Marcus Aurelius is
often held up as an example of a great emperor, the last in the
Golden Age of Imperial Rome which began with Nerva and included
Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Similarly, Basil II was perhaps
the single most forceful emperor in Byzantine history and, after an
initial defeat, accomplished innumerable military successes.
Yet both were
responsible in large part for the decline and ultimate fall of their
respective empires.
Succession is a
critical issue in the ancient and medieval worlds. It wasn’t a
problem unique to the Roman Empires. Caliphates and Sultanates often
descended into brief civil wars over succession as well.
The Golden Age saw
emperor after emperor nominate his own successor. During this
prolonged period of prosperity for the Empire men of worth were
promoted, and the peace (for Rome, at least) enabled a strong class
of loyal and successful men to build up.
Marcus Aurelius
buggered it up on a permanent basis. His first co-emperor was Lucius
Verus. Verus wasn’t especially bad, a bit of a boozy fellow but not
a vicious lunatic. Verus died, and Marcus Aurelius then named as his
successor his son, Commodus (made famous by the excellent film
Gladiator). The Commodus of reality was not that different to that of
the film (probably a bit bloodthirstier and more competent as a
warrior, actually). He killed a significant number of senators who
should have been serving the Empire, and was so bad he ended up being
assassinated, and replaced by a short-lived successor who was toppled
by the Praetorian Guard.
From that point on the
imperial seat became the plaything of the army, to a greater or
lesser extent. No period of imperial adoption recurred, and the
Empire began a steady spiral of decline, occasionally delayed and
only once truly reversed (with the excellent Danubian
general-emperors such as the Gothic Claudius and Aurelian), but that
was a brief respite.
Basil II’s case is a
little odder. He had been officially emperor for a long time before
he really took on the job, as a number of successful generals seized
the throne but also shared it with him (they ran the Byzantine Empire
but, slightly unusually, did nothing to harm the ‘official’
imperial family, which was Basil and his younger brother
Constantine).
Basil never married or
had any children. He may have been gay or simply disinterested
(whilst unusual, something like 1% of people are asexual). His
brother was technically co-emperor but was happy to spend his time in
luxury whilst Basil actually ran things, and he also had several
nieces to guarantee the family line would continue (worth pointing
out the Macedonian Dynasty, of which he was a member, had been going
for over a century at this point).
It would have been
better if he had had children, and his brother had not. When Basil
died, his brother took the reins and proved seriously inept. The shortness of his reign did limit the damage he could do, but Basil’s niece,
Zoe, ended up having various marriages to those who aspired to the
throne, and they tended to be bloody awful.
Byzantium underwent
incompetence and turmoil (with a brief respite for Isaac Comnenus who
sadly reigned only two years) until Alexius Comnenus (Isaac’s
nephew) came to power. By then, the Empire was in bad shape. Assailed
by the Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard (who destroyed forever the
Byzantine presence in Italy), having to cope with the First Crusade
(which proved at least less damaging than the Fourth...) and
struggling to regain the Anatolian territory which had formed the
heart of the Empire’s manpower, Alexius and his two successors
performed admirably.
But the years between
Basil II and Alexius had taken a permanent toll. Venice had dominion
over the seas, Italy was lost forever, and the Turks were getting
ever closer to the city itself.
Basil II, as emperor,
was almost an unmitigated success. He utterly dominated the Empire,
crushed his enemies and was absolutely devoted to his army, which he
transformed from the dregs of civilisation to the most formidable
force in the world.
But when it came to the
succession he failed. His brother was clearly disinterested, and he
had no nephew to take the reins directly (instead Zoe was used to
assume power repeatedly).
Both Marcus Aurelius
and Basil II are often considered amongst the finest of emperors. I
find the former particularly overrated, for Basil’s error was
perhaps more explicable (his brother would continue a long-running
and successful dynasty whereas Marcus Aurelius ended the adoptive approach in favour of an incestuous psychotic) and he was more impressive as an emperor. But
it goes to show that whilst the lack of an heir could lead to chaos,
dissent and civil war, the presence of incompetent successors was
even worse.
Thaddeus
No comments:
Post a Comment