WI: Maurice not killed by Phocas

[Night Gaul]

In 602, the Byzantine emperor Maurice was overthrown by a dissatisfied general named Phocas, who also had him and his six sons executed. This coup had some disastrous effects for the Second Rome: Maurice had earlier helped put Khosrow II on the Sasanian throne, and now he could invade Byzantium under the pretext of avenging his patron. So the two empires fought a long and brutal war that left both nations exhausted... just as the Muslims were poised to storm out of the Arabian Peninsula and take the world by storm.

What might've happened if Maurice didn't get killed?

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

the Second Rome

It wasn't really considered Second Rome. There was only one Roman Empire and One Emperor residing in Constantinople. The Lombards had invaded parts of Italy but the Major strategic ports and cities were still under Roman control. The Empire still had its Latin provinces as well.

In 602, the Byzantine emperor Maurice was overthrown by a dissatisfied general named Phocas, who also had him and his six sons executed. This coup had some disastrous effects for the Second Rome: Maurice had earlier helped put Khosrow II on the Sasanian throne, and now he could invade Byzantium under the pretext of avenging his patron. So the two empires fought a long and brutal war that left both nations exhausted... just as the Muslims were poised to storm out of the Arabian Peninsula and take the world by storm.

What might've happened if Maurice didn't get killed?

Well if Maurice didn't get assassinate, its likely that the Empire slowly rebuilds itself. Assuming the pod is that he shows restraint and doesn't have his soldiers winter over the Danube the army doesn't mutiny breaking the over 100 year long period of peaceful succession. This also means a continued Justinian dynasty holding the throne as Maurice is considered as part of it by historians. To give the best odds to Maurice we can have him score a decisive victory against the Avars which allows him to reassert control over Illyria. Perhaps the Romans feign a retreat or deceives the Avars about their army strength and thus lures them into a trap. With the Balkans secure and Rome retaining its army recruiting ground and Latin provinces around a defensible border, the frontiers are stabilized. This also likely boosts his popularity at home. In otl the Roman enclaves in Southern Spain were reconquered by the Visigoths in the anarchy caused by Phocas's usurpation. The Romans still on top of their game would be able to resupply the regions by sea to keep them from falling to the Visigoths. They did this with their Balkan Enclaves after the Slavic migrations overran the region in the 7th century.

Maurice with Khosrau II scored a massive victory for the Romans. He gained control of the Caucuses and Armenia which opens a corridor for a theoretical invasion into Persia by the Romans. This was the route that Trajan and other past Roman Emperors took. It also earned the gratitude of the Persian Shahanshah as well for restoring him to his throne. Khosrau might by the butterflies, have to deal with unruly nobles and restoring order to Persia. Maybe the Hephthalites invade and Khosrau II has to deal with them instead of worrying about the Romans who are focusing on the West. With the East secure, the Romans are now free to look Westward. Dealing with the Lombards will now be the priority of the Romans as all their frontiers are secure. Italy is the ancient heartland of the Empire. It was also the most urbanized and therefore wealthiest region in Western Europe and would be very valuable in terms of trade. The Romans would likely be trying to spread dissent among the Lombards to keep them divided so they could invade. Some Lombards in otl wanted to be part of the Roman system and made deals with the Romans. Constan II in otl despite the Balkans and Egypt lost, was nearly able to retake Southern Italy in otl. With an intact Empire, they likely fall faster and are in time assimilate into the local Roman population. Italy still would be a shadow of itself and would need to be rebuilt. Thus Roman expansion would likely not take place in favor of consolidation and reconstruction. When Maurice dies, he leaves the empire to a relatively young and energetic ruler Theodosius. Since Maurice has many children, the dynasty is bound to be secure.

To keep the Franks at bay, they might intervene during periods of civil war because they divided lands among sons. The Visigoths would be nervous as well. The Romans might carve out client states in the west as buffers while they rebuild. The Romans over the centuries would likely focus on taking the coastlines of Spain for Mare Nostrum to be realized. They might try to retake Pannonia to to have greater control over the Danube during a period of Avar weakness.

Its likely that Islam never arises as a result of all the resulting butterflies. If it does arise they would be crushed by an intact Persia or Rome. In otl the Romans and Persians put up fierce resistance despite both empires undergoing 20 years of total war and years of civil war.

 

[Eparkhos]

In 602, the Byzantine emperor Maurice was overthrown by a dissatisfied general named Phocas, who also had him and his six sons executed. This coup had some disastrous effects for the Second Rome: Maurice had earlier helped put Khosrow II on the Sasanian throne, and now he could invade Byzantium under the pretext of avenging his patron. So the two empires fought a long and brutal war that left both nations exhausted... just as the Muslims were poised to storm out of the Arabian Peninsula and take the world by storm.

What might've happened if Maurice didn't get killed?

Slight nitpick - Only four of Maurikios' sons were executed. The eldest, Theodosios, was either killed somewhere in Anatolia or died in exile in Persia. The youngest, Ioustinianos, wasn't present in Nikomedia when his family were killed. He was in Mesembria, but he drops of the face of the earth in mid-603.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Anything that avoids Heraclius is a plus in my book. I mean Africa probably still revolts because it did so several times but it's unlikely that he could pull off the sort of coup he did against Phocas.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

What occurs when Khosrau II pushes his agenda too hard? It is very likely that the Sassanids fall in near time. With the revolt of the Ispahbudhan, the Sassanids are going to face only constant opposition as the confederacy has finally ended. In otl, Byzantium defeated the Sassanids precisely due to the defection of the Mihran clan generals who gained Khosrau’s massive victories over Byzantium.

Once Khosrau falls, the Sassanid-Byzantine peace is finished. Another point, it will not be long before the Gökturks fall and the Ashina clan push into the west. Should they or the Neo-Hepthalites arrive before the Muslims, we could see a new Confederacy arose in Eranshahr. Bringing with it, a renewed eastern war for Byzantium.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

What occurs when Khosrau II pushes his agenda too hard? It is very likely that the Sassanids fall in near time. With the revolt of the Ispahbudhan, the Sassanids are going to face only constant opposition as the confederacy has finally ended. In otl, Byzantium defeated the Sassanids precisely due to the defection of the Mihran clan generals who gained Khosrau’s massive victories over Byzantium.

Once Khosrau falls, the Sassanid-Byzantine peace is finished. Another point, it will not be long before the Gökturks fall and the Ashina clan push into the west. Should they or the Neo-Hepthalites arrive before the Muslims, we could see a new Confederacy arose in Eranshahr. Bringing with it, a renewed eastern war for Byzantium.

So maybe the Romans have to probably keep a weakened and grateful Sassanids around to prevent a threatening Persia from arising. Better the enemy you know than someone else. Maybe the Romans aid both sides like the Chinese did with the Xongnu so Persia isn't strong enough to focus its attention westwards.

Anything that avoids Heraclius is a plus in my book. I mean Africa probably still revolts because it did so several times but it's unlikely that he could pull off the sort of coup he did against Phocas.

what's wrong with Heraclius?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

what's wrong with Heraclius?

Provoked a civil war. Also the total collapse of the Roman East happened during his reign (though it’s hard to entirely blame him).

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

what's wrong with Heraclius?

Heraclius replaced a besieged but still intact empire under Phocas with an empire that lost all of its most populous and productive lands. His reign started and ended in disaster, the Gokturk-assisted campaign against the Sassanids aside.

Make no mistake: without the Turks invading from the north and east Heraclius's campaign into Mesopotamia, as genius as it was, would not have gotten off the ground.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

So maybe the Romans have to probably keep a weakened and grateful Sassanids around to prevent a threatening Persia from arising. Better the enemy you know than someone else. Maybe the Romans aid both sides like the Chinese did with the Xongnu so Persia isn't strong enough to focus its attention westwards.


what's wrong with Heraclius?

The best option for Byzantium is to situate itself as the Sassanid benefactor and to actively become part of the election and succession of the Sassanid throne. This will slowly diminish the eastern threat so-long as Byzantium can maintain its military prowess in the east. However, this may be best that the Empire take more eastern focuses and leave the Latin world for a time, so as to ensure success over the weakened Sassanid power.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The best option for Byzantium is to situate itself as the Sassanid benefactor and to actively become part of the election and succession of the Sassanid throne. This will slowly diminish the eastern threat so-long as Byzantium can maintain its military prowess in the east. However, this may be best that the Empire take more eastern focuses and leave the Latin world for a time, so as to ensure success over the weakened Sassanid power.

Well the Visigoths and Franks would likely be the other dominant powers of the Latin speaking world. Plus with Italy intact and under Roman control. The Visigoths were completely Latinized by the 7th and 8th centuries being assimilated into the Ibero-Roman population. Southern Gaul (Aquitaine) had a distinctly Gallo-Roman identity that endured up to Charlemagne's day. But with an intact Roman Italy and Latin Illyria and Carthage, Latin would remain the lingua franca of the West. With Latin still being the official language especially in the West, and the Army speaking Latin, its dominance is not uprooted. The divergence of the vulgar Latin in the other regions that once was the Western Roman Empire is likely muted in this timeline with a Roman identity and Latin cultural hegemon being intact. Greek would still though be the language of the East with Greek and Latin bilingualism being the norm in the Empire proper. The closest parallel I can think of in the West is France and its former colonies. The lingua Franca in most of France's former colonies is French and France maintains control over the French language and culture. Rome will keep its position as the cultural hegemony in both West and Eastern Europe with it keeping Latin Illyria, Latin Rome, Africa, and Latin speaking Thrace. The Franks being in closer contact with the Romans, would Latinize gradually as well. Its likely that in Gaul the Gallo-Roman dialect of Latin is subsumed by a Frankish dialect of Latin especially in Northern Gaul. Up until the Magyar invasion, there were still Romance speaking Pannonians as a legacy of the Roman era. The Vlachs (Romanians) were descendant of the Daco-Roman dialect.

I don't see the Sassanids falling that easily though. But if as @John7755 يوحنا says happens the Romans will likely use a divide and conquer strategy or treat the Sassanids as the sick man of the East. Do you see the Sassanids somehow convincing the Romans to return to paying them tribute/subsidies like in the days of Anastasius and Justinian? They convinced Anastasius that the Hephathalites were just as bad as the Huns and that if they fell then Rome would be next. Would Rome offer this as a pragmatic means of keeping the Sassanids afloat?

What sort of Roman interventions in Persia do you guys see the Romans intervening in?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Basileus_Komnenos

The reason that I say the Sassanids are in such a position is; for the past 430 years, the Sassanids were Kings of Kings only at the behest of the nobles who were kings of their own realms. This is the Sassanid Confederacy... Whence the Confederacy ended shortly prior to Khosrau II’s ascension, the empire was essentially lost. The nobles are unwilling to unite to protect the Sassanids and actively seek rebellion as time pushes forward. They will seek new patrons in the long term.

Byzantium, if it wishes to not face a new Eranshahr, it should maintain the Sassanid royalty which deposed of its noble allies, is feeble and prepared to become vassals. It is not hard to imagine for a time, the Byzantines having a Sassanid rump state as a vassal in Iraq and using it to attempt to reconquer Eranshahr and stop the rise of the nobles in making their own dynasty or bringing in some eastern clan to replace the Sassanids, who will follow their customs better.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

@Basileus_Komnenos

The reason that I say the Sassanids are in such a position is; for the past 430 years, the Sassanids were Kings of Kings only at the behest of the nobles who were kings of their own realms. This is the Sassanid Confederacy... Whence the Confederacy ended shortly prior to Khosrau II’s ascension, the empire was essentially lost. The nobles are unwilling to unite to protect the Sassanids and actively seek rebellion as time pushes forward. They will seek new patrons in the long term.

Byzantium, if it wishes to not face a new Eranshahr, it should maintain the Sassanid royalty which deposed of its noble allies, is feeble and prepared to become vassals. It is not hard to imagine for a time, the Byzantines having a Sassanid rump state as a vassal in Iraq and using it to attempt to reconquer Eranshahr and stop the rise of the nobles in making their own dynasty or bringing in some eastern clan to replace the Sassanids, who will follow their customs better.

Wasn't Iraq/Mesopotamia filled with a high Christian population? Would the Sassanids convert to Nestorianism over time?

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Could the parts of Italy taken by the lombards be retaken? Or was it even worth it?

 

[Lady Visenya]

Weird. This should have posted an hour ago. Anyone else have that sort of issue where a post fails to... post?

The best option for Byzantium is to situate itself as the Sassanid benefactor and to actively become part of the election and succession of the Sassanid throne. This will slowly diminish the eastern threat so-long as Byzantium can maintain its military prowess in the east. However, this may be best that the Empire take more eastern focuses and leave the Latin world for a time, so as to ensure success over the weakened Sassanid power.

The only issue here would be the ascendancy of the Latin world long term, by the 9th century they weren't able to be folded over nearly as easily as they would be even right then. And even during the 7th century the Latin West wasn't going to fold like it could have in the 6th century.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Wasn't Iraq/Mesopotamia filled with a high Christian population? Would the Sassanids convert to Nestorianism over time?

My opinion is fringe on this. My view is less of the population was Christian than mainstream. I generally see Iraq as a kaleidoscope of religions in this period. Akkadian religious traditions, Christianity, Judaism, some Zoroastrians, Iranian paganism, Gnostic cults, Manichaeism, Arab pagans, Mazdaki, etc etc etc... This is partly what attracted Sassanid interest here; it was quite diverse and accepting of the Sassanid agenda. Meanwhile, the more polytheistic Iranian holdings who were less diverse, upheld their immemorial customs in religion more stringently.

Though this is not as mainstream a view. If you take my view, it depends... If you take the mainstream view, it’s possible that Christianity prevails. Though, I believe my view for a reason and will not simply assent to a narrow view that the Sassanids convert to Christianity or Nestorianism.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Weird. This should have posted an hour ago. Anyone else have that sort of issue where a post fails to... post?

The only issue here would be the ascendancy of the Latin world long term, by the 9th century they weren't able to be folded over nearly as easily as they would be even right then. And even during the 7th century the Latin West wasn't going to fold like it could have in the 6th century.

Then leave it? Iraq is a great prize in and of itself. Destroying the great eastern threat and creating an eastern empire is certainly not settling for much less than Italy or the Latin world.

 

[Lady Visenya]

Then leave it? Iraq is a great prize in and of itself. Destroying the great eastern threat and creating an eastern empire is certainly not settling for much less than Italy or the Latin world.

Oh definitely. Babylonia is densely populated and super rich. It's well worth having, compared with Italy which is mostly a net drain at the time and the West as a whole which... let's be honest, isn't really worth the effort that would go into conquering it. Aside from maybe the province of Africa. Which is nice but not essential. (and more specifically already under Roman control for the most part IIRC)

I'm just pointing out that if the Empire wanted any chance of reclaiming the Western Med they'd have to do it by then. That's all.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Oh definitely. Babylonia is densely populated and super rich. It's well worth having, compared with Italy which is mostly a net drain at the time and the West as a whole which... let's be honest, isn't really worth the effort that would go into conquering it. Aside from maybe the province of Africa. Which is nice but not essential.

I'm just pointing out that if the Empire wanted any chance of reclaiming the Western Med they'd have to do it by then. That's all.

Rich...but hard to defend.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Oh definitely. Babylonia is densely populated and super rich. It's well worth having, compared with Italy which is mostly a net drain at the time and the West as a whole which... let's be honest, isn't really worth the effort that would go into conquering it. Aside from maybe the province of Africa. Which is nice but not essential.

But how would the Romans conquer it? Keep in mind the Romans had just beaten the Avars. Maurice had an army that was on paper 100k strong when during the height of the Imperial dominate system, the manpower was around double or triple that number. The Empire is also bankrupt and needs time to recover and reconstruct itself to start filling the treasury again. Justinian was only able to conduct his sweeping conquests thanks to the decades of peaceful rule under Anastasius. He made monetary reforms and increased tax revenue effficiency and kept everything stable allowing for the treasury to develop a massive surplus. Here the Romans are bankrupt and spread very thinly. Italy would be more of a priority since Rome is primarily a Mediterranean based Empire. Italy is one of the key regions in the Mediterranean and the Romans would at least seek to have the territories of the Exarchate connected to each other so that they can at least manage it and better defend it. And the actual people of Italy are actual Romans and the PR value will better among the army to defend Rome rather than going East. Plus when Trajan invaded, he had a better chance of holding Mesopotamia, then the Jewish revolt happened and the Persian counteroffensive began which necessitated a Roman withdrawal to protect what they already held. Rome here doesn't have the resources to conduct a full scale conquest of Mesopotamia who identify more with the idea of Eranshir rather than that of the Roman Empire. The Emperor would also have to dedicate troops to garrison the region from Persian raids from the new local dynasty that took power. This would begin another Romano-Persian war that would be just as bad to the one of otl. While Italy was a net drain for the time being, it can be rebuilt as the empire recovers. If the Empire focuses on gaining defensible borders (retaking Italy) and consolidating the Empire (maintaining Illyria and keeping Italy), then it would be able to weather out the 7th century without much issue. Though Italy was devastated, the situation was not completely unsalvageable as long as it isn't fractured in otl and the Romans (the only ones who has the power to maintain the Imperial infrastructure and administration system) have control over it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

But how would the Romans conquer it? Keep in mind the Romans had just beaten the Avars. Maurice had an army that was on paper 100k strong when during the height of the Imperial dominate system, the manpower was around double or triple that number. The Empire is also bankrupt and needs time to recover and reconstruct itself to start filling the treasury again. Justinian was only able to conduct his sweeping conquests thanks to the decades of peaceful rule under Anastasius. He made monetary reforms and increased tax revenue effficiency and kept everything stable allowing for the treasury to develop a massive surplus. Here the Romans are bankrupt and spread very thinly. Italy would be more of a priority since Rome is primarily a Mediterranean based Empire. Italy is one of the key regions in the Mediterranean and the Romans would at least seek to have the territories of the Exarchate connected to each other so that they can at least manage it and better defend it. And the actual people of Italy are actual Romans and the PR value will better among the army to defend Rome rather than going East. Plus when Trajan invaded, he had a better chance of holding Mesopotamia, then the Jewish revolt happened and the Persian counteroffensive began which necessitated a Roman withdrawal to protect what they already held. Rome here doesn't have the resources to conduct a full scale conquest of Mesopotamia who identify more with the idea of Eranshir rather than that of the Roman Empire. The Emperor would also have to dedicate troops to garrison the region from Persian raids from the new local dynasty that took power. This would begin another Romano-Persian war that would be just as bad to the one of otl. While Italy was a net drain for the time being, it can be rebuilt as the empire recovers. If the Empire focuses on gaining defensible borders (retaking Italy) and consolidating the Empire (maintaining Illyria and keeping Italy), then it would be able to weather out the 7th century without much issue. Though Italy was devastated, the situation was not completely unsalvageable as long as it isn't fractured in otl and the Romans (the only ones who has the power to maintain the Imperial infrastructure and administration system) have control over it.

Iraq has a defensible border also though, admittedly, if Byzantium really wished to defend the Sassanids and the region. The Zagros and the swamplands of Elam present a strong borderland to invasions if fortifications and military personnel are expended therein. When the Saffarids invaded the Abbasid Caliphate, they faced extreme discomfort in crossing the passes with their horses when not afforded local allies and in the south, the invasion of Ahvaz/Elam was a disaster, as the Saffarids were shamed by the Zanj militia in the swampland and along the riverways of the Karun and Tigris. The advantage would be depending upon who puts the most effort in and variables of the time. Iraq presents more defensive bonuses than Byzantium attempting to maintain its flimsy border at the vague Syrian zone or even at the Euphrates. Byzantium should at least press its claims eventually to the Zagros and potentially leave a Sassanid rump state over Babylonia, but Byzantium themselves rule directly or through proxy, Assyria, Shuhum (modern Anbar province roughly). This means controlling the Two Rivers and the northern route of the Zagros. Better would be all of the region, but worse is to simply let the Sassanids struggle to rule what remained of their smoldering empire rapidly moving towards chaos and ultiamtely the overthrow of the Sassanid royals and end up with a new dynasty that was energetic and with support of the nobles and in short order would be fielding armies of 50,000 noble levies and mercenary from the steppe, rather than the weak late Sassanid standing field armies. Byzantium gained in a very late stage the advantage over the Sassanids, if they let it go to waste by assuming Sassanid continuance, they will possibly face a new dynasty, that this time takes Syria and punishes Byzantium for not making its decision to consolidate its gains.

As I understand the situation in Trajan's time, the Empire may have had more issues, but the situation in the Eranshahr was far more favorable to recovery. Generally, the Arsacids were still stable politically in their imperial message. Arsacid imperial dogma founded on the ideal of the dynastic nobles and the confederacy of a royal house in a league with like noble kings. This was completely in motion in 100 CE, despite the loss of Iraq, which while an economic loss, was not a dire wound in the slightest. Arsacid powers received their wound when a non-Arsacid power rebelled and claimed the end of the current royal house. This had already occurred for the Sassanids and their confederacy was defunct, their institutions in shambles and their army weak. Byzantium must press their issue now, if they want to enjoy any possibility of a Roman Mesopotamia and ultimately pushing the threat of war more east and away from core Roman regions such as Anatolia, Egypt or the Mediterranean.