WI: No Phocas

Phocas was possibly the worst emperor in the history of the Byzantine Empire. He assassinated Emperor Maurice and his entire family, which caused a war with the Sassanid Empire. This weakened both nations to the point where the Arabs were able to overrun them.

But what if he had never come to power? Would Islam still be a major force in the world? Would Byzantium still be around? Would Zoroastrianism still be the dominant religion in the region of Persia?
 
A war with Persia is still eventually going to break out and be incredibly costly to the Romans, and Italy is already in the process of being lost. It's not going too well for the Romans at this stage in their history.
 
But the timing may make a considerable amount of difference, and a better emperor - whether as bad as painted or not Phocas certainly fell short of being the kind of Emperor who would stomp on the invasion before it became a prolonged war - may make a great deal of difference.

Hard to tell if Byzantium would still be around. Too much that can go better or worse with a POD so far before its decline.
 
Too much "ifs" IMO. If Maurice lives 10 years more or something, I can easily see him wiping the floor with Slavs and even cooperating with Persians against Arabs (if that's needed at all- it'll be much harder for them too expand against two not-exhausted empires. After all Heraclius had huge numerical advantage at Yarmouk- after: 1. Civil war, 2. War with Persia 3. Virtually losing Balkans to Slavs.).After that it's doubtful that something (apart from Byzantines themselves :rolleyes: ) could cause such massive loss of territory. And Byzantium stretching from Balkans (maybe Italy) to Egypt and Carthage is much more than one barely stretching from Balkans (full of rebellious Serbs ans Bulgarians) to Armenia (full of not too happy Armenians). During middle middle ages it might mean total domination of Europe by Byzantium.
 
But the timing may make a considerable amount of difference, and a better emperor - whether as bad as painted or not Phocas certainly fell short of being the kind of Emperor who would stomp on the invasion before it became a prolonged war - may make a great deal of difference.

Hard to tell if Byzantium would still be around. Too much that can go better or worse with a POD so far before its decline.

I largely agree with this post, particularly the section that Phocas may not have been as bad as he was painted. Remember that he took the throne as a commoner who deposed an aristocrat, and was himself deposed by an aristocrat. Given the aristocracy were the ones writing the histories, it's hardly surprising that Phocas should have been viewed with horror. By far the best portrayal I've ever seen of Phocas is in Pururauka's excellent TL, where he's described as a chippy peasant who's in over his head and is sinking into depression and despair.

ANYWAY, I digress.

Phocas did take immediate action after the Iranian invasion, and between 602 and 608, while there were defeats, the Roman front in Syria/Mesopotamia didn't collapse entirely. The fact that there were defeats at all may be attributable to Phocas' reluctance to strip troops from the Danube, a campaign he had himself fought in and presumably felt some attachment to. It was only Heraclius' revolt that really tore the empire apart, and it's not surprising that Heraclius' propagandists should have placed the blame on Phocas rather than themselves.

Not to defend Phocas too much, he clearly wasn't the best of monarchs. But I do find these threads find it all too easy to canonize Heraclius, whose reign was arguably the most disastrous in the long term of any Roman Emperor.
 
I largely agree with this post, particularly the section that Phocas may not have been as bad as he was painted. Remember that he took the throne as a commoner who deposed an aristocrat, and was himself deposed by an aristocrat. Given the aristocracy were the ones writing the histories, it's hardly surprising that Phocas should have been viewed with horror. By far the best portrayal I've ever seen of Phocas is in Pururauka's excellent TL, where he's described as a chippy peasant who's in over his head and is sinking into depression and despair.

ANYWAY, I digress.

The comment is based on earlier comments of yours - I'm not sure I find it entirely convincing that he was written up the way he was purely because he was a commoner deposing and deposed by an aristocrat, but that has to have played a role in this point. And Phocas was not Basil the Armenian, who was undeniably cunning in his successful seizure of power - Phocas seems to have been merely direct (which is not to say worse, but it made propaganda a little too easy).

Phocas did take immediate action after the Iranian invasion, and between 602 and 608, while there were defeats, the Roman front in Syria/Mesopotamia didn't collapse entirely. The fact that there were defeats at all may be attributable to Phocas' reluctance to strip troops from the Danube, a campaign he had himself fought in and presumably felt some attachment to. It was only Heraclius' revolt that really tore the empire apart, and it's not surprising that Heraclius' propagandists should have placed the blame on Phocas rather than themselves.

Not to defend Phocas too much, he clearly wasn't the best of monarchs. But I do find these threads find it all too easy to canonize Heraclius, whose reign was arguably the most disastrous in the long term of any Roman Emperor.

Although one must question why there was such a revolt - had it been merely aristocratic snobbery, one would expect it from someone nearer the capital than Carthage and sooner than OTL.

Either way, the main thing I wonder about is how much Heraclius's reign was disastrous because of his mistakes (and his early reign, whatever damage was done by his rebellion, certainly doesn't indicate capital G greatness) and how much despite his successes - he did turn things around and the Sassanids were even worse worn out by the end as Rome.

But I think a timeline with neither man as Emperor would be - at least in the next fifty odd years - probably better. Even with the front not collapsing entirely, it was definitely not going well for Rome - and the buck stops with the Emperor.
 
Has someone done a fic/thread where Phocas never seizes power or is successfully thwarted with Maurice and his family surviving?
 
Phocas was possibly the worst emperor in the history of the Byzantine Empire. He assassinated Emperor Maurice and his entire family, which caused a war with the Sassanid Empire. This weakened both nations to the point where the Arabs were able to overrun them.

But what if he had never come to power? Would Islam still be a major force in the world? Would Byzantium still be around? Would Zoroastrianism still be the dominant religion in the region of Persia?

It depends on whether someone else usurps or kills Maurice. If not, and harmful civil war is averted things are going to be much better. But I wouldn't be so bold to predict whether Byzantium would still be around.
 
I think Byzantium was meant to fall no matter if Phocas ruled or not, because the real causes of the fall were the rigid imperial structures, corruption, inefficient economy etc etc.
Anyway, delaying confrontation with Persia could have allowed Byzantium to stop the Arab expansion for a period of time, but it's likely that it could have happened anyway in some form years later than in OTL.
It's somehow a common belief that without the Phocas coup Byzantium could have remained strong enough for preventing the Islamic expansion, at least westwards, but I think that at that moment both Byzantium and Persia were so corrupted and decadent that it couldn't been a long-standing handicap for any raising power (Arabs in this case) that would have challenged them in that era.
In the specific case of the Arab expansion, the only event I think that could have been prevented it is that Byzantines would have carried out a full christianization of the peninsula during the previous century, but I guess that Byzantium was not interested in this matter, considering the internal problems they had and all the wars that Justinian launched in the West.
 
I think Byzantium was meant to fall no matter if Phocas ruled or not, because the real causes of the fall were the rigid imperial structures, corruption, inefficient economy etc etc.
Anyway, delaying confrontation with Persia could have allowed Byzantium to stop the Arab expansion for a period of time, but it's likely that it could have happened anyway in some form years later than in OTL.
It's somehow a common belief that without the Phocas coup Byzantium could have remained strong enough for preventing the Islamic expansion, at least westwards, but I think that at that moment both Byzantium and Persia were so corrupted and decadent that it couldn't been a long-standing handicap for any raising power (Arabs in this case) that would have challenged them in that era.
In the specific case of the Arab expansion, the only event I think that could have been prevented it is that Byzantines would have carried out a full christianization of the peninsula during the previous century, but I guess that Byzantium was not interested in this matter, considering the internal problems they had and all the wars that Justinian launched in the West.

You are Edward Gibbon and I claim my £1.
 
It's a reference to something, but who knows what. Possibly a game show? Who knows.

It was the politest reply to that post I could come up with.

You are more polite than I would have been were I one of the forum's Byzantophile late antiquity (as as opposed to how my knowledge is more the fading days) specialists.
 
I think that, regardless of other factors, there would eventually be a melee a trois between the Persians, the Arabs, and the Byzantines. "This town ain't big enough for the three of us" and all that.
 
Top