WI: John Tzimiskes lives 10 years longer?

IOTL, John Tzimiskes died at a very inconvenient time for the Empire. Fatimid Egypt was having difficulty establishing herself in Syria, and the Hamdanids and the Buyids were upon the brink of war. How might John Tzimiskes' continued existence, and the consequent lack of civil war, affect matters? Might Byzantium be able to take Jerusalem? How would it affect the gradual annexation of Transcaucasia, as David of Tao, one of the first sovereigns to bequeath his kingdom to the Empire, was pressured into doing so by Basil II, as a punishment for selecting the wrong side during the civil war?
 
Given that Basil has come of age as of John's death, I suspect that's going to cause a certain amount of trouble.

John is supposedly the regent for Basil and his brother, so what does he do there? That's his first internal problem.

Along with Basil Lekapenos.
 
If you follow the Mark Whittow approach, a surviving John Tzimiskes means more expansion in the East, more religious tolerance, weakening of centralised Constantinopolitan power, and continuing expansion of the power of the noble families, which Whittow believes came to a juddering end with Basil II's reign (which he sees as being a fairly bad one). Now, I don't think all of Whittow's points stand up, and I think he's deliberately altering plenty of facts to suit his arguments (for example, what were the Komnenoi and Doukai if not noble families who took the throne), but there's definitely a kernel of truth behind this.

John Tzimiskes living longer will in all likelihood return to the East, and it's possible he could seize Jerusalem, though I think that it's more likely he'll spend more time campaigning in the regions that are now Kurdistan and Lebanon, to seize defensive positions with which to set up a buffer around the wealthy areas of Cilicia, the Orontes valley, and the upper Euphrates. I think a Byzantine capture and sack of Jerusalem or (less likely) Baghdad can be achieved without ASB intervention, but it'll be difficult.

Sooner or later, of course, Tzimiskes is probably going to have to deal with the young Basil II, who may stay quiet for a few years longer than OTL but is likely going to be trying to reassert the legitimate Macedonian line by the early 980s. Expect to see manoeuvring behind the scenes here. Basil will likely utilise the power of the civilian aristocracy, plus the Phokas family, to remove John from power, and I think there's a fair chance of him succeeding in this. Even if John wasn't the hated Nikephoros Phokas, he certainly would be seen as much worse by the urban mob than a legitimate Macedonian Emperor.

So, I would say that in all likelihood Basil II takes control of the Empire a few years later than OTL, and with more territories in the East than he had IOTL. He may or may not have to deal with the Anatolian noble families in the same manner as he did historically, although in a scenario where Basil relies on their support to topple Tzimiskes it could well be that they will be more inclined to be loyal to the legitimate Emperor than they were historically. Possibly Basil's brother Constantine could marry a daughter of the Phokas family?

Basil the Parakoimomenos will probably stay on for a bit longer, or even retire in his own time, in this scenario. Bulgaria probably regains its independence, and at minimum there will be revolts against the Byzantine occupation, which was probably not enforced with any severity by John Tzimiskes or the early years of Basil II's majority reign.

Hopefully these ideas help!
 
Byzantines sacking Baghdad? The morale effects on the Islamic World must be devastating if that happened.
 
Thank you for the replies, everyone.

Although Basil was a legitimate dynast, and a competent plotter, as evidenced by his deposition of Basil the Parakoimomenos, I'd imagine that he would have some difficulty deposing Tzimiskes. John's prestige would be high, especially amongst the army, due to his string of victories. The memory of Romanus Lekapenos would still be alive at this point, so I imagine that no one would be surprised to find John carrying on his reign beyond the necessary point. As a best case scenario, Basil, and John, may be able to come to an understanding, as Tzimiskes doesn't have any sons, and his maternal relations, the Phokades, loathe him.

If they can't, and civil war breaks out anyway, I'd imagine that Basil wouldn't be in personal command, as he doesn't seem to have been an excellent commander himself, although Bardas Phokas would defect to his side, and Bardas Skleros might, as he had tried to launch a coup before. I'd imagine that Basil the Parakoimomenos was relatively happy under John, as he was able to govern in Constantinople, whilst John was in the east. As IOTL though, Basil II shall most probably depose him. If Basil wins, I would predict another round of civil war, as both Phokas, and Skleros, desire the diadem.

I can't imagine that Bulgaria would be able to break away, although she was already in revolt. A competent general, rather than the inexperienced Basil, might be able to crush the rebellion in its infancy. Even if not, should a competent general be victorious in the civil war(s), they should be able to conquer Bulgaria rather easily, as long as the eastern frontier is quiet. IOTL, Basil's conquest of Bulgaria seems to have been a parade of mediocrity, as after the cull of the civil wars, Byzantium suffered a dearth of competent generals. It is rather revealing that, when Nikephoros Ouranos was victorious at Spercheios in 996, there was many a celebration in the empire, as the Byzantines were used to defeat by this point.

From the biography of Basil I've read (Basil II and the Governance of Empire, which is an excellent book although the 300 pages of source analysis are a bit dull), he doesn't seem to have been overly harsh with the aristocracy, but instead cultivated the image of an all-powerful autocrat. For example, he allowed members of the Phokades family back into the military, despite the grasping for the throne by many of the house. The example of Eustathios Maleinos can be explained as putting an over-mighty subject in has place, as there is suggestion that he was using ostentatious displays of wealth as a threat to the emperor not to mistreat the Anatolian magnates.

In regards to the Empire becoming less focused upon Constantinople, I would argue that that is a certainty so long as the Empire is able to maintain her hold over the newly acquired lands in the east. The increase in wealth, and population, about to be brought about by the coming economic boom, and the reconquest of other urban centres, particularly Antioch, although it had undergone a decline from the glory days of Antiquity, shall turn Constantinople from the sole large city of the empire, into the greatest of a group.

The idea of a more religiously tolerant empire is certainly intriguing. I'd imagine that Muslims would be treated better than the Jews, as, although they were protected, the Jews suffered from the general apathy with which Constantinople reacted to disobedience of the legal code in the provinces. Consequently, they were subject to illegal pogroms, such as when St. Nikon of Sparta drove the Jews out of Sparta. The Muslims, making up at least a very sizable minority in the east, would be immune to this sort of treatment. How the empire might deal with the increase in the amount of monophysites over the long term is also interesting. In particular, shall it become imperial policy once more to attempt to reunite the Church, as attempts only ceased in the 7th century IOTL, due to the loss of the monophysite provinces?

IOTL, during the campaigns in Upper Mesopotamia by John Tzimiskes, there were riots in Baghdad as people felt that Adud al-Daula wasn't doing enough to stop Byzantine expansion, and keep Baghdad safe. Should the Byzantines continue to be successful, it might make Baghdad even more difficult to govern.
 
Hmm very interesting scenario though I doubt tzismikes can take and hold Baghdad. Its going to be too far away and the byzantines didn't have the logistical strength to conquer all the way to Baghdad I don't believe. At best John may as said before retake Jerusalum and other areas of the levant though also focus in on the battles for Mesopotamia. However he also has to deal with lakepanos and so he will also rey to remoe Lakapenos lands. Not sure whether this will lead to an internal war however.

I doubt Basil would try anything at this point given as said above John having the support of the army. Also basil was calculating and patient so he wouldn't act recklessly while John is popular. Rather what happens is that John turns his attention temporarily from the east to the remaining Bulgar state and invades to end it as a threat once and for all. After all he already took the eastern part so why not the rest thus removing an enemy on the western front.

After or before that, the most likely event is that he launches another campaign into Mesopotamia aimed at taking Baghdad but facing resistance he is unable to successfully win the campaign though he might with luck manage to take more of Mesopotamia from the Abbasids and win more battles, but after which his advance will be halted and peace restored. He may in the best case scenario temporarily take Baghdad though that is very unlikely.

But by this point ten years or close to it would be over and most likely John dies and Basil succeeds.

What is most important is the butterflies. Perhaps Basil II can have a son and thus secure the Macedonian line ergo no disintegration of the state, thereby leaving a much stronger byzantine empire lead by the Macedonian dynasty and this POD can butterfly away Manzikert. Therefore the long term butterflies are immense but I feel as explained above those are what John would do. Remember he was like Nikephoros a warrior and so he would spend most of his time on campaigns.

However as said above I expect a stronger aristocracy and therefore Basil will have to deal with them slightly differently from otl.

Also Constantinople declining in prestige... umm even at the empires height when all the cities you mentioned were under Byzantine control Constantinople was still the queen of cities. I mean the amount of wealth, buildings, architecture, the walls, cistern etc honestly cant be surpassed at this time by any other cities under Byzantine control. There was a reason Constantinople was known as the Queen of all Cities. However you are right that Antioch and other cities in the east will rise in prestige. Population wise... I don't see it, evena t this time Constantinople had a pretty large population which I believe surpassed most of the eastern cities and I doubt it could be closed given how large Constantinople was when compared to cities like Antioch.

However what you propose is possible but it will take decades to centuries for the eastern cities to develop and become prosperous once more in the sense able to compare or be below COnstantinoples level. Not sure it would happen in one decade.
 
Last edited:
You've obviously put a lot of thought into this stuff, Samoht, and I just thought I'd say how nice is it is to have a discussion with someone who seriously knows his stuff! :)

Thank you for the replies, everyone.

Although Basil was a legitimate dynast, and a competent plotter, as evidenced by his deposition of Basil the Parakoimomenos, I'd imagine that he would have some difficulty deposing Tzimiskes. John's prestige would be high, especially amongst the army, due to his string of victories. The memory of Romanus Lekapenos would still be alive at this point, so I imagine that no one would be surprised to find John carrying on his reign beyond the necessary point. As a best case scenario, Basil, and John, may be able to come to an understanding, as Tzimiskes doesn't have any sons, and his maternal relations, the Phokades, loathe him.
Well, that's possible, but a string of victories is hardly a guarantee of popularity. Look at Maurice or Nikephoros II, for example. The civilian aristocracy of Constantinople will have no serious support for John I should push come to shove, and his rivals in the gentry, especially the Phokades, will be against him too. I think the cards are probably stacked against Tzimiskes if Basil II decides to seriously act, which I think is fairly likely.

If they can't, and civil war breaks out anyway, I'd imagine that Basil wouldn't be in personal command, as he doesn't seem to have been an excellent commander himself, although Bardas Phokas would defect to his side, and Bardas Skleros might, as he had tried to launch a coup before. I'd imagine that Basil the Parakoimomenos was relatively happy under John, as he was able to govern in Constantinople, whilst John was in the east. As IOTL though, Basil II shall most probably depose him. If Basil wins, I would predict another round of civil war, as both Phokas, and Skleros, desire the diadem.
I think I agree with all of this, though I'd argue that you might be being a little too harsh on the Parakoimomenos. Eunuchs tended to stick up for their non-castrated relatives, and at this stage the three children of Romanos II and Theophano are the last surviving descendants of Romanos Lekapenos, who is of course the grandfather of the P. I reckon Basil would probably support his great-nephew.

I can't imagine that Bulgaria would be able to break away, although she was already in revolt. A competent general, rather than the inexperienced Basil, might be able to crush the rebellion in its infancy. Even if not, should a competent general be victorious in the civil war(s), they should be able to conquer Bulgaria rather easily, as long as the eastern frontier is quiet. IOTL, Basil's conquest of Bulgaria seems to have been a parade of mediocrity, as after the cull of the civil wars, Byzantium suffered a dearth of competent generals. It is rather revealing that, when Nikephoros Ouranos was victorious at Spercheios in 996, there was many a celebration in the empire, as the Byzantines were used to defeat by this point.

It managed to in the OTL rebellions after Basil's accession, even if one assumes John had properly conquered the region rather than spending a season campaigning there to remove the Rus.

Well, possibly. I think you may underate Basil somewhat here. I'm certainly willing to accept that the guy wasn't a military genius, but he did manage to entirely subdue a powerful and wealthy state that had centuries of independence behind it and reduce it to a state of total prostration, which is more than can be said of John's campaigns in Syria and Bulgaria. If you like, I would compare Basil II to Augustus, with John Tzimiskes the Alexander the Great type figure. Both great men, in their ways- the latter a master of the battlefield but perhaps not a man who cared much for the details of conquest and assimilation in the way Basil did.

Samoht said:
From the biography of Basil I've read (Basil II and the Governance of Empire, which is an excellent book although the 300 pages of source analysis are a bit dull), he doesn't seem to have been overly harsh with the aristocracy, but instead cultivated the image of an all-powerful autocrat. For example, he allowed members of the Phokades family back into the military, despite the grasping for the throne by many of the house. The example of Eustathios Maleinos can be explained as putting an over-mighty subject in has place, as there is suggestion that he was using ostentatious displays of wealth as a threat to the emperor not to mistreat the Anatolian magnates.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Obviously it wouldn't have been in Basil's interests to be as harsh as some of his propaganda claims, although I suspect that we see with the rise of families like the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi under him a distinct attempt to weaken the greatest of the families by bringing the smaller houses to the fore.

Samoht said:
In regards to the Empire becoming less focused upon Constantinople, I would argue that that is a certainty so long as the Empire is able to maintain her hold over the newly acquired lands in the east. The increase in wealth, and population, about to be brought about by the coming economic boom, and the reconquest of other urban centres, particularly Antioch, although it had undergone a decline from the glory days of Antiquity, shall turn Constantinople from the sole large city of the empire, into the greatest of a group.
I agree with all of this, though perhaps the degree to which this is true is a little overstated by Whittow and others- Thessalonica was undoubtedly a large and prosperous city, and those of western Anatolia, especially Ephesus and Smyrna had been enjoying several centuries of recovery by this point. Constantinople was already perhaps somewhat more used to dealing with other large cities than some make out.

Samoht said:
The idea of a more religiously tolerant empire is certainly intriguing. I'd imagine that Muslims would be treated better than the Jews, as, although they were protected, the Jews suffered from the general apathy with which Constantinople reacted to disobedience of the legal code in the provinces. Consequently, they were subject to illegal pogroms, such as when St. Nikon of Sparta drove the Jews out of Sparta. The Muslims, making up at least a very sizable minority in the east, would be immune to this sort of treatment. How the empire might deal with the increase in the amount of monophysites over the long term is also interesting. In particular, shall it become imperial policy once more to attempt to reunite the Church, as attempts only ceased in the 7th century IOTL, due to the loss of the monophysite provinces?
All that's assuming that further expansion into Syria and Mesopotamia is necessary, possible, or desirable. By the 980s, Muslim powers are starting to get their shit together, and Byzantine expansion in the East has the brakes put on, although of course it continued slowly almost up until Manzikert.

I think that IOTL the majority of the Muslim communities fled once central Imperial control was restored in the captured provinces, which has quite interesting implications if one considers that this probably means a still very small and mobile Islamic elite being the main representation of the faith in the region into the tenth century. Anyway, I think that remaining Muslims will probably be subject to pogroms from incoming Armenian immigrants, who will presumably be encouraged to settle the region as OTL. Their saving grace could be complaints from neighbouring Muslim powers at the treatment of fellow Muslims under Byzantine rule.

And yes, I think it's likely attempts will be made at Chalcedonian-Monophysite reconciliation, which happened IOTL around 970, iirc. Whether these will come to much is debatable- the Monophysite communities now have been sundered from the Empire for centuries.

Samoht said:
IOTL, during the campaigns in Upper Mesopotamia by John Tzimiskes, there were riots in Baghdad as people felt that Adud al-Daula wasn't doing enough to stop Byzantine expansion, and keep Baghdad safe. Should the Byzantines continue to be successful, it might make Baghdad even more difficult to govern.
Very possible!
 
Top