Consequences of central and southern Italy remaining Byzantine

[Lady Visenya]

What are the consequences of the Byzantines managing to hold onto these lands rather than losing them? Assuming all else stays the same up until that point, what are the changes during and after the reign of Constantine V? With a long undisturbed time under imperial rule, might the province be more profitable/less of a money sink?

Could the Byzantines retain their hold on Sicily in such a situation?

 

[Lascaris]

Last seen the empire held on to south Italy till 1071? Central Italy is a different matter. But there is an obvious side effect namely that the Pope TTL is still an imperial subject. And while the bishop of Rome will most certainly be very influential and a counterbalance to The Constantinople patriarch it's a bit problematic to get ideas of independence when the emperor still has troops in your city...

 

[Tarabas]

The first thing that comes to mind is that this butterflies away Charlemagne's Empire. In the long run, the divide between Rhoman and Lombard Italy could give rise to two totally distinct identities.

 

[Thoresby]

Well no Catholic/Orthodox split would be a fairly massive change.

 

[Diocles]

With the restoration and development of the West, I don’t think the authority across the Ionian Sea will be maintained. Basically, if Byzantine South Italy can maintain a rather strong power it will eventually seek independent, or be annexed by Western forces if it became faintness and fall into chaos like in OTL.

 

[Tarabas]

I honestly do not know how the Roman Duchy and the Exarchate could be held long-term. We are talking of a tiny corridor, which at times was only some km wide. During the reign of the last Lombard Kings the dynamic was pretty much as follows: the cities would be occupied by the Lombards, the Pope would protest, threat of Frankish interventions, the Lombardo promise to oblige, they do not, protests by the Pope, repeat, Charlemagne.

 

[Lady Visenya]

I honestly do not know how the Roman Duchy and the Exarchate could be held long-term. We are talking of a tiny corridor, which at times was only some km wide. During the reign of the last Lombard Kings the dynamic was pretty much as follows: the cities would be occupied by the Lombards, the Pope would protest, threat of Frankish interventions, the Lombardo promise to oblige, they do not, protests by the Pope, repeat, Charlemagne.

I'm referring to all of the lands in those areas rather than the sliver they held otl. Or at the very least they manage to hold onto lands up to or just past Rome itself.

Would Italy have a greater cultural influence on the rest of the Empire going forward?

 

[Tarabas]

I'm referring to all of the lands in those areas rather than the sliver they held otl. Or at the very least they manage to hold onto lands up to or just past Rome itself.

Would Italy have a greater cultural influence on the rest of the Empire going forward?

I would say, if they can hold on Central Italy, they can hold all the South, too. If the Lombards are happy with the situation, and a stable frontier can be established, I would say that Byzantine Italy+Sicily has the potential of becoming a Despotate. Northern Italy has even more Lombard influence ande the Lombards may well stay Arian.

 

[Lady Visenya]

I would say, if they can hold on Central Italy, they can hold all the South, too. If the Lombards are happy with the situation, and a stable frontier can be established, I would say that Byzantine Italy+Sicily has the potential of becoming a Despotate. Northern Italy has even more Lombard influence ande the Lombards may well stay Arian.

So it's probably more akin to say... how Africa was run? In that while it might send tithes it's otherwise mostly regionally independent?

 

[Silver01]

Well no Catholic/Orthodox split would be a fairly massive change.

The iconoclast controversy is happening so I think it would

 

[Silver01]

You can have charlegmane invade but just to kick out the northern lomhards and maybe due to the iconoclast controversy he also attacks the Byzantines but I don't know a Saxon revolt stops him so Italy is divided between Carolingian North and the rest of it being Byzantine the Byzantines would over time loose central Italy maybe in this timeline instead of of Sicily the Norman's kick them out of central Italy .

 

[Tarabas]

So it's probably more akin to say... how Africa was run? In that while it might send tithes it's otherwise mostly regionally independent?

Pretty much. At least, that is my educated guess, although, without a specific POD, it is hard to say. I know this has been said to death, but the only way I see for a workable Byzantine Italy is a swifter Greco-Gothic war, so that Italy can be a net contributor and not a drain on resources. Then they can even lose Northern Italy somehow but, due to the need of effectively wage a near-constant war with the Lombards, Italy is pretty much independent.

 

[Byzantion]

Last seen the empire held on to south Italy till 1071? Central Italy is a different matter. But there is an obvious side effect namely that the Pope TTL is still an imperial subject. And while the bishop of Rome will most certainly be very influential and a counterbalance to The Constantinople patriarch it's a bit problematic to get ideas of independence when the emperor still has troops in your city...

Keeping the Normans out.

 

[Lady Visenya]

The iconoclast controversy is happening so I think it would

Iconoclasm didn't happen but it should have.

 

[Thoresby]

The iconoclast controversy is happening so I think it would

If Rome (i.e. Central Italy) is firmly held by Byzantium (as the OP specifies) then the Bishop of Rome (not Pope as we understand it) will either be Greek or will follow the Imperial line on any religious dispute as they did in the aftermath of the arrest of Martin I.

 

[Silver01]

If Rome (i.e. Central Italy) is firmly held by Byzantium (as the OP specifies) then the Bishop of Rome (not Pope as we understand it) will either be Greek or will follow the Imperial line on any religious dispute as they did in the aftermath of the arrest of Martin I.

The original pope ever since leo introduced it was against the iconoclastic movement just because the Byzantines have power does not mean the pope will shut up about it heck even Greeks back home did not support the movement much less the pope , the pope could use that to cause rebellions or invite charlegmane to kick the Romans and lombards out

 

[Lady Visenya]

The original pope ever since leo introduced it was against the iconoclastic movement just because the Byzantines have power does not mean the pope will shut up about it heck even Greeks back home did not support the movement much less the pope , the pope could use that to cause rebellions or invite charlegmane to kick the Romans and lombards out

>one of Leo III's mottos was literally "With G-d, for the poor and the downtrodden, and the defense of the homeland."
>traditional research believed that iconoclasm was driven primarily from the themes
>it was in fact directed from Constantinople itself
>hated by the regional aristocracy ruling those themes
>but appealed at the people of said themes
>Leo is facing revolts
>all of them in regions under the Pope's authority, and led by aristocrats
>in response, the Emperor takes all these regions from Rome's jurisdiction
>because the fleet he sent to reestablish order got fucked up by a storm
Then he started taxing church domains and appointing his own bishops, kek.

By Greeks do you mean the common people or the aristocracy?

 

[Silver01]

>one of Leo III's mottos was literally "With G-d, for the poor and the downtrodden, and the defense of the homeland."
>traditional research believed that iconoclasm was driven primarily from the themes
>it was in fact directed from Constantinople itself
>hated by the regional aristocracy ruling those themes
>but appealed at the people of said themes
>Leo is facing revolts
>all of them in regions under the Pope's authority, and led by aristocrats
>in response, the Emperor takes all these regions from Rome's jurisdiction
>because the fleet he sent to reestablish order got fucked up by a storm
Then he started taxing church domains and appointing his own bishops, kek.

By Greeks do you mean the common people or the aristocracy?

Leo was mild compared to Constantine V who went full persecution the controversy was used by his enemies against him of course not effectvely but him being busy with the caliphate and Bulgaria allowed the whole situation in Italy to occur so you need a big pod for Constantine to do something about Italy as capable as he was we needed to know the limitations of his empire and the strength of the bulgarians.

 

[Lady Visenya]

Leo was mild compared to Constantine V who went full persecution the controversy was used by his enemies against him of course not effectvely but him being busy with the caliphate and Bulgaria allowed the whole situation in Italy to occur so you need a big pod for Constantine to do something about Italy as capable as he was we needed to know the limitations of his empire and the strength of the bulgarians.

Wasn't the Caliphate in the middle of disintegrating at that point?

Though given Constantine V's OTL actions he might just end up drafting men from Italy to go settle some other places, or to have a place in his tagmata. Though that could leave the province open to revolt.

 

[Silver01]

Wasn't the Caliphate in the middle of disintegrating at that point?

Though given Constantine V's OTL actions he might just end up drafting men from Italy to go settle some other places, or to have a place in his tagmata. Though that could leave the province open to revolt.

They where and Constantine took advantage of that but then the abassids showed up he made a truce with them in 750s from then Constantine decided to focus the 2 deacades left from him to invade Bulgaria as the civil wars due to collapse of dulos clan so for some reason Constantine here says nah fam and goes to Italy instead of attacking Bulgaria