WI: Visigoths expell Longobards from Italy instead of Franks

In a typical "No Islam" alternative scenario, which could be the probability of the Visigoths (that have been obviously not conquered by the Arabs ITTL) being called by the Papacy to expell the Longobards from Italy, instead of the Franks?

Could a scenario like this boost the recreation of a kind of Western Roman Empire based on an union Spain-Italy?
 
In a typical "No Islam" alternative scenario, which could be the probability of the Visigoths (that have been obviously not conquered by the Arabs ITTL) being called by the Papacy to expell the Longobards from Italy, instead of the Franks?

Could a scenario like this boost the recreation of a kind of Western Roman Empire based on an union Spain-Italy?

I would imagine that in a scenario without Islam the ERE is going to be considerably more active in Italy, which is probably going to have plenty of butterflies. Rome certainly isn't going to be the isolated and half-forgotten frontier town that it was IOTL.
 
wasn't an issue with the Visigoths that they were heretics, following Arian Christianity?
 
wasn't an issue with the Visigoths that they were heretics, following Arian Christianity?

Not since 589 when the King converted to Catholicism. Most of the Germanic peoples who settled in Roman territory actually had a Catholic minority amongst the nobility who often vied for power with the Arians. The overthrow of a Catholic King had actually been the official reason for Justinians war against the Vandals, and a deep rift between the Seismic and Catholic Ostrogoths was a very important factor in the Gothic Wars. Even the lombars would eventually be forced into political strife as Arian and Catholic parties vied for the throne.
 
Not only BG nailed the issue with the OP there : Ducatus Romanus isn't going to be isolated, and ERE would still consider Italy at the very least as a protectorate.

But Visigothic Kingdom doesn't have the ressources to do so.

While Franks went trough an unification process, and beneficied from a great demographical advantage (meaning not only more fighters, but more people to feed specialized fighter and cavalry), Visigoths knew recurrent civil wars (that was mocked as the "Gothic disease" and even if their kings managed to hold the land, it would have been weakened by such.

Demographically, Gaul counted maybe something as 8 millions, while Spain around 3.

ITTL, I could see Franks and Byzzies allying to share Lombardia (say up to the Po); but Visigoths would simply not form a military threat for Lombards : too weak compared to Franks, too far, and too divided.

If you want Visigoths to have more of a chance to deal with this sort of things, keep Islam a thing and just butterfly away 711 conquest : it wouldn't be too hard. Vitizza ruling longer or Roderic being killed would deal with the civil war for a time; 710 raid being defeated or a Visigothic victory at Guadalete...

Ducatus Romanus ITTL would be still a byzantine holding only in name (Papacy made his own coins without mention of the emperor) needing protection from Lombards.

Franks would still have the far better odds to deal with that, but it's not unthinkable to see Visigoths joining up and managing to grab some peripherical lands.
 
I would imagine that in a scenario without Islam the ERE is going to be considerably more active in Italy, which is probably going to have plenty of butterflies. Rome certainly isn't going to be the isolated and half-forgotten frontier town that it was IOTL.

It depends on the alternative scenario. The only premise of 'No Islam' doesn't imply per se that ERE would not be challenged in the East. Even without Islam, Sassanid Persia could probably stay as a dangerous threat for a long time. In fact, IOTL Rome started its isolation decades before of the Islamic rise due to the Byzatine unability to keep Italy safe from Germanic invasions and I can't see why this must be different without Islam, because Byzantium was exhausted enough by that time.
 
It depends on the alternative scenario. The only premise of 'No Islam' doesn't imply per se that ERE would not be challenged in the East. Even without Islam, Sassanid Persia could probably stay as a dangerous threat for a long time. In fact, IOTL Rome started its isolation decades before of the Islamic rise due to the Byzatine unability to keep Italy safe from Germanic invasions and I can't see why this must be different without Islam, because Byzantium was exhausted enough by that time.

At the time of the Islamic invasions both Persia an Byzantium were exhausted, so no chance of the eastern border flaring up for a good while without a threat from the Arabian peninsula. So theoretically the Romans could focus at least some resources on Italy.
 
At the time of the Islamic invasions both Persia an Byzantium were exhausted, so no chance of the eastern border flaring up for a good while without a threat from the Arabian peninsula. So theoretically the Romans could focus at least some resources on Italy.

Don't forget, that, apart of this, it existed the important problem of the Monophysite question in Syria and Egypt.
In fact, in the brief period between the end of the Byzantine-Sassanid War and the start of the Arab campaigns, Heraclius relocated military resources to Syria and Egypt in prediction of infight against Monophysite rebels. He did not do any step in the direction of an eventual retake of Longobard Italy.
What I want to state is that Byzantium, apart of the Arab issue, had other important problems that were more urging for them than the situation in Italy.
 

Mookie

Banned
Nope. No Islam means no menace to the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus they can recover and probably reunite Rome under their leadership and church.
 
Don't forget, that, apart of this, it existed the important problem of the Monophysite question in Syria and Egypt.
In fact, in the brief period between the end of the Byzantine-Sassanid War and the start of the Arab campaigns, Heraclius relocated military resources to Syria and Egypt in prediction of infight against Monophysite rebels. He did not do any step in the direction of an eventual retake of Longobard Italy.
What I want to state is that Byzantium, apart of the Arab issue, had other important problems that were more urging for them than the situation in Italy.

What "monophysite rebels" would these be, then?

Heraclius in his later years was engaged in classic behaviour that Roman Emperors had been following for a century and a half by this point: trying to bring the Church together by pushing a compromise doctrine in the form of monothelitism. The Monothelite compromise seems to have largely been, IOTL, welcomed by the anti-Chalcedonian churches of Syria and Egypt: it was resisted most violently in the West, although admittedly this was in the 640s and 650s when the East wasn't in much of a position to protest having recently been conquered. If OTL is anything to go by, the desire to enforce Monothelitism is going to see a very active imperial presence in Italy and Africa, which will largely be cheered on by the East.
 
Nope. No Islam means no menace to the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus they can recover and probably reunite Rome under their leadership and church.

No. This is a typical 'Byzantine-wank': no Islam = Byzantium über alles. But Byzantium after Justinian is fairly unable to 'reunite' Rome, not to say to impose its Church to the now Germanic West. If not the Arabs, later Persians, Turkic, Mongols or whatever coming from the East could have challenged them anyway.
If Byzantium failed to conquer Visigothic Spain when it was still not exhausted by the Sassanid wars, imagine trying to subdueing the Franks :rolleyes:
 
No. This is a typical 'Byzantine-wank': no Islam = Byzantium über alles.
From someone that write a Teutonic-bukkake TL, that's rich and condescending.

But Byzantium after Justinian is fairly unable to 'reunite' Rome, not to say to impose its Church to the now Germanic West.
I can think of at least 3 occurences on which Byzantium more or less imposed religious (and political) decisions to Franks. One during Clovis' reign, one during Charibert and the last during Dagobert's.

If not the Arabs, later Persians, Turkic, Mongols or whatever coming from the East could have challenged them anyway.
Sassanids, after the Romano-Persians, were out. Kaputt. Finito. Nada. Apu.
Think of Russian Civil War.

Without Arabic conquests, Byzantium would have a relativly peaceful front in Middle East. Not that it would open for conquests, but you'll have some time before the next great migrations (That may actually be delayed ITTL, Turks coming from Central Asia as being used not only as mercenaries, but as private armies "imported" in the Arabo-Islamic world).

At this point the bigger threat wouldn't be Persians, neither monophysits (as BG underlined) but Eastern Europe entities : Avars, Bulgars, Slavs, etc.
For relativly obvious reasons (such as, not threatening the cores, not having an actually imperial structure but tribal confederations, and being threatened by Franks on their western side), they wouldn't be as much an issue than IOTL threats.

If Byzantium failed to conquer Visigothic Spain when it was still not exhausted by the Sassanid wars, imagine trying to subdueing the Franks :rolleyes:

Byzantines didn't tried to conquer Visigothic Spain, but to get an hold (with more or less the assent of the claimant that called them) that was the most rich province of the peninsula, turning (at least for a short time) Visigoths into clients.

Not that they would be able to conquer all of it, of course. But without Islam, the dominant mediterranean power would be the ERE, without any real competitor. Meaning that they would keep or regain at least an effective "suzerainty" over Romano-Germanic kingdoms (from nominal to coercitive)
 
Last edited:
From someone that write a Teutonic-bukkake TL, that's rich and condescending.

Oh, please! Teutonics at 14th century were fresh and rising; Byzantium at 7th century was a living corpse.

I can think of at least 3 occurences on which Byzantium more or less imposed religious (and political) decisions to Franks. One during Clovis' reign, one during Charibert and the last during Dagobert's.

There is a big difference in imposing certain decisions than in throwing their whole church on them. Franks would have never accepted some rigid customes of the Byzantine Church, not to say Visigoths.

Sassanids, after the Romano-Persians, were out. Kaputt. Finito. Nada. Apu.
Think of Russian Civil War.

I think that after the end of the Byzantine-Sassanid war they had the same chances of recovering (or not) that the Byzantines in the long term. Arabs prevented us to check which of both could have recovered first.

Without Arabic conquests, Byzantium would have a relativly peaceful front in Middle East. Not that it would open for conquests, but you'll have some time before the next great migrations (That may actually be delayed ITTL, Turks coming from Central Asia as being used not only as mercenaries, but as private armies "imported" in the Arabo-Islamic world).

The migratory activity in Central Asia during the 7th-8th centuries was conditioned by the Islamic expansion there. Without them, you can't guess if some migrations (Turks) could have anticipated, especially if they would have considered the Sassanids easy prey, as you suggest.

Byzantines didn't tried to conquer Visigothic Spain, but to get an hold (with more or less the assent of the claimant that called them) that was the most rich province of the peninsula, turning (at least for a short time) Visigoths into clients.).

However, they can't hold it even before the Arab expansion; any eventual new try on Spain was too challenging, I guess.

Not that they would be able to conquer all of it, of course. But without Islam, the dominant mediterranean power would be the ERE, without any real competitor. Meaning that they would keep or regain at least an effective "suzerainty" over Romano-Germanic kingdoms (from nominal to coercitive)

You overlook the fact that Byzantium was internally very unstable since the Justinian era. The Arab conquests at least provide some internal unity against a common and dangerous enemy and also deprived the Empire of their more conflictive provinces. So, I think that without the Arab conquest, it's possible that Byzantium had great chance of collapsing because internal infight, you can say 'balkanizing' in different kingdoms or so.
In Spain there is an expression in politics that say 'un partido bizantino' (a byzantine party) to refer a political party that can't success because of continued internal conflicts.
 
The Sassanids were not going to collapse. The civil war was over when Yazdegard III took control of the throne.
 
Oh, please! Teutonics at 14th century were fresh and rising; Byzantium at 7th century was a living corpse.
"Fresh" and rising doesn't exactly mean "Teuton über alles".
It's not the place to discuss your TL anyway, but you're not in the best position to be condescending on these matters. Period.

As for Byzantium in the VIIth century...
Not only, by the grace of chronology, you'll notice that Islamic conquests were already a thing by then. And that the OP, kind of butterfly them.
And even if weakened by a large war, the empire still demonstrated its possibilities during Heraclius' reign : reconstitution of an army from scratch, making Persian nearest provinces clients, Ekhtésis as a conciliation measure with different denominations (with the negative consequence of pissing the pope, but at this time, nobody really cared. It wasn't the first time, and imposed exile or new election generally dealt with that).

The fact Arabs didn't took Anatolia, that at the contrary of Palestine and Egypt was subject to an actual defense plan, point again the imperial capacities.

In all fairness, Byzantine Empire was in better shape than the late Visigothic kingdom that experienced a series of coups (failed or not) without the excuse of Persian wars or Arab conquests.
While not being the hellhole of ineffectivness often depicted, they didn't prooved being "fresh and rising".

There is a big difference in imposing certain decisions than in throwing their whole church on them. Franks would have never accepted some rigid customes of the Byzantine Church, not to say Visigoths.
So rigid that the emperors actually preferred concede many points than risking to have different denominations rush against them.

At this point, I honestly don't know what you're saying : maybe BG would have a better answer than I on this.

But roughly : the difference between Greek and Latin church are at this point, minimal.
You would have maybe more similarities between Latins churches, each being ruled by their respective kings, but then again Byzantines churches (I mean "official" one there, actually included Roman church that was the main common point of Latin religious entities).

Periods with actual religious conflict between Latins and Greeks, are almost always accompanied if not dominated by political issues rather than theological. Long story short : King and councils represent Church integrity, and by replacing part of both (whatever by the kingdom being deprived of a province and/or bishops being replaced) this integrity is compromised.

Actual theological differences or issues, on the other hand...Were pretty much absents.

The first real divide came from Carolingian Empire, in the IXth century, with by exemple the famous Filioque. As in, the empire that is likely to be butterflied with no Islam.

I think that after the end of the Byzantine-Sassanid war they had the same chances of recovering (or not) that the Byzantines in the long term. Arabs prevented us to check which of both could have recovered first.
They could have recovered. With time.
But while Heraclius' Empire still held together, if weakened by a long and harsh war; Persia was quite divided and ruled by a child king, his co-ruler and knew some revolts of its own.

Byzantium was clearly in better shape (It's basically why it survived).

The migratory activity in Central Asia during the 7th-8th centuries was conditioned by the Islamic expansion there. Without them, you can't guess if some migrations (Turks) could have anticipated,
The steppe migrations were more likely conditioned by climatic changes, as they were always. Reduction of pastures somewhere, being pushed by other peoples, etc. In fact, the process already began in the VIth century, without real Islamic influence on it (as for Islam not being a thing then).

In this regard persian politics towards Central Asian peoples isn't going to be that much different from Arabo-Islamics : they used them as mercenaries since quite a long time already.

especially if they would have considered the Sassanids easy prey, as you suggest.
At the contrary of Arabs, that had already an imperial structure (even if based on tribal features) due to being long influenced by both Byzantines and critically Persians, Turkic peoples still used tribal and "confederal" features.

If they (Maybe an offpsring of Köktürks) invaded Persia and settled there, more likely they would be assimilated as Seljuk were greatly Persianised IOTL.

However, they can't hold it even before the Arab expansion; any eventual new try on Spain was too challenging, I guess.
Do you know about Roman-Persian wars?
As in, a really important, ressource and financial gap, and devastating conflict?

I strongly suggest you to make a quick search about it, beggining with this.

Let be clear : surprisingly, a global empire can't fight everywhere. It doesn't mean Visigoths were super-uber warriors, but that the Persian wars diverted too much focus.
Even with that, regular reconquests did happened up to the early VIIth century.

In fact, a non-negligible part of Visigothic troubles were due to Byzantine intervention.



You overlook the fact that Byzantium was internally very unstable since the Justinian era. The Arab conquests at least provide some internal unity against a common and dangerous enemy and also deprived the Empire of their more conflictive provinces.

So, I think that without the Arab conquest, it's possible that Byzantium had great chance of collapsing because internal infight, you can say 'balkanizing' in different kingdoms or so.
So far, most of the inner conflicts weren't about creating smaller kingdoms but about a claimant to the imperial throne revolting. Not about creating smaller kingdoms.

Unless you argue about denominational "nationalism" with Jabobits and Monophysits? As BG tried to point out in other threads, you didn't had a reject of imperial political integrity, but rather the reject of too dogmatic-minded emperors (and Heraclius prooved that he wasn't exactly that)

In Spain there is an expression in politics that say 'un partido bizantino' (a byzantine party) to refer a political party that can't success because of continued internal conflicts.
Are we about using expressions now, critically when they appeared after Byzantine Empire was dead and buired? *Shurg head in disbelief*

There's a french saying "Build castles in Spain" to refer to dream and futile plans. Does that mean there is no castles at all in Spain.

The Sassanids were not going to collapse. The civil war was over when Yazdegard III took control of the throne.
Maybe not to collapse, but certainly much divided and not posing an immediate threat, certainly not with an eight-year-old ruler.

Furthermore, with the presence of a co-ruler (Hormizd V) and without Arab threat to relativly unify Persians, I'm not sure the important deep divisions wouldn't last (as the revolt apparently happening in 634 preventing to exploit victory at the Battle of the Bridge)
 
I think that in the "No Islam" scenario, baring a disaster, the Byzantines will eventually reinstall an emperor in Rome (And force the pope to submit) and in effect give their backing enabling the WRE to regenerate.
 
I think that in the "No Islam" scenario, baring a disaster, the Byzantines will eventually reinstall an emperor in Rome (And force the pope to submit) and in effect give their backing enabling the WRE to regenerate.

It would be bit weird : one of the actual fear of Roman emperors at this point was that someone would try to reinstate the WRE at their own profit (and admittedly, it was tried).

Without Islam, tough, you won't have a slow withdraw (that never was continuous, Byzantine influence reappering in the IX-X centuries) from central Italy. Pope, while a relatively independent religious figure was at best a Roman client, more usually totally included into the Exarchate. It won't be a problem.
It's just that, for the sake of roman and imperial unicity, proclaiming an second emperor (and not the more usual co-emperor, without real territorial definition) would make little sense.

In fact, if a WRE is proclaimed, it would be likely at pontifical instigation, as for Eleutherius that tried to get proclaimed emperor.
 
In a typical "No Islam" alternative scenario, which could be the probability of the Visigoths (that have been obviously not conquered by the Arabs ITTL) being called by the Papacy to expell the Longobards from Italy, instead of the Franks?

Could a scenario like this boost the recreation of a kind of Western Roman Empire based on an union Spain-Italy?

Speaking to the title of this thread, at no point were the Lombards expelled from Italy in OTL. The Franks under Charlemagne conquered them, after which the Lombards remained in Italy, but ceased to be a coherent force. They became divided into a number of fiefdoms and principalities and by the turn of the millenium, were no longer distinguishable from the general Italian population.

In a "No Islam" situation, the Lombards may go in much of the same way as the Ostrogoths who dominated Italy before them. They'd probably be driven out of Italy beyond the Alps. Or, like the Vandals, will be conscripted into the forces of the eastern Romans and posted on the frontier with the Sassanid Persians.
 
The Franks under Charlemagne conquered them, after which the Lombards remained in Italy, but ceased to be a coherent force. They became divided into a number of fiefdoms and principalities and by the turn of the millenium, were no longer distinguishable from the general Italian population.
They probably ceased to be distinguishable from Italian population after Aigulf converted to Orthodoxy; as Goths did IOTL. "Lombards", by the time of Frankish conquest meant italian elite at least for the North.

And Frankish nobility in Italy itself quickly merged with Lombard during the Xth. When religious issues disappearing, you didn't had enough differences to maintain separate social groups.

In a "No Islam" situation, the Lombards may go in much of the same way as the Ostrogoths who dominated Italy before them. They'd probably be driven out of Italy beyond the Alps.
Ostrogoths weren't driven out beyond the Alps, but probably formed (at least partially) a base of Italo-Roman elite up to Lombard conquest.

Furthermore, Byzantine Empire would be too exhausted by the early VIIth century to go on a 20-years conquest of Italy, even if they could have funded it. You'll have the maintain of OTL status quo, with Lombards ruling North and Central Italy, admittedly with southern Italy turning sooner or later under Roman control (that was quite divided already in Italy itself).

Or, like the Vandals, will be conscripted into the forces of the eastern Romans and posted on the frontier with the Sassanid Persians.
Contrary to Lombards or Franks, Vandals never really merged with the local population (would it be only the coastal) due to exacerbated religious and "ethnical" differences. Depsite their actual strength, it made their conquest really easier compared to Gothic Italy, and clearly more than a Catholic Italian power.
 
Top