WI : Leo IV "the Khazar" lives to his late 60s

[TheDoofusUser]

Leo IV "the Khazar" of the Isaurian Dynasty rule from 775-780 at a crucial point in the empire following the death of his father Constantine V. He had invaded Abbasid Caliphate in Syria and winning some minor victories as well as taking some loot and Jacobites to resettle in Thrace. However, he would die in 780 from a violent fever of which was caused by his tuberculosis and he would later die. This would lead to his nine year old son, Constantine VI, taking the throne with his mother as regent and eventually, this mess would lead to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. The obvious PoD here is that Leo IV never contracts TB and thus lives to at least his late 60s up to the 810s. What would be the effect on the Roman Empire at this time had he reigned for another 37 or so years? Could he have effectively crippled and causes a civil war in the Abbasid Caliphate with a few victory and nab Syria and possibly Egypt back? How would he go about with possible expansion into Italy if he chooses to do so? Finally, what would the effect be on the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne as this most likely prevents the Holy Roman Empire from being declared anytime soon? What does Charlemagne's succession look like now with the idea of the HRE out of the picture if he doesn't still own it ittl? And who does C6 marry ittl?

 

[Elfwine]

Living until his late sixties would be - rather impressive, if not impossible.

But I'm not sure if even if he does that either Leo's abilities or the strength of the empire suggest major conquests east or west. Raids and minor wins are one thing, crippling the Abbasid Caliphate is a much higher order.

As for Constantine - well, would he marry differently than OTL as far as his first marriage? He's probably still marrying someone within the empire is my bet - a daughter of Charlemagne is not impossible but not certain.

Not sure of Charlemagne's OTL logic for who inherited what from him, so not touching that.

 

[Evil Crusader]

See here for the last time we've discussed the man. Suffice to say, wouldn't expect him to do too much - he's good, but his religious policies are going to be the undoing of him.

 

[Hastings]

Realistically not sure how much difference it makes? Leo is at least baseline competent, but it is not like Irene's regime really had any truly disastrous wars. Quite possible the 982 raid gets wiped out. Balance of raiding will be more favorable. But Abbasids are going through a good stretch of management and while defeats could make it a bit rougher, OTL that lasted until 911 and when the Abbasids are functional they are on balance stronger (size matters!) so territorial gains aren't realistic. Too much time in Syria is asking for a bad defeat eventually.

As for Bulgaria, if there is any country that believes it has an inalienable right to exist it is the First Bulgarian Empire. A competent emperor just recently spent 20 years fighting a internally destabilized Bulgaria for essentially zilch results even shortterm (and lets not forget much later Basil the Bulgar-Slayer and the *47* years of fighting it took to mop up the Bulgarians post-seizing their capital).

Working on securing Southern Italy seems plausible.

There are some signs he was starting to bit a bit more hardcore in his Iconoclastic toward the very end. Iconoclastism played *very* badly with the future Catholic countries. I suspect an excuse will be found for Charlemagne to crown himself emperor anyway. As for how it goes in Byzantium, not really sure. Long Iconclast rule might help cement it, but I get the impression the movement very much was fighting against the grain.