WI: Tiberius III or Anastasius II remain emperor?

Tiberius III (Apsimaros) and Anastasius II (Artemius) were considered to be two of the better emperors during the Twenty Years Anarchy. Tiberius achieved several victories over the Umayyads and attempted to reorganise the imperial administration and repopulate Cyprus, while Anastasius replaced the Monothelite Philippikos Bardanes, imposed discipline on the army and ordered a new fleet built and the walls of Constantinople repaired, which may have contributed to the Roman victory at the later Umayyad siege of Constantinople. What might have happened if either of them were not overthrown?
 
The most importance is no Iconoclasm. Then the expansion in Italy become possible.(I think constantine V made a wrong way of deal with arab first) If all well-of .Byzantine can have all Italy,Balkan and Anatolia in 9th century.
 
The most importance is no Iconoclasm. Then the expansion in Italy become possible.(I think constantine V made a wrong way of deal with arab first) If all well-of .Byzantine can have all Italy,Balkan and Anatolia in 9th century.

How will Italian expansion be any easier than it was IOTL? Popes and Lombards and Franks (oh my!) aside, the Arabs in the East and the Slavs in the Balkans seem to be the more immediate threat at the time. Tiberius III, Anastasius II and the Isaurians appeared to recognise that.

Whatever people say about the Constantine V, there was no denying he was a capable commander, the John II to Leo III's Alexios I, I'd say.
 
Italian expansion is out of the question for everyone not Karl the Great.

But if you manage to keep Anastasius' revolt successful you may be able to curb the outbreak of the Iconoclast controversy. The sentiment has been there in the Empire for years by the POD but so long as the Emperor doesn't put his hand into the pot or places his support behind the status quo with the support of the Patriarchs then it won't go too far.

If Anastasius just stayed Emperor or got it back, to answer your question it might end being more campaigns in the Balkans and Asia. He seems like a kill the infidel kind of Emperor who'd spend his reign at war.
 
How will Italian expansion be any easier than it was IOTL? Popes and Lombards and Franks (oh my!) aside, the Arabs in the East and the Slavs in the Balkans seem to be the more immediate threat at the time. Tiberius III, Anastasius II and the Isaurians appeared to recognise that.

Whatever people say about the Constantine V, there was no denying he was a capable commander, the John II to Leo III's Alexios I, I'd say.

In 8th century,beat Slavs then reconquest Balkan is the most easy strategy direction of Byzantine. But in ltalian expansion will gain more revenue and man power.And if no Iconoclasm,the relationship between Byzantine and Popes won't become hostility.Last,offensive against Umayyad or Abassids allmost impossible.Constantine V get the chance of Fitna.But can't keep them when Abassids counterattack
 
Top