The Strong Left Arm

The Italian wars of re-conquest during the reign of Justinian I (r. 527-565) were devastating for the Roman Empire¹, and even more so for Italy. Justinian may be forgiven for imagining that the regnum Gothicum was as rickety and rootless as the Vandal kingdom in Africa, to fall forever at one hard blow from his general Belisarius. Indeed, at first it seemed that it would prove so; the Gothic leaders seemed more interested in retiring in luxury to the East (as a reward for suitable treasons) than in defending an independent gothic Italy. Nonetheless, after it seemed that the conquest of Italy had been completed, the Goths elected a new leader, Totila (or Baduila, depending on the sources), who ruled for over a decade and forced Belisarius and his successor Narses to destroy the peninsula in order to save it.

Within fifteen years of the end of the “re-conquest”, the Lombards had invaded Italy (some say that Narses called them in as revenge for an insult to him by the emperor Justin II²). Few in number, the Lombards were neither able to conquer Italy in its entirely or to be conquered. The division of Italy had begun; which persisted to 1870.

Let us consider a PoD. When Eraric is deposed (and murdered) by the Gothic army in 541, Totila is not there to succeed him – he’s bought the farm during Belisarius’ arrest of the Gothic leaders earlier that year. A few shadowy kings may be raised up – and cast down – by Gothic die-hards in the next few years, but the re-conquest of Italy is in effect over. The Gothic leadership despairs even more than in OTL³ , the Gothic exercitus (army-nation) is broken up and mostly sent to the lower Danube or the Euphrates. Italy proper (as the ancients thought of it) is given a late-antique civil government under an exarch; the Po Valley and an ill-defined zone north and northeast into the Alps and the upper Danube valley is strictly a military zone under the Count of the Northern Marches⁴. This is a continuation of Theodoric’s policy of defense-in-depth against “barbarian” Germans and the Franks. The Franks, in particular, are not to be trusted; they’re vicious and only nominal Christians (in fact, in OTL 554, they did invade Italy, but were defeated and driven out by Narses).

In 568, the Lombards invade on schedule (maybe that was just the tail of the Võlkerwanderung, and not a plot by Narses). Instead of invading a depopulated and militarily impotent Italy, however, they are faced with a confident and well-equipped (for those days) army under Count Peter, who decisively defeats them at Aquileia. The survivors largely become Peter’s dediticii (household troops), with contingents going to join the Imperial armies in the Middle East and Africa.

Throughout the remainder of the 6th century, I don’t see events in Italy as having too much effect on Constantinople, and therefore I will spare myself the strain of imagining differences in the succession or events there. At the beginning of the 7th century, Maurice is emperor, and is overthrown by Phocas – or equivalent. Khusrau Parviz uses this, as in OTL, as his pretext to invade the Empire. Now, however, the plot thickens.

The exarch of Italy at this time is a man named Andrew. The OTL Phocas was an incompetent bumbler who reigned for eight years by a mixture of terrorism and the fact that almost everyone more competent was fighting the Persians. When a more competent man – Heraclius the son of the exarch of Africa – appeared who wasn’t facing the Persians, Phocas fell like a paralyzed falcon.

Italy is richer than Africa⁵, so Andrew will move faster than Heraclius did. He may get some semi-covert aid from the elder Heraclius; I choose to make it so. Andrew (and his successors for some time) will treat Africa as autonomous; nothing goes on parchment, but the office of exarch becomes hereditary.

In 605 Andrew declares himself basileus and, after his fleet crosses the Adriatic, marches on Constantinople from Epirus. Behind the Theodosian walls, Constantinople could hold out almost forever – if anyone were interested in defending those walls. Few are, and, despite some bloody street fighting, Phocas is dispatched with relative ease, and the reign of Andrew I begins.

Khusrau Parviz has had much less time to enjoy (and organize) his conquests, and the Empire is much more sound financially, than in OTL. (Ironically, one of the problems that the OTL Empire suffered from was the cost of the defense of the Italian exarchate). Andrew is able to drive the Persians out, although not to regain western Armenia, by 611⁶.

Andrew was a considerable innovator, although from the perspective of the 21st century much of what he did was merely a recognition of existing trends. The old Roman provinces (dioceses) and local administrative areas (demes) continued in existence; Andrew gradually eliminated the ecclesiastical hierarchy from civil administration, though, replacing them with diokesarchoi with juridical powers. The senate continued, although new officials found their place in it; the grand logothete, the iostikiaros (a new post concerned with justice and finance), and the department heads of the Imperial skholia, which, as in Claudius I’s time, grew in importance. The officials by themselves constituted the konkilion, a body that tended to absorb more of the central administration as time passed.

The ultimate triumph of Andrew’s reign was certainly the great Eskhatalogical⁷ Survey of 625. The following year, he died in a riding accident whilst on campaign. His eldest son, Theodore, an excellent general although a lazy, amiable man, was named exarch of Italy; his second son, Andrew II, became basileus. His youngest son, Sergios, was excluded from the administration, although he received 360,000 nomismata and estates in Italy.

Andrew II was a passionate, greedy ruffian, although inspiring great loyalty in the army (and giving it in return). He was also openly homosexual, which accounts in large part for the disgraceful light that he is cast in by ecclesiastical historians, such as Gregory of Samos and St. Theophylact Skavros. A revolt by his father’s cronies was put down in 627.

In 570 a certain Muhammed ibn Abdallah was born, and...oh, you all know the story. His successor (khalif) Abu Bakr dispatched Arab Muslim armies to both Syria and Mesopotamia; Andrew’s brother Theodore, alarmed by this (perhaps the only real political wisdom that he ever showed), resigned the exarchate and returned to Constantinople to help lead the Roman armies. At Yermuk in 636, Andrew and Theodore put paid to the Muslim attempt to conquer Syria, leading the Roman armies to victory. Although no serious attempt at conquest was made thereafter, razzias continued; the military victory did not bring lasting popularity for Andrew, and he was assassinated at Damietta in 639.

Andrew’s brother Sergius seized the throne, acting immediately upon Andrew’s death, and in fact future historians were never able to fully acquit him of involvement in his brother’s assassination (although they have consistently returned a “not proven” verdict to charges that he led a conspiracy to do so). As ecclesiastical writers have consistently blackened Andrew’s character, so they have consistently whitewashed Sergius’; he was not the “lion of justice” that they make him out to be. He was, however, a prudent ruler and a good judge of men (outside of his family). Anarchy in Italy (to which Theodore returned after Andrew’s death) necessitated Sergius’ leading an army there; in 645 he put down a serious revolt of the developing Italian dunatoi, and blinded and imprisoned Theodore, who died in 673 (Theodore son, Andrew, escaped, but after various adventures, himself died in 667).

Sergius had difficulties with the clergy in this time. His father, Andrew I, had had good relation with the patriarch Sergius (even going so far as to name his youngest son after him) and, on his death in 614, had raised Gregory II (r. 614-628) to the patriarchal throne. Gregory was a reformer; he enforced celibacy at the episcopal level and carried through numerous monastic foundations. He and Andrew were close friends, however; whilst they worked very well together, it meant that certain fundamental disagreements were masked by that friendship. Andrew II had not gotten on with any cleric, but Gregory died soon enough that no real friction developed. Andrew then had simply left the patriarchate unoccupied (helping himself, not incidentally, to the patriarchal revenues), until a conspiracy of nobles, reinforced by his own illness, induced him to appoint Faustus⁸ to that position in 632. Faustus insisted to the supremacy of ecclesiastical law over civil law; Andrew would have been unlikely to concede that point even had he been devout. Faustus was deposed in 636, and the more pliant Anastatius was appointed in his place. Faustus, however, escaped to Italy; it was not until 645, after the defeat of the Italian revolt, that he formally submitted to Sergius; as a reward, he was re-enthroned as patriarch (646-650).

New accounting methods (imported probably ultimately from China, by way of India and Persia) were introduced into the fisc during Sergius’ reign, although not by him personally. He did personally oversee a reform and centralization of the administration; imperial letters of instruction (vyllai) to relatively petty provincial officials become common in his reign, as do members of the konkilion sent out as judges (kystionoi) with powers overriding those of the diokesarchoi. Prosperity was general; Constantinople now became a center of genuine international trade, rather than a city whose existence is justified by the presence of an imperial court.

The Byzantine style of architecture and art develops enough to be differentiated from the late Roman style. Latin almost ceases to be used; Imperial Greek (with, granted, many loans from Latin) becomes the language of administration, law, and literature. Heraclius of Magnesia, with his Latin Gestae Augustorum Romanorum rightfully belongs to this period, as do Tiverhios (679-739), anachronistic Christianizer of the Gestae; Martin (665-715), author of the epics Rhomylos kai Rhemos and To Rhodon; and Maria of Italy (672-727), writer of amorous and erotic verse at the court of Sergius II.

Unfortunately, Sergius’ only son, Andrew, is accidentally drowned in 659; things get interesting in the next two decades.

¹ We can certainly debate what the realm centered on Constantinople should be called, particularly in this period. My own view is that it only became a truly Greek Christian polity under the Heraclians; it’s definitely the late – very late – Roman Empire still in the sixth century.
²Narses was a eunuch; supposedly, Justin recalled him from his post as governor of Italy with the message that he should henceforth confine himself to spinning wool with the other women. Narses is said to have retorted, “I will spin a skein that Justin will not easily unravel”, and called in the Lombards.
³Eraric was actually one of those who had proposed that Belisarius be given the crown! Belisarius remained loyal to Justinian, however, and used the offer as cover for his arrests and coup.
⁴Cf. the Count of the Saxon Shore in OTL; he’s not an autonomous feudal lord but, at least in theory, a high-ranking military appointee.
⁵The Roman/Byzantine Exarchate of Africa was, in modern parlance, Tunisia and coastal Algeria. No Draka here, thank Mithras.
⁶Somewhat ironically, the exarch Heraclius dies in this year, and is succeded by his son, Heraclius II. Byzantine sovereignty over North Africa remains purely nominal throughout the century.
⁷Greek eskhata means “last”; this was the last, un-appealable word on taxation and land ownership.
⁸Yes, I recognize the irony.