Basil II and his regents?

Out of curiosity, what was Basil II's relationship with his brother, father and regents - Nikephoros II Phokas and John Tzimiskes? I ask because I'm considering doing a TLIAW where Basil II and/or OTL Constantine VIII have at least one son and the reigns of Constantine VIII, Zoe and her husbands and Theodora are butterflied away.

From what I've seen/heard, it was tradition for a newborn child to be named after their grandparents, hence I believe Romanos would be a likely first choice if either Basil or Constantine had a son.

Any thoughts?
 
Basil II never married because he hated women so it would have to be a son of Constantine VIII and his wife Helena, born around 980 and yes, probably named Romanos. If he tried to be like is uncle more than like his father, and after watching Basil for some 40 or 45 years, he could make a decent emperor.
 
Basil II never married because he hated women so it would have to be a son of Constantine VIII and his wife Helena, born around 980 and yes, probably named Romanos. If he tried to be like is uncle more than like his father, and after watching Basil for some 40 or 45 years, he could make a decent emperor.

Okay. Where exactly is it mentioned that Basil hated women? I thought it had something to do with some advice Bardas Skleros, a married man with children, gave him.
 
Okay. Where exactly is it mentioned that Basil hated women? I thought it had something to do with some advice Bardas Skleros, a married man with children, gave him.

There's no direct evidence that Basil hated women. There is, however, plenty of evidence that he had a pretty intense distrust for the nobility even before the revolts of Phokas and Skleros, which is hardly surprising given his childhood. Basil clearly didn't want any of them to be close to power, and by being the grandfather/uncle of a child between himself and a noblewoman they certainly would have been. I agree with ABS when he says a better (and less cliche!) POD is to have Constantine VIII have a son, given his wife was clearly fertile.

Anyway, yes, the child could quite likely have been named after their grandfather, but that's not a given. Romanos and Alypios would be the grandfathers of a son by Constantine and Helena, but it's worth bearing that Constantine and Basil's grandfather Constantine VII was not named for his own grandfather, Basil I.

So, the child is probably going to be known as Romanos, but that's not a given. I attach a list of Byzantine names (with numbers after them to denote how common they were) for the period from 1000 onwards.
 

Attachments

  • Byzantine names 10th-14th C.txt
    1.5 KB · Views: 262
There's no direct evidence that Basil hated women. There is, however, plenty of evidence that he had a pretty intense distrust for the nobility even before the revolts of Phokas and Skleros, which is hardly surprising given his childhood. Basil clearly didn't want any of them to be close to power, and by being the grandfather/uncle of a child between himself and a noblewoman they certainly would have been. I agree with ABS when he says a better (and less cliche!) POD is to have Constantine VIII have a son, given his wife was clearly fertile.

Who says it has to be a noblewoman? Basil was said to be promiscuous in his youth. And, yes, I am aware of his mother Theophano. I guess I could go the second route and have Constantine have at least one son and/or die earlier. It might depend on how old the boy is and how ambitious Zoe and Theodora would be.

Anyway, yes, the child could quite likely have been named after their grandfather, but that's not a given. Romanos and Alypios would be the grandfathers of a son by Constantine and Helena, but it's worth bearing that Constantine and Basil's grandfather Constantine VII was not named for his own grandfather, Basil I.

Only because the child Leo did name for Basil I, a boy by his third wife Eudokia Baiana, died after a few days. I'm not sure, but maybe it was a case of 'once you've named one child after your father, that's it.', to avoid confusion.
 
I'll probably start the TLIAW next week. I think I'll go for Basil and Constantine having one and two sons respectively. I'll start around 1000, just before Basil begins his campaign against the Bulgarians, and the end goal will probably be the end of the 11th century. Just to clarify, my goal is to create a TL where the Macedonian dynasty stays on the throne, not necessarily Basil II's direct descendants.
 
In preparation for my TLIAW, I found this article on Constantine VIII and his portrayal by Michael Psellos and other historians:

http://www.medievalists.net/files/09012340.pdf

Based on the clashing accounts offered in this article, I'm inclined to be more lenient towards Constantine VIII, personally and in my TL. Of course he wasn't the superman his brother was but he was no worse than his father, Romanos II, who was also pleasure-seeking and cared little for politics.
 
In preparation for my TLIAW, I found this article on Constantine VIII and his portrayal by Michael Psellos and other historians:

http://www.medievalists.net/files/09012340.pdf

Based on the clashing accounts offered in this article, I'm inclined to be more lenient towards Constantine VIII, personally and in my TL. Of course he wasn't the superman his brother was but he was no worse than his father, Romanos II, who was also pleasure-seeking and cared little for politics.

Fascinating little article: thank you for sharing. :)

Have you read Michael Angold's The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204? That, for me, is the definitive account of the period, and one that was a huge influence on the second version of IE.
 
Fascinating little article: thank you for sharing. :)

Have you read Michael Angold's The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204? That, for me, is the definitive account of the period, and one that was a huge influence on the second version of IE.

No problem. I haven't read Michael Angold yet, but I have borrowed History of the Byzantine State, Second Edition by George Ostrogorsky.

Lastly, before I start, how much detail do TLIAWs normally go into? I like to be informative while also getting as far as possible.
 
No problem. I haven't read Michael Angold yet, but I have borrowed History of the Byzantine State, Second Edition by George Ostrogorsky.

I'd be somewhat wary of Ostrogorsky, if I were you: his work was undoubtedly seminal at the time, but is decidedly dated half a century down the line. Angold and Whittow are the main men for accessible scholarship of this period, I would suggest.
 
I'd be somewhat wary of Ostrogorsky, if I were you: his work was undoubtedly seminal at the time, but is decidedly dated half a century down the line. Angold and Whittow are the main men for accessible scholarship of this period, I would suggest.

Got it. I've downloaded a PDF of Michael Angold's book, which, to my surprise, calls Constantine VIII in one sentence 'a brave man', when other historians have called him cowardly.

Final decision - I'll start the TL tomorrow. Reading both Angold and Ostrogorsky (mainly the former), I've decided when the POD will take place. I don't wish to spoil too much, but there will be other PODs, and, unless I go into them into some detail, I'll leave it up to the readers to judge their impacts on history.
 
Top