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

[Dominic]

I think the unasked question here which many posters essentially want the answer to is effectively "what if Basil II had 40 more years to rule?" Obviously not Basil himself, but essentially what the Empire with the substantial resources it has accumulated could do with 40 more years of brilliant leadership.

 

[Elfwine]

I think the unasked question here which many posters essentially want the answer to is effectively "what if Basil II had 40 more years to rule?" Obviously not Basil himself, but essentially what the Empire with the substantial resources it has accumulated could do with 40 more years of brilliant leadership.

Take Sicily (and the rest of the lower boot?), judging by Basil's last plans. And then consolidate - Basil seems to have had little interest in the East compared to his predecessors (not none at all, but I doubt he'd be plunging into Palestine even if that's an option).

 

[Grouchio]

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[dromon]

Why didn't Basil II get married and have children?

Instead of the hypothetical question "what if", why don't we ask why Basil didn't get married and have children in the first place?
At a time when marriages of convenience were the order of the day, an emperor of such a magnitude leaves the empire without an heir.
I've been wondering about the reasons. Was he impotent - a eunuch even [very common those days among state officials, but not emperors]? I can't believe that they couldn't find a match for him. Or that he didn't "have the time for a family" since he was always involved in wars as some history books say. His marriage would be a state affair not a personal matter.
So what does that leave us with? Any ideas?

 

[Kosta]

Instead of the hypothetical question "what if", why don't we ask why Basil didn't get married and have children in the first place?
At a time when marriages of convenience were the order of the day, an emperor of such a magnitude leaves the empire without an heir.
I've been wondering about the reasons. Was he impotent - a eunuch even [very common those days among state officials, but not emperors]? I can't believe that they couldn't find a match for him. Or that he didn't "have the time for a family" since he was always involved in wars as some history books say. His marriage would be a state affair not a personal matter.
So what does that leave us with? Any ideas?

Just because he was a cruel tyrant doesn't mean he felt like it. He took a monastic vow and even wore the monk's raso (robes) under his battle armour. He was austere, so austere he was said to have disliked the plushy beds in the Palace. He had a calling, and he stuck with it.

 

[Elfwine]

Eunuches were not permitted to be Emperors, but Basil having a low sex drive and suspicions of anyone getting too close to the throne would explain a lot.

He did have a younger brother (his co-emperor), who apparently did marry (once, at least).

 

[Kosta]

Eunuches were not permitted to be Emperors, but Basil having a low sex drive and suspicions of anyone getting too close to the throne would explain a lot.

He did have a younger brother (his co-emperor), who apparently did marry (once, at least).

That's a stupid theory. Just because he didn't show any desire to get married doesn't mean he castrated himself. He wasn't a eunuch. Jesus, the Emperors had people dress them and you could tell from the pitch of his voice; someone is going to noticed that.

 

[Elfwine]

That's a stupid theory. Just because he didn't show any desire to get married doesn't mean he castrated himself. He wasn't a eunuch. Jesus, the Emperors had people dress them and you could tell from the pitch of his voice; someone is going to noticed that.

I don't disagree. My point was I think Basil just didn't care very much - low sex drive + suspicions of anyone too close to the throne = no marriage, no bastards.

Might have worded that badly, mea culpa.

 

[dromon]

OK, eunuch perhaps he wasn't.
But a monk's robe under his armour or the fact that his younger brother got married don't explain why he didn't. After all, he can't have been so shortsighted that he couldn't see that his celibacy would cause serious problems to the empire.

 

[Elfwine]

OK, eunuch perhaps he wasn't.
But a monk's robe under his armour or the fact that his younger brother got married don't explain why he didn't. After all, he can't have been so shortsighted that he couldn't see that his celibacy would cause serious problems to the empire.

Probably because there was no reason to believe that it would.

For all the fanboying the Macedonian dynasty gets, there was no guarantee that any son of Basil or Constantine would mean anything better than the men that OTL married Basil's niece.

Alexander (III) was Basil's great-great uncle. That says all we need to know about some superior genetic stock that would have ensured Byzantium's future if only Basil II had a son.

 

[Grouchio]

Glad to see the discussions on this have returned.

 

[dromon]

I'm not saying it would "guarantee" the Eastern Roman Empire's future - of course, it wouldn't. But I can't believe Basil considered his DNA faulty and therefore he didn't want to produce offspring. Tens of other emperors got married and had heirs probably just because they had to. Most of them didn't marry their childhood or teenage sweethearts - their marriages were arranged according to the interests of the state.
I refuse to believe that an emperor like Basil would put his monastic vow (was this also a celibacy vow?) above the interests of the empire or his own vanity at that.

 

[profxyz]

I would have assumed that embarking on Italian adventures would have been the absolute worst thing for Byzantium to do prior to the Seljuk arrival. Sounds like it would have been a remake of Justinian's campaigns again - an ultimately futile sapping of the Empire's strength on the eve of a major outsider invasion.

Personally I thought Basil II just put aside the question of marriage due to his fear of having some noble gain a strong claim to the throne - I mean, the massive revolts of Skleros and Phokas must have made a large impression on Basil. And if worst came to worst, he had his brother so what could possibly go wrong? Furthermore, having his brother as successor meant he had somebody suitably old to watch over the Empire if he did indeed get assassinated - again, consider the previous reigns of Tzimiskes and Nikephoros.

As for the question of 40 more years of Basil II, I'm not sure... anything bigger than what the Macedonians actually did would run the risk of overextending the Empire again, which would leave it in a bad state against the Seljuks.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not saying it would "guarantee" the Eastern Roman Empire's future - of course, it wouldn't. But I can't believe Basil considered his DNA faulty and therefore he didn't want to produce offspring. Tens of other emperors got married and had heirs probably just because they had to. Most of them didn't marry their childhood or teenage sweethearts - their marriages were arranged according to the interests of the state.
I refuse to believe that an emperor like Basil would put his monastic vow (was this also a celibacy vow?) above the interests of the empire or his own vanity at that.

Okay, let me see if I can explain what I think Basil's POV is.

Basil, for most of his life as of his ascension, has seen the throne occupied by powerful generals with zero claim to it (from 963 on). Hell, him claiming the throne in his own right sees a goddamn rebellion by Bardas Sclerus within a few months.

And he continues to have troubles maintaining control of the ship of state for another thirteen years.

At that point, at all of thirty-one, Basil has every reason to not want the powerful as close to the throne as his father in law inevitably would be. That leaves either marrying a commoner or a nonByzantine, both of which would be highly unusual to say the least.

Meanwhile, his younger brother is married with a few (two or three) daughters and may God willing have a son.

So there's little reason to fear that the dynasty will go extinct if he doesn't marry, or that any other bad things will come from the throne going (should the Macedonians remain in the purple) to a nephew instead of a son.

As such, the interests of the empire - even if one sees them as tied to this particular family (and given the nonhereditary nature of the Imperial throne, why would one do so?) are not at stake.

That's before getting into any fear of women, lack of interest in sex, homosexuality, whatever. There's just nothing much that makes it a good thing, and with his brother having children, "because they had to" as with Leo VI doesn't really apply.

 

[dromon]

Why should he marry the daughter of a "noble" who would "gain a strong claim to the throne"? I'm sure there were other options that wouldn't pose a threat. Besides, this should be a problem with all emperors but most of them did get married, didn't they?

 

[dromon]

I've been trying to find information on the internet about Basil II's "monastic vows" or his "wearing a raso (monk's robes) under his armour" but I haven't been able to confirm it. Could anyone name sources that offer such evidence?

 

[Bee]

That's a stupid theory. Just because he didn't show any desire to get married doesn't mean he castrated himself. He wasn't a eunuch. Jesus, the Emperors had people dress them and you could tell from the pitch of his voice; someone is going to noticed that.

Voice doesn't change if someone becomes a eunuch after puberty.

Basil was involved in plenty of battles and could have sustained a groin wound (and not let anyone dress him thereafter) but there are other, more plausible, reasons for Basil acting as he did.

 

[Bee]

Alexander (III) was Basil's great-great uncle. That says all we need to know about some superior genetic stock that would have ensured Byzantium's future if only Basil II had a son.

Alexander and Basil II probably weren't biologically related -- Alexander was a genuine son of Basil I, but Basil II's great grandfather, Leo the Wise, was probably a biological son of Michael III. On the other hand, Basil II was biologically related to Constantine VIII, which pretty much proves your point.

 

[dromon]

Voice doesn't change if someone becomes a eunuch after puberty.

Basil was involved in plenty of battles and could have sustained a groin wound (and not let anyone dress him thereafter) but there are other, more plausible, reasons for Basil acting as he did.

Interesting points. This strengthens my suspicions that he couldn't marry and have children. I'm not convinced by any other "plausible reasons" I've heard so far. Could you please give me your reasons?

 

[Elfwine]

Why should he marry the daughter of a "noble" who would "gain a strong claim to the throne"? I'm sure there were other options that wouldn't pose a threat. Besides, this should be a problem with all emperors but most of them did get married, didn't they?

How many Emperors married commoners? Not very many. The only one Basil could reference that I can think of is his father, and I'm not sure Romanus II is someonme he wanted to emulate.

And it's not a matter of a claim, it's a "this guy is close to the throne, which gives him an excellent chance to take it". Nicephorus II was murdered by someone he thought he could trust (Basil's immediate predecessor), and he was in a far more respected - or at least feared - position than an eighteen year old boy.

As for it being a problem for all emperors - again, I'm not saying that I find it to be a problem, I'm saying Basil who had the worries from the first thirteen years of his independent reign fighting would be usurpers (rather unusual for someone who managed to stay on the throne until they died old age) found it to be a problem.

I can't claim to read his mind, but I think it's rather more credible than having a groin injury that no one found out about, and the fixation with the idea that he "should" have married a little weird.

Alexander and Basil II probably weren't biologically related -- Alexander was a genuine son of Basil I, but Basil II's great grandfather, Leo the Wise, was probably a biological son of Michael III. On the other hand, Basil II was biologically related to Constantine VIII, which pretty much proves your point.

Is there any particular reason you say "probably" here?

Not arguing, as it being possibly true mentioned as part of why Basil I may have disliked Leo so intensely in everything I've read, just wondering if you've run into anything especially conclusive.

DNA testing would be nice, but that means we need the bodies to be tested.