WI Emperor Basil II chooses another heir?

In OTL Emperor Basil II died in 1025 and was succeeded by his incompetent brother Constantine VIII...
WI Basil II seeing that his brother is not suited to become Emperor chooses someone else to succeed him? He could pick a General which would allow the Empire to hold all territories conquered by him...
How is that altering History? Any thoughts? Any suggestions about potential heirs who would fit Basil's standards?
 
In OTL Emperor Basil II died in 1025 and was succeeded by his incompetent brother Constantine VIII...
WI Basil II seeing that his brother is not suited to become Emperor chooses someone else to succeed him? He could pick a General which would allow the Empire to hold all territories conquered by him...
How is that altering History? Any thoughts? Any suggestions about potential heirs who would fit Basil's standards?

There are problems with this. First, while most think of Constantine VIII's reign as starting in 1025, he was actually an official co-Emperor since 976 or so. So he was not as much inheriting the Empire as he is simply the sole remaining Emperor. This means that the only way Basil II can influence succession is if he manages to marry off one of Constantine's daughters to a successor of his choice.

We all know that Zoe was supposed to marry Otto III of the Western/German Empire, which is also the cause of numerous WIs on this site... but since Otto died shortly before the marriage took place, Zoe remained unmarried until Romanus III, by which time she was already in her mid-40s, and, as we all know, unable to bear him or her subsequent husbands any children. This, in fact, caused many succession crises and succession of several incompetent rulers in a row, who were able to sufficiently charm Zoe without actually having much in a way of ability or experience.

Now, if, after Otto's death, Basil talks Constantine into marrying Zoe off to a general or a Senator who he thinks might be a worthy successor, then we are talking. With Zoe in her mid-20s at the time, there is every chance she and her potential husband may continue the Macedonian dynasty, which eliminates many problems that befell the Empire after Basil's death. Unfortunately I can't think off the top of my head of any potential successors - Basil spent much time breaking the power of landed aristocracy and the Phocas family, and I doubt he would choose a prominent aristocrat. George Maniakes, who might have been a reasonably good candidate (i.e. not of particularly high birth, capable general, and, it seems, reasonably decent administrator) is too young yet, Basil does not trust the aristocracy, etc.

So, chances are, it could have been someone not very prominent. Maybe one of Basil's officers from his Bulgarian campaigns who showed a lot of promise, and did not have too much baggage that would make him a potential tool of Basil's political enemies. But unfortunately I can't think of a name.
 
I agree with Midrad. I have also wondered why Basil never married.

I don't know if anyone really knows for sure... there were rumors of anything from him being gay to him having suffered a debilitating injury at some point to him simply being of monastic disposition, and leaving it to his brother's responsibility to continue the dynasty. It does not seem like Basil was really concerned about succession. Most likely, he simply left it on his brother's shoulders to figure out who would be the latter's successor, thus absolving himself of this responsibility. And with this, he doomed the Empire to a century of misfortunes...
 
I search some in Internet about the theme of the thread: possible candidates instead of Constantine VIII.

There is a page about Basil II with interesting information http://www.agiasofia.com/emperors/basilb.html

In this page two names of important generals during the reign of Basil II are mentioned:

"In 996 Basil issued a law called "Neara" by which land owned by wealthy landowners was divided and given to poor farmers. The same year, the Bulgarians invaded and reached down to the north Peloponnese, pillaging many Greek cities. The emperor sent Nikophoros Ouranos to defend the area. The competent general crushed the Bulgars in a battle by the river Sperxeios (next to Lamia), and Tzar Samuel almost was killed. In 997, the Greek fleet recaptured Epidamnos (modern Dyrrachion in Albania)."

"Finally, holding northern and central Bulgaria, he advanced toward Samuel's capital, Achris (northern of Prespes lakes), and won the crushing victory, that gave him his nickname, "Slayer of the Bulgars". The battle took place in Kleidi (Kimvaloggos), on 29 July 1014. His general Nikiphoros Votaniates managed to surround the enemy defence lines, causing the Bulgars to surrender in a state of panic."

This last Nikephoros Votaniates (for search in Internet for more sources about these two generals better use Nikephoros -I don´t know if Nikophoros or Nikiphoros is bad writing or alternate spelling for name Nikephoros that seems more used in Internet-) is in fact mentioned as Nikephoros Xiphias in different other sources in Internet like http://archives.vmacedonia.com/12889.htm

"In the summer of 1014, despite the spirited resistance of the Bulgarians in the almost inaccessible mountain passes of Kleidion (close to the Strymon valley), the Byzantine forces under the general Nikephoros Xiphias, thanks to a brilliantly organized military manoeuvre, trapped virtually all of Samuel's troops that were at Prilep. The battle was a bloody one, with many casualties, and was decisive for the Bulgarian state."

So could be these two generals: Nikephoros Ouranos and Nikephoros Votaniates/Xiphias good candidates for an alternate succession to Basil II?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
So could be these two generals: Nikephoros Ouranos and Nikephoros Votaniates/Xiphias good candidates for an alternate succession to Basil II?

He seems to surround himself with guys named Nikephoros :D

Seriously though, they might be good choices. But I don't know anything about their loyalties or administrative skills. The Byzantines had enough good generals, what they need are good administrators.
 
Hmm... interesting. But then, being a good general does not necessarily entail one to being a good leader. Nikephoros Ouranes could be a more likely choice if you would like the Macedonian dynasty to continue - Zoe would have been around 20-21 around the time of his victories, and as such would have had just about every chance of conceiving. With Nikephoros Votaneiates/Xiphias (who, I presume, was probably related to Emperor Nikephoros III, who was eventually overthrown by Alexios I Komnenos), Zoe is in her mid-30s. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but there is less time for any potential children from this marriage to inherit. Especially since Zoe lived for quite a long time OTL, and as such, if she dies childless, her eventual husband may create the same problem of succession as in OTL.

Of course, things get more interesting if Zoe is used only as a path to the throne, in which case whether or not she is the mother of the eventual heir does not matter. In this case, she only needs to last as long as Basil II and Constantine VIII, after which her eventual fate does not matter much. Well, does not matter much but with a few exceptions.

First, there is her sister Theodora, who represents another legitimate link to the Macedonian dynasty. While Theodora was, AFAIK, more interested in religion than in marriage, it is not impossible to postulate that she is also, in turn, married off to someone, or is used to mount a coup in her name. So any potential successor to Basil and Constantine that inherits through a marriage to one sister would always have to be mindful of the other sister as a potential rallying point for any enemies of his regime. And that sister may not be easily removed, as illustrated by the below point.

Second, in OTL, both Zoe and Theodora, though despising each other, were given an additional air of legitimacy by the population. When Michael VI Kalaphates tried to remove Zoe altogether and rule in his own stead, he was overthrown quite violently within a very short time, leading to the joint installation of Zoe and Theodora as the rulers of the Empire. If Basil and Constantine's successor tries to remove one or both sisters, he is risking a counter-coup that he may be lucky to escape with only a blinding or the like. He may be able to get away with putting one of the sisters in the convent, but even then, he leaves a potential threat in his back that he can do nothing about without risking a coup.

So, the situation would be, for such a successor to maintain his throne and perhaps found a dynasty, would be for him to:

1) Marry either Zoe or Theodora before they are not likely to give birth to any heirs

or,

2) Marry one of the sisters, while something happens to the other that can be nothing but natural or unrelated causes - so that the new Emperor is not blamed in any shape or form for it; again, something happens to the new Emperor's wife after the deaths of both Basil and Constantine, but again, without the new Emperor appearing guilty, true or not

or,

3) Be adopted by either Basil or Constantine (the latter would be harder, since I cannot imagine Constantine adopting a potential heir without forcing this heir to marry one of his daughters instead of adopting him - see the fate of Romanus III Argyros), AND be declared the undisputed ruler of the Empire

These are listed in the order of favorability for the survival of such a would-be Emperor in the long term. Any of these could be made to work, but may result in very different butterflies down the line.
 
I agree with Midrad. I have also wondered why Basil never married.

One of the reasons cited by Historians over the fact that Basil II never married was 1st that he despised women by seeing his mother (supposedly) posioning his father and orchestrating the murder of his step-father (despite the fact that contemporary Historians describe him as an arrogant womaniser when any of his mistresses mentioned marriage she end up exiled) and 2nd Basil II didnt wanted to associate any aristocratic family with his ruling like his grandfather Constantine VII did (by associating the Lecapinoi family with his ruling amatch which proved nearly disastrous)
 
One of the reasons cited by Historians over the fact that Basil II never married was 1st that he despised women by seeing his mother (supposedly) posioning his father and orchestrating the murder of his step-father (despite the fact that contemporary Historians describe him as an arrogant womaniser when any of his mistresses mentioned marriage she end up exiled) and 2nd Basil II didnt wanted to associate any aristocratic family with his ruling like his grandfather Constantine VII did (by associating the Lecapinoi family with his ruling amatch which proved nearly disastrous)


Hmm... I am not familiar with this view. Do you happen to have any sources on this? Not questioning it, I would just like to check them out, as it appears to be a completely different picture of Basil II from what I have read about him.
 
One of the reasons cited by Historians over the fact that Basil II never married was 1st that he despised women by seeing his mother (supposedly) posioning his father and orchestrating the murder of his step-father (despite the fact that contemporary Historians describe him as an arrogant womaniser when any of his mistresses mentioned marriage she end up exiled) and 2nd Basil II didnt wanted to associate any aristocratic family with his ruling like his grandfather Constantine VII did (by associating the Lecapinoi family with his ruling amatch which proved nearly disastrous)

Wouldn't Basil have been two or three when his father Romanus died? Surely he wouldn't remember Theophano's antics?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
One of the reasons cited by Historians over the fact that Basil II never married was 1st that he despised women by seeing his mother (supposedly) posioning his father and orchestrating the murder of his step-father (despite the fact that contemporary Historians describe him as an arrogant womaniser when any of his mistresses mentioned marriage she end up exiled) and 2nd Basil II didnt wanted to associate any aristocratic family with his ruling like his grandfather Constantine VII did (by associating the Lecapinoi family with his ruling amatch which proved nearly disastrous)

I will be back to explain whether you are right or not.

EDIT: I found nothing.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't Basil have been two or three when his father Romanus died? Surely he wouldn't remember Theophano's antics?

Indeed Basil was practically an infant when Theophano (supposedly) assassinated Romanus II (It was rumoured but never proved) but rumours kept going on till the end of the reign of Ioannes I about the death of Romanus II...
Same happened with the assassination of Nikephorus II only this time Theophano's implication was revealed..
Michail Psellos, Chronographia
The Oxford dictinary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991
John Julius Norwich, History of Byzantium
Penelopi Delta, The Age of the Bulgar-slayer (In Greek), 1911, ESTIA Publishing Co.
Paul Stephenson, The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, Cambridge (2003)
Catherine Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) Oxford University Press
Also there are the works of Kostas Kyriazis "Theophano" and "Basil Bulgaroctonus" dealing extensively in Basil's life from the marriage of his parrents till his death..
These 2 works by Kostas Kyriazis are important since they describe the exact reasons why Basil II refused to get married but was a "ladies man" anyway...
 
Last edited:
Top