HOME | DD

Description

When the barbarian invasions from the north first hit, the Balkans were the initial target; in the end, none of them managed to establish a lasting presence in the region, and Constantinople, unlike Rome, was an ideal stronghold for withstanding invasion. Consequently, the barbarians would ultimately move west to the more vulnerable western half of the Roman Empire, ultimately carving out barbarian kingdoms in its ruins. Nevertheless, had the barbarians managed to successfully erode the frontiers of the Eastern Empire, perhaps Constantinople would have fallen, and Rome survived and maintained its hegemony in the west.

I don't know that the barbarians could have taken Constantinople, but they could have carved out autonomous kingdoms in the Balkans, thus significantly weakening the Eastern Empire and leaving it vulnerable. The eastern empire would linger on, continuously eroded by invasion, just as the Western Empire did in our timeline and just as the real-world Byzantine Empire did later on in its existence, but my theory is that they would succumb not to the barbarian invaders, but to the Sassanian Persians. The Sassanians did come close to crushing the Byzantines in our timeline, under Khosru II, and a weakened Byzantium might have fallen before their might. Persia would thus conquer all of the Middle East, Egypt, and Anatolia, plus the better part of the Balkans - thus succeeding where the Achaemenids had failed in conquering Greece and establishing dominance in southeastern Europe.

The triumphant Persia would likely resemble a cross between the old Achaemenid empire and the Ottoman Empire of our timeline: a vast, multiethnic realm stretching from the Balkans to the Indus River. Perhaps the Persians, like the Ottomans, would adopt Constantinople as their new capital, or perhaps Cteisiphon would remain their seat of power. The Persians had a long tradition of religious tolerance, although they began persecuting Christians after their Roman enemies adopted the religion as their state ideology; however, they actively encouraged dissident Christians sects such as the Nestorians, and many of the Christians in Egypt and the Middle East were of this confession. In fact, they welcomed the Muslims as liberators in our timeline because they were seen as a lesser evil than the Byzantines (who promoted Chalcedonian orthodoxy and suppressed dissenters), so they might actually do quite well under the Persians. Who knows, maybe the Persians themselves would eventually adopt Nestorianism, but regardless they would continue to tolerate this faith. The Chalcedonian/Greek Orthodox believers of Anatolia and the Balkans would be treated more harshly, as they were affiliated with Rome and would also maintain a national identity - they would still view themselves as Romans, and culturally would be Greek. They would be rebellious and would be seen as a pro-Western fifth column, though the Persians (like the Ottomans of our timeline) might try to control the patriarch of Constantinople and encourage a schism with the Papacy. Overall, the Persians could probably integrate the Middle East fairly easily, and Egypt too to a point, but the Balkans would remain a troubled spot in her empire, as they were for the Ottomans.

The remaining western half of the Roman Empire would become essentially synonymous with Western Civilization, would remain Catholic, and would probably remain hostile to the Persians who had toppled the eastern empire; their influence over the Gaelic and Germanic neighbors might expand through trade, conquest, or missionary influence, perhaps eventually resulting in their eventual integration or at least the development of strong cultural and religious ties. It's possible that Zoroastrianism and other eastern religions would become more influential in the Middle East as well as in Europe, and the same applies to Nestorianism. The conquests of Islam outside Arabia might never take place in a world where Persia was so dominant in the Middle East, so perhaps the Arabs focus on expansion in eastern Africa instead. Also, Western contact with the Far East and India might be facilitated by the massive Persian Empire connecting the great civilizations.

Description

When the barbarian invasions from the north first hit, the Balkans were the initial target; in the end, none of them managed to establish a lasting presence in the region, and Constantinople, unlike Rome, was an ideal stronghold for withstanding invasion. Consequently, the barbarians would ultimately move west to the more vulnerable western half of the Roman Empire, ultimately carving out barbarian kingdoms in its ruins. Nevertheless, had the barbarians managed to successfully erode the frontiers of the Eastern Empire, perhaps Constantinople would have fallen, and Rome survived and maintained its hegemony in the west.

I don't know that the barbarians could have taken Constantinople, but they could have carved out autonomous kingdoms in the Balkans, thus significantly weakening the Eastern Empire and leaving it vulnerable. The eastern empire would linger on, continuously eroded by invasion, just as the Western Empire did in our timeline and just as the real-world Byzantine Empire did later on in its existence, but my theory is that they would succumb not to the barbarian invaders, but to the Sassanian Persians. The Sassanians did come close to crushing the Byzantines in our timeline, under Khosru II, and a weakened Byzantium might have fallen before their might. Persia would thus conquer all of the Middle East, Egypt, and Anatolia, plus the better part of the Balkans - thus succeeding where the Achaemenids had failed in conquering Greece and establishing dominance in southeastern Europe.

The triumphant Persia would likely resemble a cross between the old Achaemenid empire and the Ottoman Empire of our timeline: a vast, multiethnic realm stretching from the Balkans to the Indus River. Perhaps the Persians, like the Ottomans, would adopt Constantinople as their new capital, or perhaps Cteisiphon would remain their seat of power. The Persians had a long tradition of religious tolerance, although they began persecuting Christians after their Roman enemies adopted the religion as their state ideology; however, they actively encouraged dissident Christians sects such as the Nestorians, and many of the Christians in Egypt and the Middle East were of this confession. In fact, they welcomed the Muslims as liberators in our timeline because they were seen as a lesser evil than the Byzantines (who promoted Chalcedonian orthodoxy and suppressed dissenters), so they might actually do quite well under the Persians. Who knows, maybe the Persians themselves would eventually adopt Nestorianism, but regardless they would continue to tolerate this faith. The Chalcedonian/Greek Orthodox believers of Anatolia and the Balkans would be treated more harshly, as they were affiliated with Rome and would also maintain a national identity - they would still view themselves as Romans, and culturally would be Greek. They would be rebellious and would be seen as a pro-Western fifth column, though the Persians (like the Ottomans of our timeline) might try to control the patriarch of Constantinople and encourage a schism with the Papacy. Overall, the Persians could probably integrate the Middle East fairly easily, and Egypt too to a point, but the Balkans would remain a troubled spot in her empire, as they were for the Ottomans.

The remaining western half of the Roman Empire would become essentially synonymous with Western Civilization, would remain Catholic, and would probably remain hostile to the Persians who had toppled the eastern empire; their influence over the Gaelic and Germanic neighbors might expand through trade, conquest, or missionary influence, perhaps eventually resulting in their eventual integration or at least the development of strong cultural and religious ties. It's possible that Zoroastrianism and other eastern religions would become more influential in the Middle East as well as in Europe, and the same applies to Nestorianism. The conquests of Islam outside Arabia might never take place in a world where Persia was so dominant in the Middle East, so perhaps the Arabs focus on expansion in eastern Africa instead. Also, Western contact with the Far East and India might be facilitated by the massive Persian Empire connecting the great civilizations.