WI the Byzantines conquer Italy in the 11th century

Say the empire somehow remained stable throughout the 11th century and began to look to recover the old imperial heartland. How would the west react to a Byzantine invasion of central and northern Italy? How comfortable would Italians feel about the return of Eastern Roman rule after five centuries of separation? What role would they play in the Empire? Would they be considered "Roman", or lesser subjects, the same as Slavs and Armenians?
 
Last edited:
Considering the way how they governed the Exarchate of Ravenna,I wouldn’t think it would be good. East Roman rule of the exarchate was pretty bad by Roman standards.
 
There would be extensive military adventurism from Catholic realms to push the Byzantines out of Italy, partly for religious reasons and partly to acquire new fiefdoms.
 
I feel that Sicily was possible; so was the boot of Italy up to Naples. But going further north involves invading the Papal States. I'm not sure this would happen. Events elsewhere usually intervened anyway, so I don't see them getting further.
 
I feel that Sicily was possible; so was the boot of Italy up to Naples. But going further north involves invading the Papal States. I'm not sure this would happen. Events elsewhere usually intervened anyway, so I don't see them getting further.

This would be interesting when Henry IV was excommunicated. I wonder if Pope Gregory VII would change his mind with the Roman Emperor on his door.
 
If Basil II lived for just few months and take Sicily, and above all having a really more capable successor, maybe South Italy would have returned in the Imperial fold entirely and prevent the decline of the Empire since then.

Maybe I can see - on a reasonable pattern - Venice resuming oaths to Constantinople if the Empire would hold the Adriatic post Basil, but a great war for Italy? It would need a ERE stable and healthy and peace with the Muslims in the East.

A post Basil Byzantium maybe - with lot of effort - could manage in performing the conquest. The trouble is how to rule Italy after that.

I can see a victorius Emperor installing a friendly pope, forcing him to end the schism - for debatable could be this strategy, unifying forcefully Christianity may help in stablize Italy long term.
 
I feel that Sicily was possible; so was the boot of Italy up to Naples. But going further north involves invading the Papal States. I'm not sure this would happen. Events elsewhere usually intervened anyway, so I don't see them getting further.

I agree with this here, particularly if you butterfly away the Norman adventurers taking control. The Byzantines had tradition and Greek speaking populations in the south of Italy to back up their rule. Also, it was closer to Constantinople than most other powers save maybe a Tunisian based polity.

Northern Italy meanwhile has two main obstacles: The Papacy and any power based on the other sides of the Alps. By the 11th century I find it implausible that the Byzantine emperor could subjugate the Pope politically. The Pope by that point had been free for so long and had grown in importance to the Latin Church that any attempts by the Byzantines would have seen a Latin response. Also, just like we saw in OTL, holdings in Northern Italy were quite far from the capital and much closer to the fiefdoms of Northern Italy. Communication would be difficult, the territory excepting Venice and Ravenna wasn’t very defensible, and during any time of crisis (and there were lots) it would be in danger of slipping from the Imperial grasp.

I think holdings in southern Italy (providing no Normans as they’re easy to butterfly and caused so much trouble IOTL) are feasible for any strong Byzantine state, but anything north of Rome would be pretty shaky.
 
What heretics? The schism is after the point of divergence, it may well be butterflied away altogether. Then it's papist schismatics and vice versa neither side has accused the other, much, for heresy.
On the other hand there had been a history of hostilities between Crusaders and the Greeks. It had been at times also driven by religious differences. Mostly to legitimate conquest and war gainst Eastern Rome. The Greeks often had been accused of treachery and backstabbing by the Crusaders.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand there had been a history of hostilities between Crusaders and the Greeks. It had been at times also driven by rereligious differences. Mostly to legitimate conquest and war gainst Eastern Rome. The Greeks often had been accused of treachery and backstabbing by the Crusaders.

So the German emperor and the French will be periodically invading the Italian themes. Sure that's all to likely. By the same token so long as the bishop of Rome is under imperial control his political tendencies can be controlled.
 
So the German emperor and the French will be periodically invading the Italian themes. Sure that's all to likely. By the same token so long as the bishop of Rome is under imperial control his political tendencies can be controlled.

The German Emperor, sure. But the French King? I doubt it. Especially when the German Emperor claims the region.
 
I have a weak spot for the East Romans to rule Italy or relocate to Italy if they were to lose the Balkans.

There is a decent chance the Romans can regain Southern Italy as well as the islands near Italy. But getting Rome is not possible without a general war with the German Emperor. His legitimacyas an Emperor is basically by defending the Pope in Rome.

However, I do not think the East Romans have a bad time to fight the German-Italian Armies. The Italians tend to be flexible over whomever rules them and a fair option by Constantinople could make them switch to Roman sides (no joke intended). Pacifying Italy is a different problem. If the Italians support Roman Rule it won't be too hard. But in worst case scenario, the Romans might face a situation worse than the 7th and 8th century. With all the resources and money in Italy.
 
Why exactly would the Byzantines win these conflicts in Naples, Sicily or Italy? They will be facing many foes who are on the defensive. Byzantium has an extensive empire as it stands, is it in their best interest to conquer all the way up to the Alps? Putting aside that it is very unlikely to occur, and with a tl in the 11th, we still have the Saljuqs and the Byzantine excesses against their Armenian subjects and the betrayals and schemes of Anatolian nobility and the imperial bureaucracy. Byzantium is decaying at its root already and is not the same power that defeated Umar al-Aqta in 869 or who made gains against the Abbasid Caliphate through the 10th century.

Byzantium would do well to focus on its east and south. European adventurism makes little sense except after pacifying Saljuq, Fatimid and Abbasid threats and this expansion should possibly limited to Sicily, to avoid breaching the balance of power and staying outside the domain of the Holy Roman Empire.
 
They more or less sent the worst people they have as exarchs(the sort who extort the population for an enormous sum of cash).They also constantly ran into disputes with the local population and the pope.At one point in time,one exarch had orders to arrest the pope,only for the local Italian troops under his command to mutiny instead.
 
Why exactly would the Byzantines win these conflicts in Naples, Sicily or Italy? They will be facing many foes who are on the defensive. Byzantium has an extensive empire as it stands, is it in their best interest to conquer all the way up to the Alps? Putting aside that it is very unlikely to occur, and with a tl in the 11th, we still have the Saljuqs and the Byzantine excesses against their Armenian subjects and the betrayals and schemes of Anatolian nobility and the imperial bureaucracy. Byzantium is decaying at its root already and is not the same power that defeated Umar al-Aqta in 869 or who made gains against the Abbasid Caliphate through the 10th century.

Byzantium would do well to focus on its east and south. European adventurism makes little sense except after pacifying Saljuq, Fatimid and Abbasid threats and this expansion should possibly limited to Sicily, to avoid breaching the balance of power and staying outside the domain of the Holy Roman Empire.

George Maniakes did fair job of doing just that, including a fairly successful attempt to recover Sicily before being recalled. The Hautevilles did it perhaps not on the cheap but with largely local resources. And the is always the nuclear option of keeping Basil II alive say 5 more years so that the Italian campaign he was preparing at his death takes place.
 
Last edited:
Top