What if Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer had a successor?

[Hattusas]

Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer was one of the greatest Byzantine emperors, but he never had an heir. What if he did?

Three variations of this scenario:

1. Emperor Basil marries in the early 1010s and has a legitimate son, who succeeds him in 1025.
2. Emperor Basil marries in the early 1010s and has a legitimate son, who succeeds him in the 1030s, as the emperor lives longer.
3. An illegitimate son of Basil from before his ascent to emperor, shows up in the 1020s with a reasonable case for his descent from Basil. The emperor adopts him as his successor.

 

[Sulemain]

If Basil II manages to install the values and work ethic he had, the Byzantine Empire will probably keep it's 1025 borders for alot longer, if not expand beyond that.

I wonder if collaboration between Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire could lead to further gains?

 

[Just a Rube]

A lot will depend on the quality of his successor. Just because his dad was great doesn't mean he can't be terrible. Lots of great kings have had incompetent sons (indeed, lousy successors to great kings seem more common than the alternative).

 

[Elfwine]

A lot will depend on the quality of his successor. Just because his dad was great doesn't mean he can't be terrible. Lots of great kings have had incompetent sons (indeed, lousy successors to great kings seem more common than the alternative).

This. Not to mention that he did have a successor of the Macedonian line - his younger brother.

Which is not to say that him having a son would be unnecessary, just further illustration of how Basil having a son wouldn't necessarily change much except the longevity of the male line of the Macedonians.

After all, with a dad like Basil, the son is going to be in his father's terrifying shadow - that's hardly going to equip him to be an independent steel willed sort, even if he's intelligent and willing to work.

See Alexei to Peter the Great as a sad example of of the consequences of a daunting and distant dad. Or Edward II to Edward I, although he at least survived his father.

 

[Grouchio]

Some helpful considerations when giving Basil a son...

I wouldn't describe him as ascetic (Spartan, but not ascetic), but . . .

I suspect - and this is pure guesswork - psychological reasons.

At the very least Basil had a (all of this is guesswork) mild case of paranoia, and he may have had problems with women. Someone like that would have had a hard time - even if rationally they knew better - doing something about it.

You'll note that his nieces weren't married off, except for an aborted attempt involving Zoe and Otto III. That to me suggests Basil was uncomfortable with the idea of anyone getting close to the throne besides himself.

And inevitably, in-laws would try - and a son who was old enough would as well.

I doubt this was a conscious, thought out thing if it was the case - but it would poison his mind on the subject, and add to him being "busy with other things", it being put off and put off for one overt reason or another would be all too easy.

So how do you fix that?

I dunno. I don't think for AH there's anything preventing us from saying Basil could decide otherwise - if he was paranoid it wasn't crippling, f'instnace - so the task is finding a bride.

I would not put it past him to pick a peasant in that circumstance, and to Hell with anyone who objects.

Would presumably name his oldest after his father (following Byzantine tradition) - so Romanus.

Now, whether that son is worth anything is an open question. Basil would be unto his son what Edward I was to his but tenfold, and that's the least of the kid's problems.

Even if we don't have a bad heir just by bad luck, they'd be growing up in his shadow - and having to fill some very large boots.

This is Basil the ultimate medieval autocrat. Who is going to object to his will?

I'm suspecting "break" is more likely. Even with the best instruction Basil can find, the kid may well not have the potential, and Basil is going to be merciless.

That doesn't mean you'll get someone utterly worthless, just weaker than his father.

 

[Elfwine]

But taking the word of one AH.commer on this, even one who likes to look into how people tick, is probably a bad idea.

Especially if that one is an opinionated one like me.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

A lot will depend on the quality of his successor. Just because his dad was great doesn't mean he can't be terrible. Lots of great kings have had incompetent sons (indeed, lousy successors to great kings seem more common than the alternative).

Gonna second this here.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Hmm... would it be possible for Basil's successor (assuming he is as competent as his father) to take Sicily, or conquer the Levant to say, Tripoli at least?

 

[Jeeves]

Let's say the later Constantine VIII. dies of his gout sometime between 1020 and 1025. With Isaakios and Ioannes Komnenos already under the Emperors care, maybe he realizes their potential and adopts Isaakios as his successor? He would be eighteen at the time of his accession ...

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I think I would feel sorry for any son of the Bulgar-slayer for all the reasons given earlier. That being said, Basil's successor wasn't exactly a success.
So, perhaps an acknowledged son of Basil could do better. Seems a low enough bar to clear...

 

[Grouchio]

But that would mean the Macedonian Dynasty dies out.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Why is it assumed that the end of the Macedonians must necessarily mean the doom of the Empire?

An awful lot of water flowed under an awful lot of bridges between Basil II's death and Manzikert, and it should be born in mind that until well into the 1060s, the Empire remained the premier power of the Eastern Mediterranean world, and that's in the absence of any son of Basil II. And, in any case, the Macedonian Emperors were far from immune to military humiliations: look at the Battle of Anchialus in 917 or the failure to retake Crete in 949, for example. A Macedonian Emperor doesn't mean that the Syrian expedition is any more likely to stick than it historically did.

Also, let's remember that for the majority of the 1025-41 period, the Empire was governed reasonably adequately by John the Orphanotrophus, whose relatively poor historical write-up is largely due to aristocratic snobbishness rather than any lack of basic competence.

Bottom line here is that a son of Basil is simply not likely to directly bring about a terribly interesting ATL in the way that, say, a longer-lived John Tzimiskes could.

 

[Grouchio]

Why is it assumed that the end of the Macedonians must necessarily mean the doom of the Empire?

An awful lot of water flowed under an awful lot of bridges between Basil II's death and Manzikert, and it should be born in mind that until well into the 1060s, the Empire remained the premier power of the Eastern Mediterranean world, and that's in the absence of any son of Basil II. And, in any case, the Macedonian Emperors were far from immune to military humiliations: look at the Battle of Anchialus in 917 or the failure to retake Crete in 949, for example. A Macedonian Emperor doesn't mean that the Syrian expedition is any more likely to stick than it historically did.

Also, let's remember that for the majority of the 1025-41 period, the Empire was governed reasonably adequately by John the Orphanotrophus, whose relatively poor historical write-up is largely due to aristocratic snobbishness rather than any lack of basic competence.

Bottom line here is that a son of Basil is simply not likely to directly bring about a terribly interesting ATL in the way that, say, a longer-lived John Tzimiskes could.

Not for the first century, maybe not. But once those ripples of butterflies create typhoons by 1100, you may want to reconsider your statement!

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Not for the first century, maybe not. But once those ripples of butterflies create typhoons by 1100, you may want to reconsider your statement!

Oh sure, but if we're relying on simple butterflies to cause a TL, we can just have Basil kill an extra couple of Bulgarian kids in the course of his campaigns, rather than going to the effort of him siring a son.

 

[Grouchio]

I am referring to the impact of different Byzantine policies to the European stage of politics: Different nobles, Kings, offspring, etc. Heck, the Great Schism could be handled better. All I want is to see the Macedonian Dynasty survive an extra century or longer. Is that too much to ask for?

Remember when Thande had Prince Frederick laugh at his father's coronation?

 

[Elfwine]

Also, let's remember that for the majority of the 1025-41 period, the Empire was governed reasonably adequately by John the Orphanotrophus, whose relatively poor historical write-up is largely due to aristocratic snobbishness rather than any lack of basic competence.

Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that it was events of the 1050s and (after Isaac I's all too short reign) 1060s that lead to how the infamous battle of Manzikert saw things head south. There's a lot we can say about Constantine IX and Constantine X, but that they were strong and far sighted about the empire's military problems (looking at the Turks, not the themes) doesn't seem to be it.


Grouchio: Is there any particular reason you want a Macedonian dynasty emperor there? Why not say, George Maniakes? That'd be different.

Maybe not better on the Great Schism, but different.

 

[Grouchio]

So you guys think this POD is boring? A continuing dynasty based from the martial sucesses of Basil II that continues to maintain and expand the Empire? Which I would find really cool? Or give Basil II a daughter to marry to his sucessor, like a young Issac Komnenos- Oh wait, we already have a timeline on that.

 

[Elfwine]

So you guys think this POD is boring? A continuing dynasty based from the martial sucesses of Basil II that continues to maintain and expand the Empire? Which I would find really cool? Or give Basil II a daughter to marry to his sucessor, like a young Issac Komnenos- Oh wait, we already have a timeline on that.

I don't think "Basil has a son" in and of itself promises an interesting timeline. Could one be done? Yes! But there's nothing about Basil's sperm that make his kid inherently cool.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I don't think "Basil has a son" in and of itself promises an interesting timeline. Could one be done? Yes! But there's nothing about Basil's sperm that make his kid inherently cool.

But a son brought up in Basil's environment might lead to some cool "Game of Thrones" style court intrigue. Never mind that the OTL Byzantine court might show both G.R.R. Martin and the denizens of Westeros a thing or two about the inner workings of medieval government and really bad back-stabbing.

 

[Elfwine]

But a son brought up in Basil's environment might lead to some cool "Game of Thrones" style court intrigue. Never mind that the OTL Byzantine court might show both G.R.R. Martin and the denizens of Westeros a thing or two about the inner workings of medieval government and really bad back-stabbing.

Now there is that. Especially if that son takes after his uncle, who is around, rather than his continually campaigning father.

Not even necessarily incompetent at ruling - but a man who sits around the palace would not be "his father's son".