WI: no Emirate of Crete

probably earlier counter-attack of the Byzantines in Mesopotamia and Syria...

probably no monk-state in mount Athos...
 
The cities of the Aegean sea don't have their development retarded by one hundred and fifty years, which probably helps the general economics of Byzantium quite a bit. Plus, without the Empire repeatedly wasting resources attempting to crack the Cretan nut it means that there can be more effort put in elsewhere- perhaps into defending Sicily?
 
The cities of the Aegean sea don't have their development retarded by one hundred and fifty years, which probably helps the general economics of Byzantium quite a bit. Plus, without the Empire repeatedly wasting resources attempting to crack the Cretan nut it means that there can be more effort put in elsewhere- perhaps into defending Sicily?

Sicily is a bit too much, I think. Crete was quite an outpost when South Italy was just near the African Arabo-Islamic states.

Maybe Cyprus?
 
Sicily is a bit too much, I think. Crete was quite an outpost when South Italy was just near the African Arabo-Islamic states.

Maybe Cyprus?

Cyprus is definitely doable- there's quite a lot of evidence it was retaken in the ninth century for a few years, before being returned to co-dominium status with the Caliphate in exchange for tribute. That said, though, there were successful campaigns in Byzantine southern Italy in the period that did much to damage the Arabs, and Sicily is probably the richest Byzantine province at the beginning of the ninth century, rivalled only by the area of the Theme of Thrakesion in western Anatolia. I don't think Sicily is necessarily too difficult to hold- the Arab corsairs of Italy were dangerous, but tended to collapse whenever serious Byzantine pressure was put on them.
 
Who was Cyprus run as a codominion anyway?

Essentially because the Arabs couldn't really be bothered conquering it and were happy to allow co-dominion status in a treaty with Justinian II. Plus, there's the fact that the population of Cyprus was pretty heavily Greek, and looked naturally to Constantinople in a way that the Syrians and Egyptians didn't quite (although the degree to which the Eastern provinces were distinct from the Greek ones is heavily exaggerated in my view), making outright conquest and holding the island more of a challenge.
 
I agree with BG. If Byzantine naval assets aren't needed at Crete, they become available for Sicilian expeditions. And considering the efforts Byzantium put into defending Sicily OTL and that it took the Arabs something like over a hundred years (the exact number I don't remember) to conquer the island makes me consider it quite reasonable that the Empire could hold onto Sicily in this ATL.

After that though, I'm not sure. Cyprus is another possibility. Thessaloniki will be in much better shape since the 904 sack never happens. Perhaps more and early Byzantine offensives into Syria with a earlier reconquest of Cyprus and more naval support for coastal campaigns? I wonder how the White Death of the Saracens, assuming the butterflies don't get him, would develop in this ATL.
 
The thing is that now that African Arabo-Muslims took and held Sicily, the situation is no longer the same than during its conquest. Byzantine had the advantage of terrain, of adaption.

I mean, Maniakes managed to get the eastern coast for a short time, and it was already costing in men and effort.

Now, they lost it, and if they could to well, a complete reconquest of Sicily is unlikely.

Pantellaria was took since the VIII, and during two centuries the island knew continual raids without any real sucess to counter theses. The sea was already in great part Islamic and the resistance of Byzantines terrerstrial.

Furthermore, the Muslims did well in Sicily, with the western half of the island quickly islamized.

Finally, as Sicily was on the Fatimid sphere of influence, the Byzantines could hesitate to have a potential ally frowning upon such a tentative of reconquest.
 
Top