Macedonian Dynasty Survives Longer?

How could the Macedonian Dynasty in the Byzantine Empire survive longer? I'm not too familiar with the dynasty, so I don't know any specific PODS. I'd imagine some of the effects of this would include a more stable Byzantine Empire and probably the Seljuks either invading and failing, or turning to kick the crap out of the Fathmids instead.

What do you guys think?

Also, if there is a TL on this, can someone link me to it please?
 
How could the Macedonian Dynasty in the Byzantine Empire survive longer? I'm not too familiar with the dynasty, so I don't know any specific PODS. I'd imagine some of the effects of this would include a more stable Byzantine Empire and probably the Seljuks either invading and failing, or turning to kick the crap out of the Fathmids instead.

What do you guys think?

Also, if there is a TL on this, can someone link me to it please?

Basil having a child could help for starters.
 
They could probably keep going for another generation or two if they kept producing competent heirs. But given how they where already ridiculously lucky with all the really good emperors they produced I doubt that luck could go on forever.
 
The Macedonians did pretty well, all things considered. 189 years on the throne is not to be sniffed at!

I'd dispute they were a completely long run of brilliant Emperors. Basil I was very good, Leo VI and Constantine VII were competent caretakers, Romanos II died too young so we can't tell, and Basil II was a magnificent Emperor largely because he seems to have been completely aware that he wasn't an especially good general or intellectual, and took steps to have a very cautious and careful reign. ANYWAY.

Have one or two of Constantine VIII's daughters be born a boy. That's a nice and easy way to do it.
 
One needs to to buttefly Constantine VIII and his goddamn daughters. The Empresses (Zoe, Theodora, Eudokia) between 1025 and 1071 and their choices (the marital ones, mainly) had great responsibilities for the state of the administration and army of the Empire by the battle of Manzikert and the fall of Bari.

Either have Basileus II have a son, or have Romanos III follow more sound economic policies and win at the battle of Azaz in 1030. That's the simplest way to do it, without getting too much into the intrigues that followed until the final demise of the dynasty.
 
Either have Basileus II have a son, or have Romanos III follow more sound economic policies and win at the battle of Azaz in 1030. That's the simplest way to do it, without getting too much into the intrigues that followed until the final demise of the dynasty.

I'm not sure Romanos III's policies are really relevant. Two years after the 1030 defeat expansionism on the Eastern front resumed, and generals like Maniakes, Kekavmenos and Isaac Komnenos proved perfectly able to hold the frontiers and engage in expansionist policies well into the 1050s- the Empire was gaining territory in Armenia until as late as 1064, after all!
 
The Macedonians did pretty well, all things considered. 189 years on the throne is not to be sniffed at!

I'd dispute they were a completely long run of brilliant Emperors. Basil I was very good, Leo VI and Constantine VII were competent caretakers, Romanos II died too young so we can't tell, and Basil II was a magnificent Emperor largely because he seems to have been completely aware that he wasn't an especially good general or intellectual, and took steps to have a very cautious and careful reign. ANYWAY.

Have one or two of Constantine VIII's daughters be born a boy. That's a nice and easy way to do it.
Yeah and the plantagenets lasted 331 years!
 
Come to think of it, Byzantine dynasties were fairly short-lived, and in fact the Macedonians lasted the longest already. The Palaiologoi came fairly close, but the dynasties averaged around something like 50 or 60 years, if not less. Byzantine heirs were shockingly "tragic hunting accident"-prone.
 
Come to think of it, Byzantine dynasties were fairly short-lived, and in fact the Macedonians lasted the longest already. The Palaiologoi came fairly close, but the dynasties averaged around something like 50 or 60 years, if not less. Byzantine heirs were shockingly "tragic hunting accident"-prone.

Not so much heirs as reigning emperors.
 
Come to think of it, Byzantine dynasties were fairly short-lived, and in fact the Macedonians lasted the longest already. The Palaiologoi came fairly close, but the dynasties averaged around something like 50 or 60 years, if not less. Byzantine heirs were shockingly "tragic hunting accident"-prone.

The Palaiologoi actually lasted a shade longer than the Macedonians, even if you only consider the period for which they held Constantinople. 1261-1453 gives you 192 years, unless I'm much mistaken!

Ironically, the Palaiologoi were the longest lasting dynasty in Roman imperial history!
 
Top