WI: Thomas the Slav's rebellion succeeds?

When Byzantine Emperor Michael II, the founder of the Amorian dynasty and an iconoclast, was placed on the throne in 820 AD after the murder of Leo V, he was immediately challenged by an iconophile and fellow general named Thomas the Slav, who was supported by nearly all the Asian themes. OTL, Thomas was defeated and executed after two years. What if Thomas had overthrown Michael and established a 'Slavic dynasty'. He was already 63 at the time of his death and I don't think history records him having any children, so it might have been just him.

Any thoughts?
 
Well, if the rebellion succeeded, and that's a big if, Thomas had already adopted a co-emperor, and then another, after the first was killed IIRC, so the succession was there. How capable this successor was is another issue, almost nothing is known about him. Much would depend on how long Thomas himself would live after his victory. BTW, one version of the story has Thomas claiming to be the deposed Constantine VI, so if this is actually true he might claim that he is the continuation of the Amorian dynasty, which would certainly come in handy regarding his legitimacy.

As for iconoclasm, Thomas' anti-iconoclast credentials are probably more the result of later pro-iconophile propaganda rather than an actual policy of his. As a close friend of Leo V he may have been pro-iconoclast himself, but with his hold on power shaky I'd think he'd adopt a more non-confrontational stance. I certainly don't think we would see the active promotion of iconoclasm as under Theophilus.

Then there is the issue of his promises to the Caliphate in exchange for Arab support. No-one knows what they were, and if he is feeling lucky he might try to pull off a Leo III, especially with the Caliphate being in turmoil at the time, but then again he might not. I think the most realistic outcome would be the payment of some form of tribute, that al-Mamun could use in his propaganda. Perhaps also some border fortresses in Armenia might change hands. If Thomas' victory were quick enough, it might be even sufficient to butterfly away the Muslim conquest of Crete, and sparing the imperial military from the losses suffered would doubtless also help in preventing the beginning of the conquest of Sicily as well.
 
Well, if the rebellion succeeded, and that's a big if, Thomas had already adopted a co-emperor, and then another, after the first was killed IIRC, so the succession was there. How capable this successor was is another issue, almost nothing is known about him. Much would depend on how long Thomas himself would live after his victory. BTW, one version of the story has Thomas claiming to be the deposed Constantine VI, so if this is actually true he might claim that he is the continuation of the Amorian dynasty, which would certainly come in handy regarding his legitimacy.

Okay, so Thomas has two successors, both ciphers. Perfect ATL fodder. Personally, I don't buy that Thomas was Constantine VI. I read that he chose to be crowned under that name. Besides, Michael II at some point married Constantine VI's daughter, Euphrosyne, who would probably have some idea about her father's condition.

As for iconoclasm, Thomas' anti-iconoclast credentials are probably more the result of later pro-iconophile propaganda rather than an actual policy of his. As a close friend of Leo V he may have been pro-iconoclast himself, but with his hold on power shaky I'd think he'd adopt a more non-confrontational stance. I certainly don't think we would see the active promotion of iconoclasm as under Theophilus.

Even if he did take a similar stance to Michael II on iconoclasm, and even with the prior successes of Leo V 'the Armenian', could it be said that the decline of iconoclasm was inevitable after Empress Irene and the failures of the Nikephorian dynasty?

Then there is the issue of his promises to the Caliphate in exchange for Arab support. No-one knows what they were, and if he is feeling lucky he might try to pull off a Leo III, especially with the Caliphate being in turmoil at the time, but then again he might not. I think the most realistic outcome would be the payment of some form of tribute, that al-Mamun could use in his propaganda. Perhaps also some border fortresses in Armenia might change hands. If Thomas' victory were quick enough, it might be even sufficient to butterfly away the Muslim conquest of Crete, and sparing the imperial military from the losses suffered would doubtless also help in preventing the beginning of the conquest of Sicily as well.

Yes, this is important. I think Sicily was the major source of grain for the empire after Egypt was lost, correct me if I'm wrong.

Then again, how much of Byzantine Sicily and Southern Italy were becoming resentful of Byzantine rule or were likely to just drift away like Sardinia, Corsica, the Balearic Islands and parts of Northern and Central Italy had?
 
Even if he did take a similar stance to Michael II on iconoclasm, and even with the prior successes of Leo V 'the Armenian', could it be said that the decline of iconoclasm was inevitable after Empress Irene and the failures of the Nikephorian dynasty?

I think so, yes. Under the Isaurians there was a considerable part of the population/elite who actively, even militantly, supported it. There is little evidence of that in the 9th century, when it was far more of an imperial pet project. As soon as Theophilus was dead, it was abandoned without much fuss, a process incomparably easier than the opposition from various quarters that Irene had to overcome. It is telling that men like Theoctistus or Bardas, both senior officials under Theophilus, were behind this move. Of course, butterflying away Theophilus might mean a longer survival of iconoclasm as official doctrine, but for how long? Chances are it will be abandoned sooner rather than later.
 
Bumping again for interest.

Just had another thought. If Thomas succeeded, perhaps he might have tried to marry Euphrosyne, Constantine VI's daughter, as Michael II did IOTL?
 
The obvious butterfly that leaps to mind is that assuming Thomas wins with less damage to the Byzantine navy, the invasions of Crete and Sicily can be non-starters. Sicily in particular began under very specific circumstances that could easily be butterflied away.

Iconoclasm definitely seems to be a dying breed by the 800s, although if an iconoclast Emperor were able to inflict an Anzen and Amorium equivalent on the Arabs rather than the OTL defeats it might revive it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Thomas starting a dynasty seems unlikely considering his age, although for a medieval man in his 60s he seemed quite hearty. I don't know anything about his adopted heir save that he was killed during the civil war so I can't speculate on what he would do.

Considering his debt to the Arabs and his Slavic background (although how significant his ethnicity was to Thomas I cannot say) I can easily see Thomas focusing on the Balkans. Much progress has been made in Greece and Thomas could build on that, as well as trying to push back the Bulgars, especially if Michael made his OTL appeal.

Byzantine fanatic, out of curiosity, what sources are you using when you're making these queries about this time period? I would love to expand my library on middle Byzantine history which is depressingly small.
 
The obvious butterfly that leaps to mind is that assuming Thomas wins with less damage to the Byzantine navy, the invasions of Crete and Sicily can be non-starters. Sicily in particular began under very specific circumstances that could easily be butterflied away.

Iconoclasm definitely seems to be a dying breed by the 800s, although if an iconoclast Emperor were able to inflict an Anzen and Amorium equivalent on the Arabs rather than the OTL defeats it might revive it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Nor am I. IOTL it took them about a century, in the reign of John I Tzimiskes, to make any moves against Baghdad itself.

Thomas starting a dynasty seems unlikely considering his age, although for a medieval man in his 60s he seemed quite hearty. I don't know anything about his adopted heir save that he was killed during the civil war so I can't speculate on what he would do.

IOTL, he gained much support by claiming he was Constantine VI. If he wins, I imagine that wouldn't last long if he was confronted by people who knew the dead emperor personally. If so, Constantine's daughters by his first wife are still around, so I'd think Thomas would marry Euphrosyne, just as Michael II did IOTL, to strengthen his claim. It might work out (for better or worse) similarly to what happened with Manuel Komnenos and Bela III of Hungary.

Byzantine fanatic, out of curiosity, what sources are you using when you're making these queries about this time period? I would love to expand my library on middle Byzantine history which is depressingly small.

It's ByzantineLover. Byzantine fanatic is a different user. Sadly, most of my knowledge comes from Wikipedia. Though I have read Ostrogorsky and am in the process of reading Charles Oman.

Part of why I make these inquiries is, oftentimes, there's little (or sometimes biased) information about some of the people in question, like the iconoclast emperors - people like Constantine V, Leo IV and Leo V - and usurpers with potential like Tiberius III Apismaros and Anastasius II. Mostly it's due to my love of multiple possibilities, particularly in games like KOTOR and The Walking Dead where different choices lead to different outcomes.

Sometimes, before or while making such inquiries, I might try playing out similar scenarios on CK2, which is probably not the best measure of history, but it's just so addictive. In fact, your main TL, Age of Miracles, has inspired me to try a Laskarid game based on your P.O.D. Though I'd imagine there would be quite a few differences.
 
Last edited:
Top