WI: Tzachas I, Byzantine Emperor

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Tzachas Bey fascinates me. A Turkish raider turned prisoner turned educated warlord that took over Smyrna and the surrounding area. He became a naval power, allied with some other rebels and de facto took control of coastal Anatolia and was pushing into Gallipoli at the height of his power after assuming a significant navy through Christian craftsmen in Smyrna, capturing much of the Aegean islands, and forging alliance with the Pechenegs (who were simultaneously running through Thrace). Its possible he was also in alliance with other Byzantine rebels at this point. Lets assume this is true.

Alexios I was not in a good position at this point. At the same time, Tzachas styled himself increasingly as Emperor, wearing purple, taking a scepter, speaking Greek, etc. Unfortunately he did not convert to Christianity, lost to Alexios' general John Doukas and was a year later murdered by his son in law the current Seljuq sultan.

But lets say Tzachas maintains his momentum, defeats John and lands in Gallipoli while Thrace is secured by the Pechenegs. Lets say he enters Constantinople, publicly converts, and seizes the throne. Alexios fails to maintain his alliance with the Cumans and Tzachas and his allies finish him off in a reverse Levounion.

What happens next? Most of the Balkans was pacified at this time by Alexios and pretty pacified under his rule as far as I know, and alliance of the Pechenegs and control of remnant forces (if they submit) would give him control over the remainder of the empire's balkan territories. As of this moment, the Empire would have regained control of Smyrna, the Aegean islands, and the coastal west of Anatolia. And as of this moment Tzachas still maintains his alliance with the Seljuqs of Rum, but well, thats probably not going to last.
 

Marc

Donor
The assumption that he would be accepted on any level as Emperor pushes hard against our understanding of Byzantine society.
Keep in mind, while they had some considerable civic virtues, the Byzantines were far from being equalitarian when it came to barbarians.
 
The assumption that he would be accepted on any level as Emperor pushes hard against our understanding of Byzantine society.
Keep in mind, while they had some considerable civic virtues, the Byzantines were far from being equalitarian when it came to barbarians.

Might he help his chances in that respect if he made a public display of converting to Christianity?
 
The assumption that he would be accepted on any level as Emperor pushes hard against our understanding of Byzantine society.
Keep in mind, while they had some considerable civic virtues, the Byzantines were far from being equalitarian when it came to barbarians.

From all that I’ve read of Byzantine civil society and politicking, I’m not really sure that it does. The people of the Empire have sat under Isaurians, Armenians, a Macedonian (possible Slav?), peasants and palace officials, nobles and bankers, and even a woman in her own right. As a political system, it was quite accommodating to outsiders as far as they were politically suave enough to make allies and win support from the people of The City and the politeia as a whole. Converting to Christianity is definitely a prerequisite for Tzachas, but I don’t think anything about his Turkish origin bars him from ruling.
 
Last edited:
If Tzachas in this scenario allies himself with other Imperial rebels and converts the Christianity, this could lend him some crucial legitimacy and his links could allow him to place a claimant onto the Imperial throne. I’m not sure he could simply march into Constantinople and declare himself Emperor since he is by this point a relative outsider, but I can definitely see him installing an impotent claimant and ruling as the power behind the throne a lá eunuchs like Basil Lekapenos who couldn’t rule in their own right but controlled the Empire. Since his Turkish ethnicity doesn’t necessarily bar him from the throne like being a eunuch did though, I think Tzachas might be able to rule in his own right as Basileus if he is able to build enough connections and allies and win prestige leading the Tagmata and Imperial forces.
 

Deleted member 67076

The assumption that he would be accepted on any level as Emperor pushes hard against our understanding of Byzantine society.
Keep in mind, while they had some considerable civic virtues, the Byzantines were far from being equalitarian when it came to barbarians.
I dunno. He had alliances with other rebels no problems, had many years as a noticeable hostage to the point he knew customs well enough to emulate them, was already on the imperial payroll as a Patrician before Alexios took the throne, was firmly in the camp of Nikephoros III and friends; like this is a guy whose been in the imperial system for many years and established his own power base without any revolts against him.
 

Marc

Donor
From all that I’ve read of Byzantine civil society and politicking, I’m not really sure that it does. The people of the Empire have sat under Isaurians, Armenians, a Macedonian (possible Slav?), peasants and palace officials, nobles and lowly workers, and even a woman in her own right. As a political system, it was quite accommodating to outsiders as far as they were politically suave enough to make allies and win support from the people of The City and the politeia as a whole. Converting to Christianity is definitely a prerequisite for Tzachas, but I don’t think anything about his Turkish origin bars him from ruling.

You're assuming I meant ethnic Greek, no, the Empire was clearly multi-ethnic, however they had very firm notions about national social identity - rulers simply didn't come from people that they saw as foreigners. Rewarded, highly promoted, definitely, but Head of the Rome State, Vicar on Earth? Nope.
As for non-aristocratic leadership, yes, at times, although by 11th century the power of the rural aristocratic families was such that I suspect it was just about impossible to select anyone outside their kin lines.
 
You're assuming I meant ethnic Greek, no, the Empire was clearly multi-ethnic, however they had very firm notions about national social identity - rulers simply didn't come from people that they saw as foreigners. Rewarded, highly promoted, definitely, but Head of the Rome State, Vicar on Earth? Nope.
As for non-aristocratic leadership, yes, at times, although by 11th century the power of the rural aristocratic families was such that I suspect it was just about impossible to select anyone outside their kin lines.

I was not inferring you meant Greek, but the definition of what constituted “barbarous” to the peoples of the Byzantine Empire fluctuated and changed all the time - and sometimes ruling emperors were considered barbarians by the more chauvinistic Romans. One strong example is the Basileus Zeno, who was very clearly denigrated as barbarous since he hailed from Isauria, but it didn’t bar him from the Imperial dignity after sufficient time in the Roman system. There’s also the fact that multiple Emperors had “barbarous mothers” such as Justinian II’s heir Tiberius and Constantine V’s son Leo (both mothers were Khazars), This did not seriously impede any political succession through.

If we look into Roman identity as well, the idea of barbarous peoples is far less defined than it was during the old days of the unified Roman Empire or even the days of Justinian. As historian Anthony Kaldellis writes in his recent book on Roman identity, Romanland, Roman cultural identity was not strictly defined and was quite fluid. One historical illustration of this was the Shia-Zoroastrian mixed Khurramites of northern Iran. They fought a protracted rebellion against the Caliph, but when they were defeated they fled into Byzantium. Kaldellis then details how these people were integrated and settled into the Roman system - becoming tax paying Romans without a distinct Khurramite identity fairly soon afterwards. This shows that barbarian prejudice and Roman identity was not strictly defined by much of the population and political elites.

I do agree with you that Tzachas won’t simply be able to waltz into the capital and declare himself Emperor with his credentials as a Turkish warlord, but I don’t think it has much to do with his Turkish “barbarian” identity, I think if he worked inside the system for a reasonable amount of time (and with the right religion), I see no reason he would be barred from wearing the purple. Even if it would, he wouldn’t be the first time a person supposedly barred from rule ascended to the throne - Irene was a woman and Justinian II had his nose hacked off, both were strictly prohibited from ruling by all Byzantine convention. Through force of will though, both individuals ruled the Empire on their own.

I’m currently searching for sources on your second point about the rural landowners, but as I understand it, that historiographical tradition in Byzantine history has come under fire recently as an inaccurate narrative of the period. The supposed process of familial entrenchment in the Byzantine system isn’t theorized to have fully stabilized until after the run of the Komnenoi though, by the time of Diogenes and Manzikert, Emperors were still being elevated from generals and civil servants (see Lekapenoi, Phokas, Tzimiskes, Diogenes, etc.), this gives Tzachas a window to perform the same maneuver.
 
I agree that father-in-law & grandfather of emperors is more likely; but if he is at the front of (or a compromise candidate of those who are in front of) a legitimate popular revolt with backing among important chunks of the Roman populace I would be hard pressed to rule it out.
 
Top