Why did the Byzantines never again become interested in ruling over North Africa after the 7th century?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,550
Republika Srpska
It was favourable to both sides. Bulgaria received tribute and Byzantium received less pressure in the Balkans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,867
Blachernai
They attempted a land attack on Constantinople by creating a huge salient in Byzantine-controlled Anatolia?
Not quite; they wanted access to the main military road that ran from Syria to the Marmara. The strategos of the Anatolikon controlled much of the central Anatolian part of that road from his fortress at Amorion.

You mean that the Umayyards tried to bribe these commanders to change sides, or what?
They succeeded with Leo III - he let them pass through to Constantinople.

How'd the Bulgars help?
They definitely helped hem Maslama's land forces on the European side back into their siege camp. But their role is extremely vague; some Syriac and Arabic material mention an Arab attack on Bulgar lands. The Greek sources give more attention to naval action, at least in part to give victory to God and not an iconoclast emperor. The Arabic sources have fully mythologized the campaign once Maslama lands in Europe and are not of much use.

Also, how much better do you think that the Byzantines would have performed against the Arabs had they not had to fight against the Persians in the previous couple of decades?
My expectation is that had the big war with Persia not broken out, the Romans would have rebuilt their Arab client networks.
 
Aug 2019
1
N. California
Several factors were involved. Walter Kaegi's Moslem Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa, Cambridge University Press, 2010 gives the most complete account. Kaegi points out that the rebellion of the Exarch Gregory (645-7) combined with Constans II's assassination in 660 along with continued
Arab raids left the North Africa population vulnerable to Arab control. It should be remembered that - unlike Asia Minor, Sicily and South Italy - North Africa represented a strong Latin, not Greek linguistic base. Failure of Byzantine authorities to successfully enlist autochthanous native support against the Arabs sealed the
fate of North Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,676
Cornwall
Several factors were involved. Walter Kaegi's Moslem Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa, Cambridge University Press, 2010 gives the most complete account. Kaegi points out that the rebellion of the Exarch Gregory (645-7) combined with Constans II's assassination in 660 along with continued
Arab raids left the North Africa population vulnerable to Arab control. It should be remembered that - unlike Asia Minor, Sicily and South Italy - North Africa represented a strong Latin, not Greek linguistic base. Failure of Byzantine authorities to successfully enlist autochthanous native support against the Arabs sealed the
fate of North Africa.
Speaking of the Magreb - I'm not entirely sure the Empire had control beyond the key city ports etc. And the berbers - valuable warriors - tended to blow with the wind as regards who they work for. The death of Genseric and his unmatch political abilities led to the mauri becoming another problem to the Vandals rather than a loyal servant, ultimately contributing to the imperial invasion. I would imagine that as arab presence grew in the area more and more clans would defect to the arabs, very similar to the effect of defections from the Almoravids to the Almohads 500 years later.

So each city became isolated as imperial power waned - the fall of Carthage is well-documented and as for Ceuta and Tangier - they seem to have sort of 'defected' into the Visigothic sphere around the turn of the 8th century or latter end of 7th - presumably due to lack of imperial support and for more safety, and becoming a (rebellious) part of the Visigothic nobility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,768
SoCal
Several factors were involved. Walter Kaegi's Moslem Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa, Cambridge University Press, 2010 gives the most complete account. Kaegi points out that the rebellion of the Exarch Gregory (645-7) combined with Constans II's assassination in 660 along with continued
Arab raids left the North Africa population vulnerable to Arab control. It should be remembered that - unlike Asia Minor, Sicily and South Italy - North Africa represented a strong Latin, not Greek linguistic base. Failure of Byzantine authorities to successfully enlist autochthanous native support against the Arabs sealed the
fate of North Africa.
What effect did the 660 assassination have? As in, why did it help in regards to allowing the Arabs to conquer North Africa?