No Twenty Years’ Anarchy: A Byzantine TL

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Click here for the first chapter

In 695, Justinian II was deposed and the ERE entered a twenty-year long period of instability.

Now my question is, how to prevent that?
I have thought of several possibilities, including
- Justinian II being more lenient with his taxes, eliminating the primary reason for the populace’s dissatisfaction towards him
- The plot to depose him is foiled, though given his OTL track record of being cruel after betrayal, might lead him to be deposed anyways later on
- Justinian II is still deposed: but what if Leontius, his successor, was not? OTL he was deposed for losing Carthage, but if Carthage can hold on for a little while for Leontius to solidify his rule...

If this period of instability were successfully prevented, what sort of implications are in store for the empire?
- Carthage: my impression is that it was already hanging on a thin thread with the Arabs having captured the interior. But could the Romans at least hold on to Carthage, or more optimistically recapture all of Africa?
- The survival of the Exarchate of Ravenna seems to be possible if the empire is more coherent, not to mention the lack of iconoclasm messing Constantinople’s relations with the pope in Rome. I am skeptical of the empire gaining significant extra ground in Italy however, maybe not until much later
- The Balkans (including Greece) was run over by Slavic tribes and Bulgars over the 7th century and Constantinople lost control over most of the interior save for the major cities. I think it would be possible for a gradual reconquest to happen now instead of almost a century later as in OTL

Having said that, I am unsure whether an ERE with limited resources can manage all that at once. I personally am leaning towards Africa being lost, but the Romans manage to take back control over the southern Balkans and Thrace at the very least (since it is their immediate heartland), and maintain the status quo in Italy. In other words, late Isaurian/Nikephorian dynasty borders by the time of Justinian II or Leontius’ death sometime in the 730s.

I want to plan a TL based on this, and will of course be writing a better fate for the eastern Romans, but I don’t want a wank.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Sorry, a correction, Leontios was not deposed for losing Carthage, but by officers afraid of punishment for failing that campaign, following which one of them became Emperor. The question still remains: what if Carthage holds on even for a little more time, or if Leontios foils their plan?

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Bump. No one? 😭

 

[eliamartin65]

@John Fredrick Parker

 

[Silver01]

I’m afraid the Heraclian Dynasty is just passed my area of recent obsession; have you tried @Goldensilver81 ?

At this point im the Heraclian guy Ok so

Justinian II being more lenient with his taxes, eliminating the primary reason for the populace’s dissatisfaction towards him

Justinian did this for a reason well two one bad one good the claim that Justinian II was hated due to taxes mostly comes from
George Ostrogorsky and the idea that he was using those taxes for mega projects like Justinian I which he did do, its not like we taxing them dry, in actually Justinian II likely reformed the tax system for the better, getting rid of the old diocletian Capitatio-Iugatio tax which increased free peasants,

If this period of instability were successfully prevented, what sort of implications are in store for the empire?
- Carthage: my impression is that it was already hanging on a thin thread with the Arabs having captured the interior. But could the Romans at least hold on to Carthage, or more optimistically recapture all of Africa?

the Battle of Mamma had done a number of the Amazigh but the romans still had queen Dihya as support to hold out.

he Balkans (including Greece) was run over by Slavic tribes and Bulgars over the 7th century and Constantinople lost control over most of the interior save for the major cities. I think it would be possible for a gradual reconquest to happen now instead of almost a century later as in OTL

Justinian had reconnected Thrace with Thessalonica it was start but his main goal was to destroy Bulgaria
For alot of these things Justinian II or his successors have to be more realistic

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Thanks for your input, I'm sorry that I've only been able to reply now.

the Battle of Mamma had done a number of the Amazigh but the romans still had queen Dihya as support to hold out.

This is interesting, I didn't know about this. A cursory reading through Wikipedia tells me she and her kingdom were at least nominally Christian and she was relatively successful against the Arabs until her final defeat. Could this signal a possible reversal of Arab gains in Africa, or a longer stalemate between both sides?

For alot of these things Justinian II or his successors have to be more realistic

I realise that... it would be better to make this a drawn out process then.

There's still a lot for me to read and think about. Do you perhaps have any good resources to recommend covering this time period?

 

[Duke of Orlando]

I mean depending on how you want to do this, from my memory Justinian II’s brother is almost a complete historical unknown . So you could make him more or less whatever you want him to be and kill his brother off before he even reaches the throne.

As for fixing the rule of Justinian II, stopping the loss at the battle of Sebastopolis might be a good start. He’s famed for being cruel but a winning emperor is one who is much more secure. Losing Armenia and the tribute from the Tribute from the Umayyads hurt, and nobody likes a loser. After that have another peace treaty signed and have him focus on the Balkans. His successor can try to mend relations with the church but keeping Justinian II away from anymore religious matters would be a good thing.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Basically you need to change Justinian's character. Competent he undoubtedly was, but also too aggressive, cruel, ruthless and overbearing. Reducing all those aspects would remove several of the problems his reign faced:

- Conflict with the Caliphate: while the exact course of events is unclear bot Muslim and Byzantine sources agree that Justinian caused or at least provoked the war that broke out in 695. Him not provoking the Caliph with removing people from Cyprus, thereby reducing the tax income Abd al-Malik received from there, and minting coins with the image of Christ could help ease tensions. War probably still breaks out at some point in the future, but every year the empire does not have to fight its most dangerous enemy is a boon.

- Religious problems: having Justinian act with more patience and tact in this matter could help prevent both a further radicalization of the Paulicians in Anatolia, who'd become a massive nuisance until their defeat in the 9th century, and the increasing distance between Constantinople and Ravenna. Say what you want about obstinate Popes but attempting to forcibly remove Italy's most important person twice does not create stability. And the Exarchate needs stability to withstand the ever aggressive Lombards.

- Internal unrest: already helped by him being better at religious matters. Additionally, have him treat the nobility better. Neither the supposed tax reform, which arguably was just the writing down of already established law, nor his spending really hurt him here. But his character made him many enemies and it is telling that the rumour that he supposedly wanted to kill the Patriarch was enough to kickstart a massive revolt.

None of these points guarantee that he will reign unopposed, we are talking about the Roman Empire after all, but that way his competence is allowed to shine through more. And really it is Justinian II. that has to change to prevent the TYA because him getting overthrown throws the door for future usurpation wide open. Almost a century of dynastic rule, while not unopposed, had brought a measure of stability and its end will see further turbulence throughout the empire.

That way you also have a better chance at keeping Africa west of Tripolitania Roman. Justinian's reign and the defeat, effort and instability it brought contributed to the further failing of that frontier. Still not an easy front to old, especially since Berber loyalties can always shift and Queen Dihya was just one of many leaders in the region. However, it is also the only front where the Romans could theoretically make more sweeping changes. Both the Balkans, Italy and the Anatolian front will be slogs for a long time to come and require slow, methodical and piecemeal advances to stabilize and expand. Even a massive victory at Sebastopolis won't change that the Caliphate dwarfs the empire in every aspect by that point so any larger gains near its base of power is largely out of the question. Africa on the other hand is a rather fringe frontier for the Caliphate and home to people that match the Arabs in their preferred way of fighting. So any victories there can result in more lasting gains. It is why Constans II. was probably planning to launch a reconquest of Egypt from Northern Africa before his assassination.

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Just bumping the thread. I’ve been busy over the past month but I’ll be posting again soon, hopefully

 

[Nuraghe]

In 695, Justinian II was deposed and the ERE entered a twenty-year long period of instability.

Now my question is, how to prevent that?
I have thought of several possibilities, including
- Justinian II being more lenient with his taxes, eliminating the primary reason for the populace’s dissatisfaction towards him
- The plot to depose him is foiled, though given his OTL track record of being cruel after betrayal, might lead him to be deposed anyways later on
- Justinian II is still deposed: but what if Leontius, his successor, was not? OTL he was deposed for losing Carthage, but if Carthage can hold on for a little while for Leontius to solidify his rule...

If this period of instability were successfully prevented, what sort of implications are in store for the empire?
- Carthage: my impression is that it was already hanging on a thin thread with the Arabs having captured the interior. But could the Romans at least hold on to Carthage, or more optimistically recapture all of Africa?
- The survival of the Exarchate of Ravenna seems to be possible if the empire is more coherent, not to mention the lack of iconoclasm messing Constantinople’s relations with the pope in Rome. I am skeptical of the empire gaining significant extra ground in Italy however, maybe not until much later
- The Balkans (including Greece) was run over by Slavic tribes and Bulgars over the 7th century and Constantinople lost control over most of the interior save for the major cities. I think it would be possible for a gradual reconquest to happen now instead of almost a century later as in OTL

Having said that, I am unsure whether an ERE with limited resources can manage all that at once. I personally am leaning towards Africa being lost, but the Romans manage to take back control over the southern Balkans and Thrace at the very least (since it is their immediate heartland), and maintain the status quo in Italy. In other words, late Isaurian/Nikephorian dynasty borders by the time of Justinian II or Leontius’ death sometime in the 730s.

I want to plan a TL based on this, and will of course be writing a better fate for the eastern Romans, but I don’t want a wank.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

then from what I believe, Justinian II's main problems are 3, the first is the serious extension of the imperial border heavily exposed to rapid and effective attacks from multiple directions, with the risk of being attacked at the same time ( therefore it should concentrate on facing one adversary at a time to ensure a more solid border, before moving on to the other ) the second is purely economic, given the lack of funds to restore the imperial coffers, maintaining the truce with the Arabs for longer could partly help ( 1 ) finally and obviously the religious one, which is difficult to iron out given the internal divisions and the divergent political and cultural developments in the various provinces ( mainly those in contact with the Arab world and the Latin-speaking ones in the West, which rightly after decades of emperors who took away resources useful for their defense, they ask for huge tributes with almost nothing in return, they impose religious policies that do not comply with local developments and they attack the only figure who is establishing himself as a key point in the area and who is actually doing something to help ( alias the Pope ) they rightly realize that in Constantinople they are not considered and therefore they begin to ask : " but do we really need an Emperor who is far from us ( 2 ), speaks a different language from ours ( in fact in Italian historiography we speak of a Byzantine or Greek papacy, precisely to specify this fact, almost all imperial agents are mainly foreigners ( mainly Greeks or Syrians ), not chosen from among the local Latin elite, adding a dose of racism to the mix ), doesn't he defend us and consider us almost equal to barbarians ? ", here if Justinian manages to juggle all these main problems then he can have a good chance of continuing to govern ( without being deposed like Otl ) until his death, this in the long run can also allow Carthage to have time to recover and resist ( especially if the Emperor manages to appear truly intent on defending the western part of the empire, if he manages to convince the pope of this it is likely that he will be able to obtain extra help ( such as Lombard or Frankish soldiers who in response to the papal appeal join the fight, since the papacy was already establishing itself as the focal point of Latin Christianity in this period and major supporter of the Roman - Frankish axis, which technically has already existed since around 586 A. C .) although I personally believe that to save Carthage it would be useful for the empire to be able to totally destroy the Arab fleet or occupy Alexandria for a few years so as to distract the caliphate's efforts in recovering it, time that can be used to strengthen the defenses of the Exarchate of 'Africa ( in addition to also changing Roman policies towards the Berber populations which, until the devastating battles of 647 - 651 against the Arabs, were of open hostility, with some interludes in which relationships reconnected, therefore trying to integrate these populations into the state would be a very useful policy in the long run )


1 ) given that if we compare the revenues of the empire before Justinian's reconquests where the state had annual revenues of 5,000,000 solids ( which will increase briefly after the conquests, but which due to the plague and the war against the Sassanids ended up dissipating in a high rate, as well as being also used to pay huge tributes to the other enemies of the Empire ) this immense sum was drastically reduced after the last Roman-Persian war and the rapid expansion of the caliphate, until it became almost a third of the total
( about 1,800,000 nomes )


2 ) consider that only two Emperors visited Italy and Rome during the period between 554 and 751, they are Phocas and Constans II, it was the latter who, when he left Rome, stripped everything considered of value, that is, it is enough to say that the Romans ( inhabitants of the city ) in around 566 were hunting Narses to kill him, shouting through the alleys of the eternal city "death to the Greek !", while years before we had welcomed Belisarius as one of their own liberator ( and they had widely recognized him as one of them ), a habit they still have today, given that to recognize a person as a true Roman citizen, the popular vernacular says that you must have grown up in Rome and your family must have lived there for at least 7 generations otherwise expect a insult in Roman dialect


surely even one of these small changes could mean that the so-called Byzantine dark ages will be partly attenuated, which certainly allows the Empire to be in a better position as soon as it can resume, obviously I think we will still see a drift of the Latin regions which away from the control of Constantinople ( certainly it will be a more gradual process than Otl, but by now it has already started albeit slowly, after all the incoronation of Charlemagne was not the cause but rather the final effect of this )


furthermore we are in the period of King Ansprand ( father of the more famous Liutprand, i.e. the Lombard king who reigned the longest ever, from 712 to 744, who is also remembered for having adopted Pepin the Short as his godson in 737, thus legitimizing his royal dignity, and for his many attempts to take Rome ) but who, unlike his son, had a Kingdom tormented by internal wars, in particular with the Duke of Turin, who considered him a simple usurper, given that he was originally the regent for the son of the deceased sovereign Cunipert, and for his ties with Bavaria ( which did not please the Franks ) so there could be an alliance between the Franks and the Romans to take advantage of this, so as to try to nibble away some territory from the Lombards ( which could also progress into a possible marriage contract, perhaps an imperial princess ( not porphyrogenita ) or a daughter of the Exarch for the future Charles Martel ?, that Otl was born in 690 )

 

[Nuraghe]

then from what I believe, Justinian II's main problems are 3, the first is the serious extension of the imperial border heavily exposed to rapid and effective attacks from multiple directions, with the risk of being attacked at the same time ( therefore it should concentrate on facing one adversary at a time to ensure a more solid border, before moving on to the other ) the second is purely economic, given the lack of funds to restore the imperial coffers, maintaining the truce with the Arabs for longer could partly help ( 1 ) finally and obviously the religious one, which is difficult to iron out given the internal divisions and the divergent political and cultural developments in the various provinces ( mainly those in contact with the Arab world and the Latin-speaking ones in the West, which rightly after decades of emperors who took away resources useful for their defense, they ask for huge tributes with almost nothing in return, they impose religious policies that do not comply with local developments and they attack the only figure who is establishing himself as a key point in the area and who is actually doing something to help ( alias the Pope ) they rightly realize that in Constantinople they are not considered and therefore they begin to ask : " but do we really need an Emperor who is far from us ( 2 ), speaks a different language from ours ( in fact in Italian historiography we speak of a Byzantine or Greek papacy, precisely to specify this fact, almost all imperial agents are mainly foreigners ( mainly Greeks or Syrians ), not chosen from among the local Latin elite, adding a dose of racism to the mix ), doesn't he defend us and consider us almost equal to barbarians ? ", here if Justinian manages to juggle all these main problems then he can have a good chance of continuing to govern ( without being deposed like Otl ) until his death, this in the long run can also allow Carthage to have time to recover and resist ( especially if the Emperor manages to appear truly intent on defending the western part of the empire, if he manages to convince the pope of this it is likely that he will be able to obtain extra help ( such as Lombard or Frankish soldiers who in response to the papal appeal join the fight, since the papacy was already establishing itself as the focal point of Latin Christianity in this period and major supporter of the Roman - Frankish axis, which technically has already existed since around 586 A. C .) although I personally believe that to save Carthage it would be useful for the empire to be able to totally destroy the Arab fleet or occupy Alexandria for a few years so as to distract the caliphate's efforts in recovering it, time that can be used to strengthen the defenses of the Exarchate of 'Africa ( in addition to also changing Roman policies towards the Berber populations which, until the devastating battles of 647 - 651 against the Arabs, were of open hostility, with some interludes in which relationships reconnected, therefore trying to integrate these populations into the state would be a very useful policy in the long run )


1 ) given that if we compare the revenues of the empire before Justinian's reconquests where the state had annual revenues of 5,000,000 solids ( which will increase briefly after the conquests, but which due to the plague and the war against the Sassanids ended up dissipating in a high rate, as well as being also used to pay huge tributes to the other enemies of the Empire ) this immense sum was drastically reduced after the last Roman-Persian war and the rapid expansion of the caliphate, until it became almost a third of the total
( about 1,800,000 nomes )


2 ) consider that only two Emperors visited Italy and Rome during the period between 554 and 751, they are Phocas and Constans II, it was the latter who, when he left Rome, stripped everything considered of value, that is, it is enough to say that the Romans ( inhabitants of the city ) in around 566 were hunting Narses to kill him, shouting through the alleys of the eternal city "death to the Greek !", while years before we had welcomed Belisarius as one of their own liberator ( and they had widely recognized him as one of them ), a habit they still have today, given that to recognize a person as a true Roman citizen, the popular vernacular says that you must have grown up in Rome and your family must have lived there for at least 7 generations otherwise expect a insult in Roman dialect


surely even one of these small changes could mean that the so-called Byzantine dark ages will be partly attenuated, which certainly allows the Empire to be in a better position as soon as it can resume, obviously I think we will still see a drift of the Latin regions which away from the control of Constantinople ( certainly it will be a more gradual process than Otl, but by now it has already started albeit slowly, after all the incoronation of Charlemagne was not the cause but rather the final effect of this )


furthermore we are in the period of King Ansprand ( father of the more famous Liutprand, i.e. the Lombard king who reigned the longest ever, from 712 to 744, who is also remembered for having adopted Pepin the Short as his godson in 737, thus legitimizing his royal dignity, and for his many attempts to take Rome ) but who, unlike his son, had a Kingdom tormented by internal wars, in particular with the Duke of Turin, who considered him a simple usurper, given that he was originally the regent for the son of the deceased sovereign Cunipert, and for his ties with Bavaria ( which did not please the Franks ) so there could be an alliance between the Franks and the Romans to take advantage of this, so as to try to nibble away some territory from the Lombards ( which could also progress into a possible marriage contract, perhaps an imperial princess ( not porphyrogenita ) or a daughter of the Exarch for the future Charles Martel ?, that Otl was born in 690 )

I remembered another detail that I consider worthy of note, during the joint reign of Egica and Wittiza ( between 687 and 710 ), a Byzantine fleet raided the coasts of southern Spain and was chased away by a local count named Theudimer, the dating of this event is disputed: it may have occurred as part of Leontius' expedition to liberate Carthage in 697 or perhaps later, around 702, or even at the end of Wittiza's reign. What is almost universally accepted is that it was an isolated incident linked to other military activities ( probably against the Arabs or Berbers ) and not an attempt to re-establish the lost province of Spania which fell to the Visigoths in 624 ( except the Balearics , but which were cut off from imperial control due to Arab expansion, together with the Judicates of Sardinia and Corsica ) furthermore it must be considered that the Goths had expansion ambitions to the detriment of the Exarchate of Africa, so it cannot be ruled out that in the future there could be a ( small ) military campaign to create a buffer state between the heart of Visigothic Iberia and the Roman possessions


Furthermore, in these same years we must also consider the career of Pepin of Herstal ( father of Charles Martel ) who in a few years became mayor of the palace in Austrasia and then after the battle of Tertry in 687 ( which reunified the kingdoms of Burgundy, Neustria and Austrasia in a single entity, especially thanks to Pippin ) Dux et princeps Francorum ( office he held until 714 ), as well as collaborating closely with Pope Sergius I in the evangelization of the Frisians ( which seriously took hold from 689 to 708, years in which Pepin obtained numerous victories against them, so much so that he founded the diocese of Utrecht in 704 )



as well as the complex politics of papal succession ( given that from the beginning of the government of Justinian II, 8 popes succeeded, of which only one was originally from Rome : Benedict II ) I believe that it would be interesting to see perhaps a Carthaginian come to fill this illustrious office ( given that already in past times there were 3 pontiffs of African origin )




furthermore, in this period the Submerged Romance languages began to weaken more, i.e. those which have now disappeared, including the Moselle dialect ( which disappeared in the 14th century ), the northern Balkan dialects ( including Dalmatian and Morlach ) and finally the one which it was widespread between the Alpine chain ( particularly southern Germany, Austria and Slovenia ) and the Pannonian Romance ( which became extinct around the 10th century ), depending on how the story develops, one of these languages can be included in a nearby related language ( e.g. the Latins of Pannonia with the proto-Romanians ), the Latin speakers of the Alpine territories who can unite with each other or seek refuge in Italy and Istria ( regardless of Lombards and Romans ) or towards the Frankish territories on the Rhine / Moselle ( the evolution of this languages can become very interesting )

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

2 ) consider that only two Emperors visited Italy and Rome during the period between 554 and 751, they are Phocas and Constans II,

Phocas visited Italy? As far as I know he only had a statue of himself erected in Rome and his icons acclaimed for the last time by the Roman Senate and that was it.

 

[Nuraghe]

Phocas visited Italy? As far as I know he only had a statue of himself erected in Rome and his icons acclaimed for the last time by the Roman Senate and that was it.

well now that you make me think about it it's strange, actually in some texts it says that I visit Rome in others that he was the last emperor to have monuments built in his name by the senate, in others that Pope Gregory himself welcomed the icons with its appearance, well it seems that each version is discordant, so let's be on the safe side and say that we are only sure of Constans II ( indeed if this were the case with him alone being the only emperor to visit the western regions, all this would be even more significant ), However, even this way the gist of the matter does not change, that is, the Italic Romans were starting to fall out of love with the Empire which, in their opinion, neither represented them nor wanted to defend them ( forcing them to start looking elsewhere for an alternative to it ) and at the same time they began to be more faithful to papal ideas as opposed to the policies of the Exarch / Emperor



if we also add that the knowledge of Greek in the West, and Latin in the East was waning, we also have a large linguistic gap in the making which complicates everything the already complicated diplomatic political relations

 

[Ti. Flavius Leo Liberius]

I would personally not count on Justinian II. Tiberius III, despite his Barbaric origin, had definitely the potential to become a great emperor. He is the one who deserves a 2nd chance.

 

[Nuraghe]

there is another small detail which, although almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I still consider to be interesting, namely that with an emperor ( Justinian II ) returning to focus, albeit briefly, on Italy, we will certainly witness a new campaign to take Benevento ( already proven Otl by Constants II in 663 ) with the aim of further connecting Lazio and Campania with the rest of the territories in the hands of the Eastern Romans in the south of the peninsula, furthermore we could see some funding ( also reduced to the bare ) intended for the restructuring of regional infrastructures ( which would be a real panacea even if temporary, in particular if it coincides with the civil works of the popes ) it will be interesting how this will affect the Eternal City itself which could find itself in a better position than Otl ( being less exposed to serious military threats, internal unrest and
perhaps with a slight growth in its population )

 

[KOLO cript]

he needs more cruelty, but not so explicit as his habitual, he needs some scapegoats for the taxes, like Justinian had, and if things go south he can execute these scapegoats, putting a mercenary guard like the varangians to defend him would be good too, his decision to deal with tervel was strategically good so he need to focus on that, maybe some intrigue like putting the bulgarians against the other hordes in the north and strike right after it would solve the problem for a certain period, other than that, reassure the byzantine hegemony of italy, he can send a expedition against the lombards in south italy and the Arabs i think that if he can ally with the persian and armenian lords he can try to wage a war but that is after he solve the expenses of the state

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

Sorry for basically abandoning this thread! I was too busy (and admittedly shifted my attention to another period in Byzantine history 😂), but perhaps I could restart the discussion.

surely even one of these small changes could mean that the so-called Byzantine dark ages will be partly attenuated, which certainly allows the Empire to be in a better position as soon as it can resume, obviously I think we will still see a drift of the Latin regions which away from the control of Constantinople ( certainly it will be a more gradual process than Otl, but by now it has already started albeit slowly, after all the incoronation of Charlemagne was not the cause but rather the final effect of this )

Assuming Carthage is still lost, how do you think they will drift away? Not contesting it, I do agree to be honest - I would think the Pope will start asserting his authority as Constantinople's attention on (and control of) Italy fluctuates. Perhaps a hypothetical native Italian exarch could start prioritising local interests than Constantinople’s, and even compete with the Pope for power, which would be interesting to explore (and potentially disastrous in the long run.)

An idea I had was that Constantinople loses control of Italy eventually, but Roman identity persists there. Not sure how to work that out.

I would personally not count on Justinian II. Tiberius III, despite his Barbaric origin, had definitely the potential to become a great emperor. He is the one who deserves a 2nd chance.

This would require the loss of Carthage, since Tiberius III rebelled against Leontius for fear of punishment for their failure to defend Carthage, but it seems you’re right; his brother Heraclius even defeated the Arabs twice. I think I want to begin the timeline with him.

there is another small detail which, although almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I still consider to be interesting, namely that with an emperor ( Justinian II ) returning to focus, albeit briefly, on Italy, we will certainly witness a new campaign to take Benevento ( already proven Otl by Constants II in 663 ) with the aim of further connecting Lazio and Campania with the rest of the territories in the hands of the Eastern Romans in the south of the peninsula, furthermore we could see some funding ( also reduced to the bare ) intended for the restructuring of regional infrastructures ( which would be a real panacea even if temporary, in particular if it coincides with the civil works of the popes ) it will be interesting how this will affect the Eternal City itself which could find itself in a better position than Otl ( being less exposed to serious military threats, internal unrest and
perhaps with a slight growth in its population )

That was my plan for Italy's future, more or less - finally subduing Benevento.

Reading Kaldellis’ The New Roman Empire, it says that the “anarchy” was limited to the throne and that civil life continued normally. If this is the case then I think I want to centre this timeline on Tiberius III and his new dynasty.

 

[Nuraghe]

Sorry for basically abandoning this thread! I was too busy (and admittedly shifted my attention to another period in Byzantine history 😂), but perhaps I could restart the discussion.


Assuming Carthage is still lost, how do you think they will drift away? Not contesting it, I do agree to be honest - I would think the Pope will start asserting his authority as Constantinople's attention on (and control of) Italy fluctuates. Perhaps a hypothetical native Italian exarch could start prioritising local interests than Constantinople’s, and even compete with the Pope for power, which would be interesting to explore (and potentially disastrous in the long run.)

An idea I had was that Constantinople loses control of Italy eventually, but Roman identity persists there. Not sure how to work that out.

This would require the loss of Carthage, since Tiberius III rebelled against Leontius for fear of punishment for their failure to defend Carthage, but it seems you’re right; his brother Heraclius even defeated the Arabs twice. I think I want to begin the timeline with him.

That was my plan for Italy's future, more or less - finally subduing Benevento.

Reading Kaldellis’ The New Roman Empire, it says that the “anarchy” was limited to the throne and that civil life continued normally. If this is the case then I think I want to centre this timeline on Tiberius III and his new dynasty.

To be honest, it is speaking from Italian to Italian ( I should say Roman ?, @Logothete of Cuisine 😉😜), you should know that the Roman identity in Italy did not disappear, but rather went through a complex process that saw it fracture into several parts in response to the invasion of the Lombards, so we have the formation of a Lombard - Roman elite in the north of the peninsula, a Rhomanois in the Katepanate and finally the return of the association of the Roman identity with the fact of being born and living in the eternal city ( in practice a new regionalization of romanitas ) being governed by the city bishop ( more or less willingly, given how many times the current pontiff in Otl was expelled from the Urbe and replaced with a candidate more acceptable to the powerful Capitoline aristocracy ) even if to be honest, already under the exarchs Eleutherius and Olympius, we have attempts to make reviving an imperial court in the West, an attempt then tried again during the reign of Leo III, with even the idea of asking for the intervention of Charles Martel in support of this


P.s
I guiltyly forgot about Romagna, literally called that by the Lombards due to the fact that it was the region controlled by the Romans with whom they fought most often, therefore it seems to me that the Roman identity has not completely disappeared from Italy, but rather has diversified in our regionalisms, which are the basis of the pre-unification Italian states

 

[Nivek]

- Carthage: my impression is that it was already hanging on a thin thread with the Arabs having captured the interior. But could the Romans at least hold on to Carthage, or more optimistically recapture all of Africa?

gone, fully gone.

- The survival of the Exarchate of Ravenna seems to be possible if the empire is more coherent, not to mention the lack of iconoclasm messing Constantinople’s relations with the pope in Rome. I am skeptical of the empire gaining significant extra ground in Italy however, maybe not until much later

A moonshot but pausable more if able to beat the Lombards and slowly extend south to get the pope in synchrony with Constantinople

 

[Logothete of Cuisine]

To be honest, it is speaking from Italian to Italian ( I should say Roman ?, @Logothete of Cuisine 😉😜), you should know that the Roman identity in Italy did not disappear, but rather went through a complex process that saw it fracture into several parts in response to the invasion of the Lombards, so we have the formation of a Lombard - Roman elite in the north of the peninsula, a Rhomanois in the Katepanate and finally the return of the association of the Roman identity with the fact of being born and living in the eternal city ( in practice a new regionalization of romanitas ) being governed by the city bishop ( more or less willingly, given how many times the current pontiff in Otl was expelled from the Urbe and replaced with a candidate more acceptable to the powerful Capitoline aristocracy ) even if to be honest, already under the exarchs Eleutherius and Olympius, we have attempts to make reviving an imperial court in the West, an attempt then tried again during the reign of Leo III, with even the idea of asking for the intervention of Charles Martel in support of this


P.s
I guiltyly forgot about Romagna, literally called that by the Lombards due to the fact that it was the region controlled by the Romans with whom they fought most often, therefore it seems to me that the Roman identity has not completely disappeared from Italy, but rather has diversified in our regionalisms, which are the basis of the pre-unification Italian states

Oops, you misunderstand, I’m not Italian, I come from faraway Indonesia. “Rome Below The Winds” in my profile refers to another timeline on this site set in Java.

Since the plan is having Italy eventually drift away from the eastern empire, I wonder if it’s possible for a western court to be established without incurring Constantinople’s wrath - they did see themselves as the indivisible Roman Empire, after all.

One scenario would be a civil war breaking in the empire that leads to a usurper establishing himself in Ravenna and another in Constantinople. For a while they try to dominate the other, but eventually they settle for the status quo. Or perhaps the eastern empire suffers a heavy defeat by the Arabs, and the emperor decides to split the empire between his sons, one in Constantinople and the other in Ravenna. Not to dissimilar from the 4th and 5th centuries I assume, splitting the management of the empire for more efficient governance.

The Romans of Italy would see the Romans of Byzantium as fellow Romans, but distinct from each other, and vice versa, though occasional conflict and animosity are probably expected.

I wonder if the Greek speakers in southern Italy and Sicily would be willing to join with the new western empire, or would they rather remain under Constantinople.

A moonshot but pausable more if able to beat the Lombards and slowly extend south to get the pope in synchrony with Constantinople

You mean to start from the north? Wouldn’t subduing Benevento first make more sense?