It seems that Emperor Maurice had plans to divide the Empire between his sons. The most common consensus about this scheme is that it would be a return to the division of the East and West rather than a new tetrarchic system where it would be split among all his sons. Supposing that Emperor Maurice wasn't overthrown and makes one of them Western Roman Emperor how viable would such a state be? How would/should the new Emperor deal with the Pope, the Franks, the Exarch of Africa, Lombards, and the remaining vestiges of Hispania? How would relations work between East and West?
WI: Western Roman Empire Restored By Maurice?
- Thread starter Basileus_Komnenos
- Start date
The state itself would still be a frontier march for Byzantium, at least initially unable to work alone, but with some sixes here and there has the potential to recapture and hold Italy and Africa, giving it a solid potential. And of course this most likely butterflies Islam, by preventing the destructive War that followed the death of Maurice. Still, relations between the West and the East are likely to eventually cool off.
I'd imagine Theodosius would end up basing his administration in Carthage for as long as Italy remains contested ground- probably indefinitely.
The pope remains the central authority in the city of Rome itself but firmly subordinate to the emperor in Carthage, as that's the arrangement that best preserves their autonomy in the city. Provence/Catalonia might also be an area that ends up under the Western Emperors Thallasocracy.
Hispania is probably a better bet than Italy for expansion- but realistically I think the western emperors will remain very interested in the east, and very annoying for future new dynasties, as they'll always contest the inheritance.
The pope remains the central authority in the city of Rome itself but firmly subordinate to the emperor in Carthage, as that's the arrangement that best preserves their autonomy in the city. Provence/Catalonia might also be an area that ends up under the Western Emperors Thallasocracy.
Hispania is probably a better bet than Italy for expansion- but realistically I think the western emperors will remain very interested in the east, and very annoying for future new dynasties, as they'll always contest the inheritance.
This.
All that said- there's no reason such a state should be any less successful than were say the Sicilian Normans in a (very) approximately similar setting. An Emperor permanently based in the West (I agree Carthage is likely, but Sicily may well be equally so) will be able to dedicate his energies towards re-integrating the Lombard Duchies and continuing the Christianisation of the various North African kingdoms and tribes.
But it all comes back to Madhukar's point- for how long is a Western Emperor going to be able to resist the temptation to move East: and for that matter, for how long is an Eastern Emperor going to be able to resist the temptation to assert authority over the West?
For a revived Western state to work, I think you need to keep Constantinople permanently busy. Weak enough to avoid too much interference west of the Adriatic, but strong enough to dissuade a Western usurper from trying to seize the City. Given the context of the seventh century though, that's probably doable even in a world where Muhammad is butterflied.
For a Western empire to work, they'd need to crush the Lombards in italy. If you manage to prevent Khosrow II from starting his war then that is possible.
Spain could be retaken later after the various Visigothic civil wars weaken the state
Spain could be retaken later after the various Visigothic civil wars weaken the state
Well I feel like Maurice wanted to divide it so that the Empire's focus and resources wouldn't be split and pulled in different directions. So he might try to ensure that his son has a viable base of power to rule from and gradually re-establish the Roman sphere of influence and power in the West.
Well there were periods of increased warmth and cooling down. The main issue though why the East couldn't help the west was because they were busy dealing with their own problems in the East.
Here Maurice has obtained a favorable peace agreement in the East. There's also the fact that the Sassanids were unstable.
What about the Franks? The Frankish Kings seem to have been the nominal vassals of the Roman Emperors.
Also what about the Visigoths? Wouldn't they want to retake their lost territory in the South? Do you think that perhaps a Visigothic-Lombard alliance could form against a Franco-Roman one?
Honestly I feel like the Emperor in the west would have his hands full trying to make their own base of power viable before even thinking about going west.
I feel like that might be possible during something like the eight century instability which allowed the Caliphate to conquer it.
Were the Lombards even around yet in Italy when Maurice reigned? I think their time periods don’t match up.
Yeah. Maurice was the one who established the exarchate in response to the lombards. The Lombards took over Italy during the reign of Justin II
Prevent Phocas' revolt and Maurice can destroy the Lombards. One lightning campaign
He probably could, but the main issue is that the Romans had their focus split too thin. Despite the brief respite they got from the treaty with Persia, they still have issues in the Balkans and the Danube to deal with.
The empire was also not in the best financial state to support such a venture either.
IT's a gamble. They would have to strip the eastern frontier bare and get a lot of mercenaries, but they could probably do it
At least Benevento seeing as how Constans II was so close of taking it in 663 the empire in 600 would have a better time
The Balkans issue has been dealt with by 600 ad no? Like the Avars have been pacified but yeah the empire is broke
Pretty much back to First Punic War boundaries in Italy: Rubicon river + Ravenna
Actually in the early 600's there was a brief civil war over the succession. If you have one of the claimants live and flee to Rome, I could see Maurice using it as a means to assert power in Southern Italy.
With the Balkans secure, he could probably instigate instability in Benevento and then use the distraction to have his forces invade Benevento, annexing it, if not taking the southern portions of it, so that the Romans territories would be connected via land.
Of course there's also the Lombard Kingdom which would have to be accounted for.
That would just incentivize the slavs and Avars to invade the Balkans again.
Hmm I don't know how goof of a Duke was arechis but Benevento is likely to fall and if spoleto falls that also good but how likely is the Lombard like the goths go the Persians assuming a success I don't know if Maurice risk war with Tuscany and the Lombard kingdom in the Po valley
I believe Maurice could do it, honestly. By the time he got couped, sure the Empire lacked money, but everything was going fine; his protegé on the Persian throne, and he was so militarily ascendant he camped beyond the border, something no future Emperor would even be able to entertain. Had he completed his looting campaign of 602, he'd probably have turned over to Italy in order to bolster the Exarchate (his very creation). The main challenge would be managing to recover financially, which could eventually prove a danger for him or his successors.
Last edited:
This is quite a big issue though- everything Maurice did was on a shoestring, and butterflying away the events of 602 doesn't mean they won't emerge again in 603. Remember there'd already been a significant revolt on the Eastern front in 588.
Anyway, coming back to the main point- it's odd to think about, but you have to go back to 375 to find a point where both East and West were both ruled by competent adult Emperors. So there's actually not much precedent to say how a revived WRE would relate to Constantinople.
Last edited: