WI Emperor Basil II had a son?

In OTL Emperor Basil II refused to get married because he didnt wanted to associate anyone with his throne especially the nobles (while other sources mention that he didnt marry because of the emotional trauma suffered by his mother's intrigues)and spent most of his time with his soldiers... thus leaving the throne to his brother Constantine VIII and his daughters (to who also was reluctant to let them get married and have heirs) causing the end of the Macedonian dynasty...
WI Basil II had a (bastard) son? Basil II despite his hatred towards marriage he was quite a "ladies man" so he could have sired a son...
Could he make him his heir? Basil II had the complete loyalty of the army so he could rely on them to proclaim his son as Emperor... The only problem in that would be the nobles and the Church? How would they react to Basil's bastard as Emperor? Is such a case possible?
 
Or maybe, he could be a man of peace and bring the Empire on a new period of progress and stability... Or be instead an incompetent and bring the Empire to a civil war.
 
Or maybe, he could be a man of peace and bring the Empire on a new period of progress and stability... Or be instead an incompetent and bring the Empire to a civil war.

If Basil II himself brings him up i doubt that he would be a moron... At least he would a good soldier...
 
Sons don't always take after their fathers though..

Basil I and his son set a precedent. Basil could barely speak Greek and wrestled for a living, upon seizing power he was fairly active in military matters - his son Leo however was an erudite and bookish man that chafed against his father's rough and coarse ways.

My point is, who is to say Basil's son would be anything like him? Basil II made for quite a unique character, and there aren't many parallels in Byzantine history for him - though if one looks at the wider Roman imperial heritage one can sees that Basil might have much in common with Aurelian, or Septimius Severus.
 
Sons don't always take after their fathers though..

Basil I and his son set a precedent. Basil could barely speak Greek and wrestled for a living, upon seizing power he was fairly active in military matters - his son Leo however was an erudite and bookish man that chafed against his father's rough and coarse ways.

My point is, who is to say Basil's son would be anything like him? Basil II made for quite a unique character, and there aren't many parallels in Byzantine history for him - though if one looks at the wider Roman imperial heritage one can sees that Basil might have much in common with Aurelian, or Septimius Severus.
Actually for a closer relationship he is similiar to John Tzmiches or Bardas.... In the military sense anyway.
About the son.... Weren't bastards not allowed to become kings or what not. So bastard son is quite useless.
What you should do is this have Basil marry a Hungarian Princess to cement an alliance with Hungary to sire a son.
 
This is the ERE, with a distinct absence of rules on imperial succession. If Basil I can take the throne (a peasant), a bastard of Basil II can. The definition of "legitimate emperor" seems to begin and end with approval by the army, the mob, and the Patriarch being aware they like the candidate more than him. Exaggerating a little for effect.

But I think that Basil II is likely to marry if he's going to be doing anything other than living like a monk. Sure he doesn't want to have an ounce more to do with the nobility than he can avoid, but an alliance by marriage with the Imperial house is going to look like it means something to the "lucky" father in law...and probably just mean Basil is using it to be extra-attentive to said nobles.

This also brings up another problem: Basil died at a fairly old age for the time. How old will his son be when the old man kicks the bucket? Depending on when he's born, he might be well into middle age himself.

Not to say a son in his forties is all bad, just pointing it out.

Why would Byzantium want a Hungarian alliance in Basil's day?
 
Last edited:
Well generally speaking bastards werent quite acceptable in byzantine society... Look at Leo VI and the troubles he had because of his tries to legitimise his "bastard" son Constantine... However in Basil's II case I tend to believe that things would be easier since Basil had the complete loyalty of the army and they would support anyone the Emperor would hint them... However church and nobility wouldnt like the idea of a royal bastard on the throne... But the crucial question is "can the Church and the nobles challenge the army in a game of power?"
 
Well generally speaking bastards werent quite acceptable in byzantine society... Look at Leo VI and the troubles he had because of his tries to legitimise his "bastard" son Constantine... However in Basil's II case I tend to believe that things would be easier since Basil had the complete loyalty of the army and they would support anyone the Emperor would hint them... However church and nobility wouldnt like the idea of a royal bastard on the throne... But the crucial question is "can the Church and the nobles challenge the army in a game of power?"

Leo had trouble because of wanting to have a fourth marriage accepted, not to get Constantine accepted as his heir - though he presumably intended the first to lead to the second.

I don't know of any attempts by an emperor to get a more unambiguous bastard on the throne, but the emperor's will, the strength of the heir, and the army's loyalty (in reverse order) determined the succession.

As for the Church and nobles and what they like: Who has the army's loyalty?

If the army is loyal to Romanus (assuming Basil goes with the usual custom of naming his firstborn after the kid's grandfather for convenience), there's not a thing they can do about it. If it isn't, it won't be that he's a bastard that brings him down.

Worst comes to worst (if he has the army behind him) Romanus can seize power from his uncle (co-emperor with his father) and establish himself in his own right the same as how the dynasty began, though hopefully less violently.

And I can't see Constantine (Basil's brother/Romanus's uncle) making any fuss about accepting his nephew, bastard or not, on the throne. That would mean he has to take responsibility instead of letting his nephew do it.
 
Ι agree but that doesnt rule out an assassination attempt by disgruntled nobles... Though a move like that could trigger a severe civil war...

Why would they try to assassinate him?

I mean, someone trying to take the throne because they think they have a better chance is one thing. But why assassination?

Assassinating him because he's a bastard makes about as much sense as assassinating Basil for having less fashion sense than a pagan-era Spartan.
 
Top