Can the Byzantines conquer the Levant down to Aqaba on Red Sea between 800-1200 AD?

[raharris1973]

Not that the board needs another Byz-wank, but...

Why could they or could they not?

Would neo-Byzantine Levant have better long-term prospects than the Crusader states?

Would the Levantine or metropolitan portions of the wanted Byzantine Empire face western invasion and occupation anywhere?

If the Byzzies can pull off the Levant down to Gaza and Beersheba, can they keep going and do a conquest of Egypt?

I was inspired/tantalized to launch this thread because looking at the Byzantine section of atlas of world history there there was Byzantine conquest of all coastal Syria and Lebanon, tantalizingly close to Damascus, Tiberias and Acre, that occurred in 975. And while the frontiers shown for the ERE in 1025 AD are less extensive, they show the Byzantines still holding all of what is today Syria's coast and Alawite heartland,Latakia and Tartus provinces.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Why could they or could they not?

Easily. During the 10th century they had the opportunity. John Tzimizes was in a position to invade and take everything down to Jerusalem, but instead they opted to secure safe passage for pilgrims.

Would neo-Byzantine Levant have better long-term prospects than the Crusader states?

Absolutely! They were a far stronger state that was closer to the action. The Crusaders were a motley mix of European armies that had little motivation to remain in the Levant after the conquest.

Would the Levantine or metropolitan portions of the wanted Byzantine Empire face western invasion and occupation anywhere?

What do you mean?

If the Byzzies can pull off the Levant down to Gaza and Beersheba, can they keep going and do a conquest of Egypt?

Maybe, but in the short run they'll be very overstretched and will need time to consolidate.

I was inspired/tantalized to launch this thread because looking at the Byzantine section of atlas of world history there there was Byzantine conquest of all coastal Syria and Lebanon, tantalizingly close to Damascus, Tiberias and Acre, that occurred in 975. And while the frontiers shown for the ERE in 1025 AD are less extensive, they show the Byzantines still holding all of what is today Syria's coast and Alawite heartland,Latakia and Tartus provinces.

Indeed, that was John Tzimizes doing, but the Romans had very little motivation to do this. The Romans saw Constantinople as much more holy than Jerusalem and tended to shy away from war, preferring diplomacy. The relatively few times they went to war saw very limited gains. Conquests like Basil II's Conquest of Bulgaria were relatively rare. They preferred to convert their neighbors to Eastern Orthodoxy whenever possible to create peaceful neighbors, with mixed results.

 

[Lascaris]

Not that the board needs another Byz-wank, but...

Why could they or could they not?

Would neo-Byzantine Levant have better long-term prospects than the Crusader states?

Would the Levantine or metropolitan portions of the wanted Byzantine Empire face western invasion and occupation anywhere?

If the Byzzies can pull off the Levant down to Gaza and Beersheba, can they keep going and do a conquest of Egypt?

I was inspired/tantalized to launch this thread because looking at the Byzantine section of atlas of world history there there was Byzantine conquest of all coastal Syria and Lebanon, tantalizingly close to Damascus, Tiberias and Acre, that occurred in 975. And while the frontiers shown for the ERE in 1025 AD are less extensive, they show the Byzantines still holding all of what is today Syria's coast and Alawite heartland,Latakia and Tartus provinces.

That's relatively simple. Let Tzimiskes live to 60. This means he reigns up to 985 at which point there is a smooth transition of power to Basil II whom John had gotten married for political reasons to some suitable bride (had Skleros any daughters, I can't really remember). Samuel has been mostly finished off by 985 by successive campaigns by John I and young Basil after Samuel went raiding Byzantine controlled territory in 976 triggering John's response. Basil being Basil he is not going to be staying idle, as soon as conquering Bulgaria is complete (say by around 990) he'll be turning east. He has 35 years ahead. Then ATL the succession does not go to Zoe and Theodora but to a son of Basil that may be mediocre but has still spent all his adult life on campaign...

 

[The Undead Martyr]

@Carp is more knowledgeable on the matter but while the Makedonian Empire was absolutely capable of expanding into the Levant, they didn't OTL- instead they seemed to have focused westward. This IMHO is due to geography- Syria is basically wide open to the east and doesn't really have any good defensible borders internal to it, and whenever the region was conquered OTL (Alexander, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Seljuks, Ottomans) it was always done in one go because otherwise you have to defend each city that you take in the middle of a hostile countryside. It also opens up the question of what to do with sizeable Muslim minorities- while there were (in the 9th Century) significant numbers of native Christians (Copts, Armenians, Maronites etc) the population as a whole could not be expected to really feel any loyalty to the Emperor. Moreover if the Emperor isn't involved in the conquest himself (or sends his heir to do it) then there is the very real risk of the general in charge deciding to use their prestige from the conquest to usurp the Empire, or else make themselves an independent king of Egypt or whatever.

In contrast Sicily etc are weak and relatively divided, have large Greek (and Christian!) minorities, and the Empire already has a (literal) toehold, as well as an ally/client state in Venice in the north. Given a Makedonian survival and the HRE going through something akin to the Investiture Controversy I could well imagine OTL Sicily ending up as Byzantine themes, with perhaps the Romagna (including, perhaps, Rome itself), Veneto, and Tuscany as loose vassals/client states.

Now all of this said the reconquest of Egypt should absolutely be a long term strategic priority for the Empire. It is too valuable, for both grain and trade, not to interest an eastern empire. Long term I would take as the maximum a Byzantine Empire with Justinianic borders in the East, plus North Africa, Italy (up to the Romagna, at the least, and to the Alps, at maximum) and perhaps the Balearics and Gibraltar from Spain if not the whole peninsula (which while nice and readily defensible is not as essential as Italy, and pressing that far would require the Empire to be divided again IMHO), with a client kingdom in Mesopotamia (say from a successful Kharjite Rebelion) if not entirely annexed to the Empire itself (though this would require a Classical PoD IMHO). The Zagros Mountains are a much more defensible frontier than the Syrian Desert; in any case I think that the Empire should not be averse to propping up client states if need be (say in Lombardy or Tuscany to protect Magna Graecia, or in Transylvania and Crimea to protect the Balkans) as opposed to insisting on outright conquest.

 

[Vasilas]

That's relatively simple. Let Tzimiskes live to 60. This means he reigns up to 985 at which point there is a smooth transition of power to Basil II whom John had gotten married for political reasons to some suitable bride (had Skleros any daughters, I can't really remember). Samuel has been mostly finished off by 985 by successive campaigns by John I and young Basil after Samuel went raiding Byzantine controlled territory in 976 triggering John's response. Basil being Basil he is not going to be staying idle, as soon as conquering Bulgaria is complete (say by around 990) he'll be turning east. He has 35 years ahead. Then ATL the succession does not go to Zoe and Theodora but to a son of Basil that may be mediocre but has still spent all his adult life on campaign...

This is basically the scenario I am exploring in my TL though I do think the @The Undead Martyr has a point in that Sicily will also be a major attraction the Empire can't easily say no to. In general, I think it would depend a lot on how the Fatimids are doing: a quick conquest of Egypt like OTL puts a fairly large obstacle to Levantine expansion but potentially leaves Sicily in a weaker position against a Roman invasion if Fatimid attentions are focused on the East Med. On the other hand, the Fatimids having a hard time conquering Egypt (regardless of whether they succeed or not) gives the Empire much more opportunity to handle the Levant as there is no major Egyptian power breathing down their neck.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Certainly possible, I think the Tzmiskes PoD is a solid one.

What would be super important is taking the Euphrates frontier and fortifying it, and establishing a strong desert force. Cicilia is a great base of operations for controlling the coastal Levant, and can certainly host large forces - but the Euphrates is so important and will need some sort of agile force for supporting the coastal territories. Add that alongside Damascus and a rebuilt Amman/Philadelphia and you'd have the Levant secure, at least enough for Cicilia to react. (Palmyra would be a boon, but a bit out-there).

Interestingly, in a twist on OTL Crusades, a possible option to secure the region is a mix of Anatolian and Latin settlers invited in. It'd make the religious makeup of the Levant incredibly varied, but those settlers would help ensure the region stays Roman.

But a secured Levant, with Anatolia secure (particularly NW Anatolia), building an army to seize the Nile Delta is more than possible.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

The southern Levant and Egypt will probably need to be taken in a single campaign or series of campaigns, especially in the context of the Fatimid Sultanate which owns both territories. Both tended to be owned by the same power in the long term, holding Jerusalem without Egypt is a major strategic liability, and the two regions tended to change hands as a package deal.

Basically to move beyond Syria is an all or nothing deal- either you conquer Palestine+Egypt in one go or you don't conquer it at all and content yourself with client states and raids. This is, again, why the Makedonians didn't do more than OTL- they were either unwilling or unable to snap up the southeast Mediterranean in a comparatively short (about a decade or less, at minimum) period of time.

 

[Carp]

Basil being Basil he is not going to be staying idle, as soon as conquering Bulgaria is complete (say by around 990) he'll be turning east. He has 35 years ahead. Then ATL the succession does not go to Zoe and Theodora but to a son of Basil that may be mediocre but has still spent all his adult life on campaign...

Are we sure that "Basil being Basil" means major expansionism? I know Basil II has a reputation for military success (which, to be fair, was gained by experience rather than birth, and one wonders whether a long-lived Tzimiskes that takes care of Samuel would rob Basil of his important learning experiences at the Gates of Trajan and elsewhere), but nevertheless I don't see him as a would-be Byzantine Alexander. His best-known campaigns, against the Bulgarians, concerned an existential threat to the empire; Samuel and Basil could never co-exist, one would inevitably have to destroy the other. In the east, his efforts were focused on a (relatively) peaceful annexation of the Armenian principalities and campaigns against the Fatimids which seem to have been aimed mainly at securing the border. Later on, he ignored provocations from the Fatimids that, had Tzimiskes still been on the throne, may well have been seized as excuses for war. This leaves only the Sicilian campaign, which was only planned, not actually executed, and Sicily was lost much more recently than the eastern lands (and still had a Greek population living there). I'm not saying that Basil would never consider campaigning in the Levant, but I see very little reason based on his OTL life to think that held much interest for him.

 

[Riain]

John Komnenos was going to do it 1143.

 

[Lascaris]

Are we sure that "Basil being Basil" means major expansionism? I know Basil II has a reputation for military success (which, to be fair, was gained by experience rather than birth, and one wonders whether a long-lived Tzimiskes that takes care of Samuel would rob Basil of his important learning experiences at the Gates of Trajan and elsewhere), but nevertheless I don't see him as a would-be Byzantine Alexander. His best-known campaigns, against the Bulgarians, concerned an existential threat to the empire; Samuel and Basil could never co-exist, one would inevitably have to destroy the other. In the east, his efforts were focused on a (relatively) peaceful annexation of the Armenian principalities and campaigns against the Fatimids which seem to have been aimed mainly at securing the border. Later on, he ignored provocations from the Fatimids that, had Tzimiskes still been on the throne, may well have been seized as excuses for war (as. This leaves only the Sicilian campaign, which was only planned, not actually executed, and Sicily was lost much more recently than the eastern lands (and still had a Greek population living there). I'm not saying that Basil would never consider campaigning in the Levant, but I see very little reason based on his OTL life to think that held much interest for him.

In OTL Basil had to deal first with civil war and then with a Bulgarian threat near Constantinople that took a generation to suppress. So arguably he prioritised on that while afterwards prefered western expansion as that potentially strengthened a different set of provincial elites appointed by him. ATL with Bulgaria dealt with and the posited marriage to the Scleroi it's different. Still I actually don't see him trying to outright conquer Syria. I do see him though reacting far more forcibly than OTL to the Fatimid and Muslim attacks that had led to his eastern campaigns OTL. So we probably see him retaking Edessa and Aleppo followed by a drive to Jerusalem, if the road looked open for this the urge to retake the holy land would be irresistible, while Damascus is turned into a vassal. After which it's Sicily and Italy's turn...

Further conquests east can be left to his son to accomplish post 1025...

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Better to go with Theodora as a man instead, as per Carp's suggestion (something which I may eventually get around to writing... though I think I'd prefer to do a Norman Spain or Norman Sicily timeline first).

 

[Michael B]

Whilst Byzantines may have planned to do whether they actually do could is a completely different thing. When you consider that at the height of their power the Byzantines could not reconquer all of Spain and lost much most of their empire between 560 and 720 CE. At that point they were living on borrowed time and regaining of territory was beyond their means.

 

[trajen777]

Your best bet is like sated above John Tzimizes : A few points of correction above : So a TL might look like this -- (from 969 - 976 is what really happened)
1. 970 Johns general defeats Egyptian army by Antioch
2. 971 Defeats the Kievian army which had invaded Bulgaria - takes Bulgaria for Byz (in this way it would have been an easy conquest and consolidation later but the Basil civil war allowed Bulgaria to recover. So the long Bulgarian war that focused Byz efforts away from eastern conquests would never have occurred)
3. 972 - 3 --- stabilizing the empire -- unlike Nicophoris (brilliant general) John was an excellent diplomat (see his dealings with the WRE / Germans) so his dealings with the Bularian existing nobles would have been good (also see his peace treaties with the Russians)
4. 974 - stabilization and making sure his flanks were covered for a major invasion of the Middle east.
5. 975 invasion of Syria defeat of Muslim forces, occupation and treaty with Damascus making them a dependent of the Byz empire. Their is strong proof of him going to Nazareth and Bethlehem. The policy of Nichoph. and John was to "soften up the areas, defeat forces and then occupy the next year and following years in campaigns. (from Wiki -- however in Treadgoods books it basically says same thing -- not about Jers though :in 975, was aimed at Syria, where his forces took Emesa (Homs), Baalbek, Damascus, Tiberias, Nazareth, Caesarea, Sidon, Beirut, Byblos, and Tripoli, but they failed to take Jerusalem)

John died in 976 -- have him live to 60 not die at 50 (so 10 years)
1. 976 - army drives south and conquerors, the shore line, down Caseasara, Tyre, Acre.
2. 977 - army occupies Aleppo (had a protectorate already) Damascus, Jers.
3. 978 - consolidation in middle east, and the finish up the conquest of Bulgaria.
4. 979 - 82 finish up the conquests of the coastline, Syria, and occupation of forts to protect the new borders. (most likely including Edessa)
5. Also during this time i could see an invasion of Egypt

Isses that would / might come up
1. Basil adopted or replaced by Johns kids (Theopano was young) -- the best situation is if John lives to 65 and the son comes on at 14 - 15 years old (and had campaigned with him). If Basil adopted then i think his inheritance would not leave him paranoid vs the eastern magnets (a major reason he did not go east)
2. Byz would have had the eastern orthodox religious commonality vs the Latin world.
3. Basil under these conditions would have prob had a child (or adopted) and would have left an heir
4. John would have been in a great situation withe the massive resources (and Basil) for the future ---
5. No crusaders --- so the Byz control the east --
6. Most likely Basil goes west to conquer Sicily to support Byz Italy -- so the West would not be driven to interfere with the East, the Byz would have a strong Italy as a bulk work against western encroachment, and you would have Basil (a great general but even a better organizer), do a great consolidation of the empire.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Whilst Byzantines may have planned to do whether they actually do could is a completely different thing. When you consider that at the height of their power the Byzantines could not reconquer all of Spain and lost much most of their empire between 560 and 720 CE. At that point they were living on borrowed time and regaining of territory was beyond their means.

You know, I'm not really an expert on this topic, but I'm not so fatalistic to assume that there was literally nothing the Eastern Roman Empire could have done after 1000 AD to preserve their empire. Heck, slightly different migratory patterns out of Central Asia could have resulted in an Anatolia that remained firmly ethnically Greek up until the present day.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Whilst Byzantines may have planned to do whether they actually do could is a completely different thing. When you consider that at the height of their power the Byzantines could not reconquer all of Spain and lost much most of their empire between 560 and 720 CE. At that point they were living on borrowed time and regaining of territory was beyond their means.

I don't think the notion that the Byzantines were living on borrowed time for all of 733 years is very credible. Plus, they did in fact retake territory during this period: here's the Empire in 717, 867 and 1025.

 

[Earl Marshal]

I don't think the notion that the Byzantines were living on borrowed time for all of 733 years is very credible. Plus, they did in fact retake territory during this period: here's the Empire in 717, 867 and 1025.

Honestly, given how powerful the Byzantines were at many points in time relative to their neighbors, I would consider OTL to be a Byzantine screw of epic proportions. First you have the perfect timing of the Arabic invasion in the immediate aftermath of a terrible 30 year war with Persia. Then there were the string of utterly incompetent and terrible Emperors after Basil II which systematically eroded the military power, economic institutions, and administrative efficiency of the Empire. Next was the Turkic migrations into Anatolia which thoroughly dissolved Byzantine authority in the region and finally we have the mother of all screws, the Fourth Crusade.

And that's not including the Iconoclast controversy, the Slavic invasions, the Bulgar invasions, the Norman invasions, the Cuman invasions, or the string of Civil Wars and usurptions that plagued the Empire for its nearly 1000 year history among many others that I am probably missing. Despite all this they still managed several attempted recoveries and they remained a powerful actor in the Middle East for hundreds of years.

To the topic of the thread, I would definitely agree with the consensus that a longer living Tzimiskes could conquer the entire Levant if he wanted to. The only real issue is that he had already conquered the wealthier and more defensible Aleppo and Antioch so they had no pressing need to conquer it. Jerusalem despite its religious significance was an underpopulated backwater with little economic gain and largely indefensible and as others have said already the Byzantines would have had to have taken Egypt as well to effectively hold onto it for any significant period of time.

 

[Michael B]

Honestly, given how powerful the Byzantines were at many points in time relative to their neighbors, I would consider OTL to be a Byzantine screw of epic proportions. First you have the perfect timing of the Arabic invasion in the immediate aftermath of a terrible 30 year war with Persia. Then there were the string of utterly incompetent and terrible Emperors after Basil II which systematically eroded the military power, economic institutions, and administrative efficiency of the Empire. Next was the Turkic migrations into Anatolia which thoroughly dissolved Byzantine authority in the region and finally we have the mother of all screws, the Fourth Crusade.

And that's not including the Iconoclast controversy, the Slavic invasions, the Bulgar invasions, the Norman invasions, the Cuman invasions, or the string of Civil Wars and usurptions that plagued the Empire for its nearly 1000 year history among many others that I am probably missing. Despite all this they still managed several attempted recoveries and they remained a powerful actor in the Middle East for hundreds of years.

A powerful, but after the loss of North Africa, not the most powerful. They could hold ground but were being sapped.

 

[teg]

Even with John Tzimizes, the chances of a Byzantine reconquest of the Levant aren't IMO that probable.

This interview with Anthony Kaldellis explores the context of the Byzantine expansion between the 930s and the 960s, with Kaldellis arguing that the Byzantines a) didn't have the desire to go further than Antioch and b) didn't have the means because expanding further than they did would take them away from the sea and the defensible mountains.

https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2017/09/07/episode-149-streams-of-gold-rivers-of-blood/

I think a Byzantine reconquest is possible but you need some quiet years in the Balkans to do this. It is also worth noting that there is probably going to be trouble in Bulgaria regardless whether John or Basil II are in charge, which will make it hard for the Byzantines to focus their full attention on the east.

teg

 

[Masked Grizzly]

SNIP

While it may be the case that the Crusaders are butterflied in this scenario, is it possible that the Crusaders would have instead turned their attention towards Al-Andalus and North Africa (possibly even including Egypt albeit latter dependent on the Byzantines own progress in Levant / etc) as well as to put a stop to the OTL piracy / slave raids?

 

[Lascaris]

Even with John Tzimizes, the chances of a Byzantine reconquest of the Levant aren't IMO that probable.

This interview with Anthony Kaldellis explores the context of the Byzantine expansion between the 930s and the 960s, with Kaldellis arguing that the Byzantines a) didn't have the desire to go further than Antioch and b) didn't have the means because expanding further than they did would take them away from the sea and the defensible mountains.

https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2017/09/07/episode-149-streams-of-gold-rivers-of-blood/

I think a Byzantine reconquest is possible but you need some quiet years in the Balkans to do this. It is also worth noting that there is probably going to be trouble in Bulgaria regardless whether John or Basil II are in charge, which will make it hard for the Byzantines to focus their full attention on the east.

teg

Trouble in Bulgaria had begun already in 976 with the Cometopuli revolt against the Byzantine conquest since 970 and Samuel becoming sole ruler in 976. The problem from the Byzantine point of view is that then Samuel was then left free to operate with effectively no opposition till 989 due to the Bardas revolts with Samuel taking control of territory from the Adriatic to the Black sea, turning him into a far more formidable enemy than he would had been otherwise. ATL he instead has to deal with John I leading armies after him from the spring of 977. Thus it's reasonable to assume that by the early 990s at the latest Bulgaria has been completely conquered. Which ties all too well to the start of thhe Fatimid war of OTL.

Whether the Byzantines wanted to go much futher than Antioch is debatable I think. John's campaigns certainly don't look that way, Basil who essentially kept on the defensive thanks to his Bulgarian war still took Tartus and fomented rebellion in Tyre. And the imperative to take Jerusalem will always be there, the prestige both within the empire and in the rest of the Christian world over taking the Holy land is just too big to be ignored if it looks feasible.