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

[SlyDessertFox]

I would think not having a biological son would make it easier and more likely to choose a successor based on ability. It worked for Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. They were able to search through a pool of successors based on ability precisely because they didn't have a biological son to ascend to the purple based on nothing other than bloodline.

So I would think Basil not having a son would be a plus.

 

[Grouchio]

But I really liked the idea of a surviving Macedonian dynasty from the descendents of the mighty Basil Bulgar-Slayer! It sounds and acts, if not breathes cool!

 

[Elfwine]

But I really liked the idea of a surviving Macedonian dynasty from the descendents of the mighty Basil Bulgar-Slayer! It sounds and acts, if not breathes cool!

It sounds and breathes cool, sure. There's nothing stopping Basil from failing to receive the wound suggested he might have had, or Basil deciding that Constantine and his spawn inheriting would be too disastrous for words, or whatever changes things enough to get a son from his loins.

Whether or not it makes a difference to Byzantium is an open question, as BG can go into better than I can.

 

[Bee]

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.

Here's a clip from Wikipedia so everyone knows what we are talking about:

Michael III's marriage with Eudokia Dekapolitissa was childless, but the emperor did not want to risk a scandal by attempting to marry his mistress Eudokia Ingerina, daughter of the Varangian (Danish) imperial guard Inger. The solution he chose was to have Ingerina marry his favorite courtier and chamberlain Basil the Macedonian. While Michael carried out his relationship with Ingerina, Basil was kept satisfied with the emperor's sister Thekla, whom her brother retrieved from a monastery.


I used the weasel word 'probably' because I haven't read the original sources; I'm taking what modern secondary sources have to say about this on trust. As you've already said, in the absence of genetic testing there's no way to know for certain that Basil never slept with his wife in Michael's lifetime, but Basil's attitude makes more sense if Leo was Michael's son.

I don't even think it's possible to know whether Leo looked more like Basil or Michael. Byzantine coin portraits are poor and the mosaic portraits aren't distinctive enough to draw any conclusions.

 

[Elfwine]

I used the weasel word 'probably' because I haven't read the original sources; I'm taking what modern secondary sources have to say about this on trust. As you've already said, in the absence of genetic testing there's no way to know for certain that Basil never slept with his wife in Michael's lifetime, but Basil's attitude makes more sense if Leo was Michael's son.

I don't even think it's possible to know whether Leo looked more like Basil or Michael. Byzantine coin portraits are poor and the mosaic portraits aren't distinctive enough to draw any conclusions.

Nothing I can think to add to this. But hopefully some day this mystery can be a little clearer. Basil might well have loathed Leo for other reasons, but it's a very believable reason, and fits with the fact Michael was in a position to do so.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I would think not having a biological son would make it easier and more likely to choose a successor based on ability. It worked for Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. They were able to search through a pool of successors based on ability precisely because they didn't have a biological son to ascend to the purple based on nothing other than bloodline.

Basil was succeeded by an unrelated protege of his, in John Orphanotrophus, who controlled the government between 1034 and 1041 and had risen in power under Basil in Basil's last years.

And about a "successor based on ability", remember that Romanos III and Constantine IX were both extraordinarily intelligent and cultured men, who on paper made ideal peacetime Emperors. I know Elfwine somewhat disagrees with this notion, but good luck definitely makes up a significant part of what makes or breaks an Emperor and his Empire.

 

[Elfwine]

And about a "successor based on ability", remember that Romanos III and Constantine IX were both extraordinarily intelligent and cultured men, who on paper made ideal peacetime Emperors. I know Elfwine somewhat disagrees with this notion, but good luck definitely makes up a significant part of what makes or breaks an Emperor and his Empire.

I would note that my problem with the luck argument is that men make decisions. Bad events (with the possible exception of the weather) don't come from a random event generator, they come from humans.

Humans like Romanus III and Constantine IX as well as humans like John Orphanotrophus.

Frankly, as relates to this discussion (Basil having an heir), having one like John would probably be more what the empire needed than another soldier-emperor. Byzantium's administration being as good as it was entirely dependent on having capable men manning it and it being backed in doing its job, and the powerful being able to squeeze out tax exemptions more deadly than a lack of thematic soldiers.

 

[Grouchio]

Basil was succeeded by an unrelated protege of his, in John Orphanotrophus, who controlled the government between 1034 and 1041 and had risen in power under Basil in Basil's last years.

And about a "successor based on ability", remember that Romanos III and Constantine IX were both extraordinarily intelligent and cultured men, who on paper made ideal peacetime Emperors. I know Elfwine somewhat disagrees with this notion, but good luck definitely makes up a significant part of what makes or breaks an Emperor and his Empire.

Just ask Herbert Hoover.