Red Orm
Banned
Righto lads, so this is an idea that's been stewing in my mind for the past few days, and I really think I could make the meme magic happen.
So Constantine IV inherited during a troubled time, with a usurper to defeat in Sicily, and soon after that troubles in the East against the Umayyad Caliph Muawiya. He acquitted himself rather well, especially in defense of Constantinople during a 5-year siege, and soon had peace in the East. To me it looks as though he was much more competent than his father, Constans II, since Constans barely had a year of his reign without some rebellion to put down, whereas Constantine IV only had one rebellion to handle, in the very first year of his reign. Then, after the siege, he had to turn to fight the Bulgars, and left the army in 680 due to poor health. His army panicked, was wrecked by the Bulgars, and he was forced to recognize their state and pay tribute. Soon after that he mutilated his own two brothers, to prevent their usurping the throne, and in 685 he died of dysentery, at the age of only 33.
To succeed him he left Justinian II...whose two reigns were for the most part bloodthirsty disasters, and ended with the destruction of the Heraclian line.
Now, my question is, what if his health had held up in 680 and he had been able to defeat the transient Bulgars, resettling them in Anatolia as was the custom at the time and thus strengthening the empire? This success raises army morale and makes them more tractable, leading to them not rebelling when he tried to demote his brothers from imperium and raise his son instead [the timeline is unclear on this, but it all seems to have happened in 681, after the humiliating loss against the Bulgars, which makes sense, as Justinian II is 13 by then as well].
His brothers remain as useful, high profile, high prestige allies to the emperor, since of course they are safer and more secure with a relative on the throne, so long as they don't make any moves toward the throne. His son Justinian II is raised in a less stressful environment and so his madness doesn't come out for a while yet, which can only be good, seeing as it led to the disastrous reigns of Leontius, Tiberius III (well okay, Tiberius was alright), Philippicus Bardanes, Anastasius II, and Theodosius III, as well as general unrest and the execution of many no doubt talented civil servants.
Now more generally and future-looking, it seems like the trend toward farmer-soldiers as opposed to great landowners in Anatolia will continue, and iconoclasm will probably still rise as a conflict, though it may be less devastating due to no emperors from the East coming to power for the time being.
Obviously monothelitism has been stamped into the dust by Constantine. Will the stability of his rule and Justinian II's be able to prevent iconoclasm from becoming an issue at all? What do you all think?
So Constantine IV inherited during a troubled time, with a usurper to defeat in Sicily, and soon after that troubles in the East against the Umayyad Caliph Muawiya. He acquitted himself rather well, especially in defense of Constantinople during a 5-year siege, and soon had peace in the East. To me it looks as though he was much more competent than his father, Constans II, since Constans barely had a year of his reign without some rebellion to put down, whereas Constantine IV only had one rebellion to handle, in the very first year of his reign. Then, after the siege, he had to turn to fight the Bulgars, and left the army in 680 due to poor health. His army panicked, was wrecked by the Bulgars, and he was forced to recognize their state and pay tribute. Soon after that he mutilated his own two brothers, to prevent their usurping the throne, and in 685 he died of dysentery, at the age of only 33.
To succeed him he left Justinian II...whose two reigns were for the most part bloodthirsty disasters, and ended with the destruction of the Heraclian line.
Now, my question is, what if his health had held up in 680 and he had been able to defeat the transient Bulgars, resettling them in Anatolia as was the custom at the time and thus strengthening the empire? This success raises army morale and makes them more tractable, leading to them not rebelling when he tried to demote his brothers from imperium and raise his son instead [the timeline is unclear on this, but it all seems to have happened in 681, after the humiliating loss against the Bulgars, which makes sense, as Justinian II is 13 by then as well].
His brothers remain as useful, high profile, high prestige allies to the emperor, since of course they are safer and more secure with a relative on the throne, so long as they don't make any moves toward the throne. His son Justinian II is raised in a less stressful environment and so his madness doesn't come out for a while yet, which can only be good, seeing as it led to the disastrous reigns of Leontius, Tiberius III (well okay, Tiberius was alright), Philippicus Bardanes, Anastasius II, and Theodosius III, as well as general unrest and the execution of many no doubt talented civil servants.
Now more generally and future-looking, it seems like the trend toward farmer-soldiers as opposed to great landowners in Anatolia will continue, and iconoclasm will probably still rise as a conflict, though it may be less devastating due to no emperors from the East coming to power for the time being.
Obviously monothelitism has been stamped into the dust by Constantine. Will the stability of his rule and Justinian II's be able to prevent iconoclasm from becoming an issue at all? What do you all think?