The Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine empire lasted from 867-1056. As one of the Byzantines more competent dynasties, were there no relatives that Theodora had at all that possibly could've succeeded her and if not what can be done to make the bloodline larger so that the emperorship could have a more stable line of succession rather than the typical chaos caused from an elective monarchy? And if the government can evolve into a constitutional Monarchy where the senate holds most of the power protecting the emperor from making lethal mistakes to the empire, could the Macedonians have descendants up to modern day (not still called the Macedonian dynasty but with every following ruler sharing the blood and deriving legitimacy from them)?
AHC/PC: Long Lasting Macedonian Bloodline
- Thread starter Kaiser Tito
- Start date
I just thought that transitioning to hereditary rule should curb the chaos caused by the free-for-all elections and backstabbing they had otl based on advice I got on previous threads. Is this a viable solution and if so how do we diverge from otl to get there?
Yeah no she was the last of her line as Basil II had no children and by time her and Zoe ascended to the throne, they were far beyond child-bearing years.
The best way to continue the Macedonian dynasty is to have Constantine VIII have a son, or the better option is to have Emperor Basil II have a son (let's say he's named Romanos III after his grandfather). Basil II having a male heir means that he leaves the Empire in the hands of a vastly more competent individual. By the time he died, the Empire was very wealthy and was arguably the strongest power in all of Christendom at that time. He also probably completes the planned reconquest of Sicily as well.
Basil also had extended his influence/hegemony in the Balkans as well, so that would likely continue in the absence of political disruption that followed Basil's death in otl.
Constitutional Monarchy? The modern notion of Constitutions is anachronous to the Romans.
They already were Roman and had a Constitution through the legal framework established by Augustus and past Emperors. Rome was a Republican monarchy, and thus ruled by the will of the "Senate and people of Rome." However in practice this meant the army with the Senate being ceremonial for centuries. The nobles also were subordinate the Emperor as well.
Our modern notions of Parliament and limited monarchy stems from the Romano-Germanic Kingdoms that emerged in the post-Roman west. The King according to old Germanic traditions was elected and considered more among a "first among" equals in regards to the rest of the nobles hence why the French Kings had their own set of "peer" nobles.
A successful Rhomania and long lasting Macedonian bloodline keeps the Roman system together which was quite dynamic and would likely be stabilized now with the idea of hereditary dynastic succession gradually gaining steam.
Was giving Constantine or Basil an heir easy enough or are there any issues in their personal lives that would need to be resolved?
Also I never meant them just being a constitutional monarchy, I meant the system evolving into one by the 18th century, although if there were any lessons that they could learn from the Magna Carta in the 13th century (both successes and failures) it'd probably help future reforms.
That’s kinda unfair. While her certainly wasn’t a particularly great ruler, looking at what actually happened under his reign, like the reconquest of Crete, Cilicia, and Aleppo, holding off the Magyars, the competent administration, and etc.
While he might have been reliant on his wife and friends at least the people he was reliant on could do the job.
Macedonian dynasty was pretty far removed (both in time and distance) from the Magna Carta. Mean...if France - that was directly across the Channel from England - didn't follow the idea of a Magna Carta, why would an autocratic empire on the far end of Europe do so?
Actually, as pointed out above, the emperors had realized how much trouble the senate could be/cause, so the chances of a Magna Carta type document/constitution emerging seems really, really unlikely. Only way I can see it happening is if we have a succession crisis - underage/female/distant heirs - and somehow the claimants haggle with the Senate about privileges in order to gain legitimacy. And considerig that even WITH two succession crises (in the early 14th and late 16th century) France STILL became the prime example of an absolute monarchy, I don't think this will happen. All the ups and downs of the Holy Roman Empire and AIUI NO emperor was ever held to the Wahlkapitulation presented to him by the Reichstag on his election. So why would the Senate (a glorified city council) be able to do it herr
Which is why they could learn from the failures that the german monkeys go through.
On a serious note I'm just spitballing through every possible situation that the Byzantines could learn from to avoid becoming a rump state that becomes overrun by Turks.WHy would they? Again, France learnt nothing from the Magna Carta, beyond seeing it as a king who couldn't control his vassals, so why would the Byzantines see the Germans as anything but barbarians who clearly didn't get how the system worked?
Weren't the Turks sort of "low" on the list of possible "overrunners" at this point, though?
The smiley implied it wasn't meant to be taken completely seriously. I'd love to drag the joke on but getting back on topic is there anything that the Byzantines can use to inspire improvements in the system?