WI: Romanos I Lekapenos overthrown earlier/not at all?

Romanos I Lekapenos was technically a usurper to the ERE throne, but he never made a move against Constantine VII of the Macedonian dynasty. However, when his eldest and most talented son, Christopher, died unexpectedly in 931 AD, Romanos placed Constantine VII ahead of his younger sons, Stephen, Constantine and Theophylact (who was later made Patriarch). This led to his overthrow by Stephen and Constantine in 944, and their overthrow by partisans of the Macedonian dynasty.

This leads me to my three questions:

1. Why didn't Stephen and Constantine move sooner?

2. Why, in the 24 years of Romanos' rule, didn't Constantine VII try to claim the throne for himself?

2. If Christopher Lekapenos was all that was holding together Romanos' initial plans for the succession, if he doesn't die, could he have held onto power once Romanos died, or would he have fallen to the intrigues of his brothers and/or the people of Constantinople?

Bump to first page.

ByzantineLover said:

1. Why didn't Stephen and Constantine move sooner?

2. Why, in the 24 years of Romanos' rule, didn't Constantine VII try to claim the throne for himself?

2. If Christopher Lekapenos was all that was holding together Romanos' initial plans for the succession, if he doesn't die, could he have held onto power once Romanos died, or would he have fallen to the intrigues of his brothers and/or the people of Constantinople?

Click to expand...

1. They didn't exactly inspire many followers in 944, so presumably they didn't feel confident enough in the decade or so before then. Plus, they were both Caesars and major people in the court of their father, so why take the risk of deposing him while they could live the high life at Constantinople? Better to wait until Romanos is on his last legs, health-wise. Not to mention that most people would feel a little awkward about betraying their own father, whatever Freud believed.

2. Some people aren't entirely motivated by lust for power. Romanos was more of a father to him than his actual father was; they trusted each other, and deposing and blinding your wife's father would tend to put a bit of a damper on things in the bedroom, I would think. plus, Constantine seemed pretty happy to study court ceremonies and the legal system, training himself up for the top job.

3. Assuming Constantine VII doesn't go full Aragorn, Christopher would be the favourite to succeed his father. As you know, though, Constantinople was a wretched hive of scum and villainy, so there's probably going to be some attempted coups by the Lekapenos brothers, military leaders, random eunuchs, etc. etc.

ByzantineLover said:

Bump to first page.

Click to expand...

Hi ByzantineLover, I am guessing from your name that you share a common interest with many of us here on the forum

Well I think your question raises a very interesting possibility. We know that the Macedonian dynasty died out after Basil II due to his failure to produce an heir to the throne. This led to Byzantium's disaster at Manzikert and eventual fall.

But what if we assume that Lekapenos does what many other rulers would have done in his position, and simply seized power for himself and his family? Let's imagine a new dynasty takes control at this point. Would Manzikert be averted? Would the Byzantine Empire make further gains in Syria and possibly even retake Jerusalem? It all seems very much a possibility.

On the other hand, who knows if the new dynasty would have been successful - perhaps the empire might have suffered further losses to the Bulgarians, and it seems likely Bulgaria would never have been fully conquered without Basil II's exceptional focus on the task.

Byzantine fanatic said:

Hi ByzantineLover, I am guessing from your name that you share a common interest with many of us here on the forum

Well I think your question raises a very interesting possibility. We know that the Macedonian dynasty died out after Basil II due to his failure to produce an heir to the throne. This led to Byzantium's disaster at Manzikert and eventual fall.

But what if we assume that Lekapenos does what many other rulers would have done in his position, and simply seized power for himself and his family? Let's imagine a new dynasty takes control at this point. Would Manzikert be averted? Would the Byzantine Empire make further gains in Syria and possibly even retake Jerusalem? It all seems very much a possibility.

On the other hand, who knows if the new dynasty would have been successful - perhaps the empire might have suffered further losses to the Bulgarians, and it seems likely Bulgaria would never have been fully conquered without Basil II's exceptional focus on the task.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt that the Macedonian Dynasty,if it persisted would have stopped Manzikert simply because the Macedonians are there.The whole problem with monarchy is that you can't guarantee your successor will be competent even if you are yourself.Theodora and Zoe for example were highly incompetent even though they were from the Macedonian Dynasty,the same deal with their father Constantine VIII.These three Macedonians started the whole decline.

darthfanta said:

The whole problem with monarchy is that you can't guarantee your successor will be competent even if you are yourself.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

It is a fatal flaw in the whole system and eventually brought Byzantium down. It is even more a shame that their culture didn't survive the fall of the state itself, unlike the old Western Roman Empire.

But what I was suggesting wasn't a continuation of the Macedonian dynasty, it was the replacement of that dynasty with a new dynasty consisting of Romanos and his sons.

Byzantine fanatic said:

Agreed.

It is a fatal flaw in the whole system and eventually brought Byzantium down. It is even more a shame that their culture didn't survive the fall of the state itself, unlike the old Western Roman Empire.

But what I was suggesting wasn't a continuation of the Macedonian dynasty, it was the replacement of that dynasty with a new dynasty consisting of Romanos and his sons.

Click to expand...

How is that going to change anything in regards to preventing the ERE's later decline?Please keep in note that the ERE under Basil II actually prospered,arguably one of it's most glorious periods since the Muslim Invasions.If Romanos and his sons are in charge later,they might not be able to do the same deeds as Basil II.

darthfanta said:

How is that going to change anything in regards to preventing the ERE's later decline?Please keep in note that the ERE under Basil II actually prospered,arguably one of it's most glorious periods since the Muslim Invasions.If Romanos and his sons are in charge later,they might not be able to do the same deeds as Basil II.

Click to expand...

Well it's complete speculation, as we don't know whether they would've been successful or not. It's quite possible they wouldn't have matched OTL in some ways, as I alluded in my previous post about Bulgaria.

But there were OTL opportunities that were missed. Basil II wasted much of his reign fighting a civil war, and didn't really achieve much until c. 1000. In fact in Basil’s reign a decision was taken to prioritise Europe over the eastern frontier, with the result that some regions were lost which had recently been conquered by John I Tzimiskes and Nikephoros II Phokas.

If we imagine a scenario in which Basil II never takes power, it’s at least conceivable that the Byzantines simply continue their eastern front conquests all the way into Palestine, as far as Jerusalem. IIRC, John I Tzimiskes actually reached this far as it was, but the conquests were never consolidated.

Perhaps a different emperor might even have reconquered Egypt, returning Byzantium to the frontiers it had held in the time of Heraclius. These are the lost opportunities I am thinking of.

Of course there is a price for everything. The new dynasty might have been even worse. Byzantium could just as easily have fallen into civil war, lost lands to the Bulgarians and so on.

But in the long run, nothing could have been worse for Byzantium than OTL, since OTL means the complete collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the total eradication of its culture from its former heartland in Anatolia.

Compared to this dismal future, anything would be an improvement.