If the Eastern Roman Empire had fallen in 680

[Aznavour]

The 670s were not an easy decade for the Eastern Roman Empire and its ruler, Constantine IV: the Umayyad Caliphate has overrun the Middle East and is pressuring Byzantium by land and by sea, besieging the Imperial Capital for 4 years (674-678), the Lombards are encroaching on the Italian domains, the Slavic tribes are on the move, besieging the great city of Thesaloniki (676-678), and, finally, in the north we have migrating Bulgars settling the lower Danube region.

IOTL, Constantine won 2 out of 3 of those battles, defeating Arabs and Slavs (and settling with the Lombards), but lost to Khan Asparukh at Ongal in 680, which led to the formation of the First Bulgarian Empire, to which Constantinople would have to pay annual tribute. And yet Constantine would live 5 more years, going on to purge his brothers Tiberius and Heraclius to deny them the throne, and dying at the age of 33, succeeded by a son so despotic and incompetent, he had to be overthrown twice.

But let's say Constantine fails to keep the Empire together. Say, he dies during the siege of Constantinople, the Empire falls to civil war between Heraclius and Tiberius, Constantinople falls to the Arabs (and with time, so does Asia Minor and the Aegean, if the post-Roman warlords don't watch out), Thesaloniki is sacked by the Slavs, and Khan Asparukh's New Bulgaria reaches as far as Thrace and the Aegean, perhaps helped by fleeing Byzantine officers who prefer him to the Arabs or can't make it as warlords.

What happens then, if the Second Rome falls, a mere 200 years after the first Empire, rather than a thousand years?

 

[Artaxerxes]

A damn sight less nostalgia for it I suspect.

Less Catholicism, probably its complete extinction eventually as no driver for conversion and no high value trade to motivate rulers to do so. The papacy is in its infancy here so while morally it's about man it's really not strong enough to do anything long term.

 

[heraclius]

If the Empire falls before it has a chance to establish a cultural 'Byzantine Commonwealth' of other Christian states, converted from Constantinople, in the Balkans this has major butterflies for the development and orientation of SE Europe - and of Russia too. Presumably these are converted by the Catholic Church instead; in OTL the Catholic Church in Rome was trying to convert the Bulgars from paganism in the 850s-860s (by which time the Frankish empire had a local presence on the middle Danube after defeating and annexing the Avar Turkic empire in what is now Hungary). The Orthodox Church won out instead to greater Byzantine military presence in the region and the Bulgar Khan Boris choosing to ally to Byz and be baptised by their churchmen as safer strategically; in this version of events the Catholics would win out over any post-Byz Orthodox warlords in Greece. Ditto in Russia when Vladimir decided to convert - which would not be in 988 as his conversion followed a war with Byz over the Crimea, as part of the peace-treaty where he married a Byz princess, and in this version the trading city of Cherson (Greek-inhabited ) dominating the Crimea would be at best an independent trading state and he could swallow it up without repercussions.

Given the fissaparous nature of the Arabs' Caliphate and the need to settle and hold Greek-inhabited Asis Minor after taking Constantinople, the Caliphs would have a big job on their hands to hold down this region - probably via a (Syrian/ Egyptian/ Lebanese ports) fleet and army holding the capital and garrisons in major cities plus tribes moving into the hinterland with their herds as the Turks did in OTL after 1071. There would be no appetite to invade the Balkans, and the Bulgars would outnumber any Arab armies there and know the geography so they could win a defensive war. The fall of Constantinople would give Mu' awiya prestige for fulfilling the prophecy about the fall of C. in the Koran and he could add to his religious authority as its 'blessed' conqueror, as per Mehmed II in OTL 1453; but it was too far from his power-bases in Syria to be his new capital. When he dies in 680 a substantial army would be tied down there; does this make his son Yazid, presumably more secure in his credentials with the tribes as his dynasty has won the great prize of the Roman capital, more at risk of successful revolt as he has less troops in Syria? Assuming the civil wars of the 680s go the same way as in OTL without a need to recall all the army in Asia Minor to achieve success, the Ummayads then govern a precariously large realm from the Bosphorus to Khorasan and Carthage - and are bolstered by the riches of plundered 'Rum' so they are seen by devout and ascetic tribes and the Shi'a as even more 'secular' and unworthy of the Caliphate. Their military preoccupation in the NW makes revolt in Iran in the late 740s easier than in OTL - but what if the defeated Caliph Marwan or one of his relatives can flee Syria to Constantinople in 750 and hold out there? We could get a breakaway 'Ummayad' emirate in the 'Roman' lands backed by the local army and converted or tributary Greeks, and a new Moslem state developing there not in Al-Andalus.
Assuming the Bulgars can hold onto big cities like Thessalonica and Adrianople and recruit Greek locals to their court, do they become more urbanised and 'Greek' (at least in the South of the Balkans) earlier, take to a monetary economy, and develop a semi-Greek court? Presumably the Byz refugees from Constantinople would settle in what is left of Greece, where the inland decentralised Slav settlements had lost them most of the mountains plus the inland Peloponnese, and set up principalities claiming to be 'Roman' at Athens, Corinth etc. If they had enough troops plus the Byz fleet from the Aegean they could be a viable but small 'state', possibly led by any of the Imperial family who had got out of the capital in time; but heavier settlement and a state in Sicily, based at Constans II's old HQ of Syracuse, is more likely. A likelier 'Roman empire', as they would call it but with only limited resources, could hold onto Sicily and southern Italy and keep the Lombards back with good generals, and possibly (as the Arabs are busy settling in Asia Minor) defeat any Arab 'thrust' West to Carthage and keep Tunisia. Carthage was declining steeply as a city and rural security in T was imperilled by Berber raids before the Arabs arrived in OTL, but with more Byz refugees the Empire might hold onto the coast and in that case Spain would stay under the Visigoths. So we get a Byz 'rump state' in Sicily, possibly linked to one in S Greece, but these are minor players in regional strategy and without a Bulgar collapse they are unlikely to get any of the Balkans back. Result: Catholic cultural domination of E and SE Europe and a less 'Byzantine', more Slav/ Norse Russian state trading or warring with the Moslem state at Constantinople. And the Ummayads at C fighting the Abbasids at Baghdad long-term?

 

[Bolt451]

Im not knowledgeable to add anything but I like that @heraclius rocked up with a) an in depth reply and b) the perfect user name

 

[heraclius]

Thanks. I did a degree in Byzantine history (and Classics/ British History) in the Univ. of London and still have my textbooks and notes - hence finding topics in the period easy to write on. I was thinking of ideas for Byzantine 'What Ifs' at the time I was doing my degree, and my scenarios invented then on 'No Fourth Crusade' and 'No Byzantine disasters from c.1300' are the basis for my second Byzantine book with Sealion which should be coming soon. The forum has provided me with a lot of new ideas for future books, and I'm hoping to get a collection of essays on Ancient Greek to modern British history topics started over the next few months.

 

[Alex Richards]

Actually, do we even have a distinction between 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' Christianity here? We can assume the Quinisext Council of 692 doesn't happen, we're actually before the efforts to standardise Ecclesiastical Latin, and it can only really be a couple of centuries since the Western Church stopped using Greek.

With Constantinople fallen, Rome becomes the sole Patriarchate left standing, and it's hard to really see any potential alternative focus for the church. So while the Balkans are likely to be Christianised on a 'Roman' model, if it happens at all, it also seems quite feasible that a sort of earlier 'Uniate' Church emerges from the fragments of the Byzantine Empire left in Greece and southern Italy- one which recognises the spiritual authority of the Pope but still uses Greek liturgical texts.

Of course this is likely to splinter off in the event of a later attempt at centralisation or standardisation, but I can't help but feel the need to actually re-establish any of the Patriarchies (at least on a Chalcedonian model) means that Rome will be the natural 'senior' Patriarchy for quite some time.

Which, if formalised by some sort of Council in Italy in the 690s or early 700s, might paradoxically lead most of all to a strengthening of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East.

 

[Gary Oswald]

It also depends on what is happening in the West. At this point the Muslims are no further west than Libya.

You could argue both ways as to the effect that the collapse of the Byzantines could gave on that. It could either speed up their march to the atlantic due to less opposition or slow it down due to armies needed elsewhere and less worry about being outflanked by the byzantines.

Christianity with a Christian Spain and Mauritania is going to be quite different to Christianity without that due to the influence of the former arians.