by @LSCatilina.

So we have gathered that the Roman Empire would survive as a naval power based around the central Mediterranean (Africa and Sicily). Meanwhile, in eastern Europe, we have the Avars overrunning the Balkans whilst the Romans maintain control over the coast and a Persian puppet in Constantinople controls parts of the coast. The Persian Empire meanwhile enters a new golden age after Khosrau II becomes a legendary king through his defeat of the Romans. The Muslims meanwhile are strangled in the cradle? Out of interest, how would the Sassanids execute Muhammad if he was captured?

The question is now how these events would affect Europe? LSCatilina already proposed a Roman capture of southern Italy by the end of the century. There is also the likely capture of Spania by the Visigoths. 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?

Another thing to consider is the evolution of Eastern Europe. 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? If the steppe was to convert, would the tribes in Russia convert? 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?

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
Would Heraclius' flight to Africa e seen as an abdication, ad whoever commanded the forces at Constantinople be proclaimed in his place?

Was there anyone with enough popularity in the city at the time who wouldn't flee. Since Sergius convinced Heraclius to stay OTL, maybe he wouldn't flee to Carthage with Heraclius. So he could become the leading figure similar to when Heraclius left him as regent during his campaigns against Khosrau II.
 
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.

The Arabs where coming, even without Islam, or Muhammad. All they need to is take Mesopotamia, cut the empire in half, and Persia would not be able to stop the Arab advance.

Here, the Arabs are much more alike to the Germanic migrations earlier in history. (And I what a Non-Sassanian Persia.) There fall apart without a bending agent and undergo cultural assimilation of the people they are ruling over.
 
Meanwhile, in eastern Europe, we have the Avars overrunning the Balkans
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.

The Muslims meanwhile are strangled in the cradle?
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.
Note that if Sassanians crush frontier kingdoms such as Lakhmids and Ghassanids, it would trouble enough local geopolitics that political Islam could still have a go locally.

Out of interest, how would the Sassanids execute Muhammad if he was captured?
if Mazdak's romanticized fate is any indication, you might see Muhammad being hanged.

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?
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.
This is probably not butterflied away : fortunatly for the Roman Empire, it's a bit too remote, without a naval power worth of mention in Mediterranean basin and probably a good enough ally against Lombards.

If anything, Visigoths may risk being under the thumb of Franks, at least regionally, if the minority crises of Merovingians are butterflied away.

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?
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 relations break down between the Avars and Persians, could a steppe tribe (Bulgars) ally the Persians and invade the Pannonian Basin replacing the Avars?
That's possible they would at least attempt this : but like it happened to Romans, it's going to backfire IMO.

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.
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.

Note that the identification of Saxons with Scandinavians is quite biased : Saxons were largely looking to North Sea and Gaul at this point, which was arguably the case of Danes and Norses, but as well Anglo-Saxons and Frisions. We'd be talking of a North Sea culture on which participated and would patricipe Franks, Frisions, Saxons, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, etc. Depending on how it unfolds, it might be (while not dominated strictly speaking) influenced by Frankish and Anglo-Saxons uses (themselves recieving a various importance of Frankish economic and political influence at this point) especially if Merovingians deal with Frisons; or if we go by a similar retraction than IOTL, a Frankish comeback much more blunt, Carolingian-style.

Would Heraclius' flight to Africa e seen as an abdication, ad whoever commanded the forces at Constantinople be proclaimed in his place?
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.
 
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.


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?
 
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?
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.
 
Top