So, this is a first for this blog. I think that I am fascinated with this character Constans II, emperor of Byzantium. I had never really thought of him in any serious fashion. He is one of those characters, who fall through the cracks of historiography as unfortunately he comes at a time with relatively limited sources. Yet think about it, this man left Constantinople and moved to the west, feeling that the empire's future lay there. Think of the implications of his move. How Roman his choice, how revolutionary his approach. Contemplate a history where Constans is not murdered. Where the east keeps going on under his son and where the young emperor - only 37 when he was murdered - succeeds to reinforce Byzantine lands in Italy and Africa through the introduction of the "Theme" system in those territories.

Think of Italian thematic armies defending the land against the Lombards with the same guerilla techniques developed to fight the Islamic armies of Mu'awiyah. Think of a consoldated Byzantine Italy south of the Po. Of taxes levied effectively and of Sicily and Africa forming a line of defense against the Islamic armies. Think of a Byzantine Empire that continues to exist as a dual Latin-Greek state keeping the Roman imperial ideal firmly in its hands. Where does Charlemagne fit in that model? Well, we will never know as a servant of Constans murdered him in his bath in Syracusae in 668. One disaffected servant standing, hands bloodied, on the course of history. I guess what I am developing here is probably anathema to a view of history based on grand movements predicated on economic and social developements and longue durée changes. Well, who cares, speculation is easier in people-centered history. And tonight I wish to speculate.