Based on all the info, the most likely case is that Michael III was young and insecure, and first tried relying on his uncle, but he got too powerful. So, Michael's response was to then rely on his friend Basil, who was not only physically strong and mentally clever, but was probably something akin to an "older brother" character to the young and impressionable emperor. And Basil seems to have just been a very charming and easy to trust man on the outside, but shrewd and ruthless on the inside. And thus, Basil exploited the circumstances to grab power from himself.
Based on all the biased, incomplete and hearsay evidence you mean? I don't see how we can even speculate on "the most likely case" when all the evidence is so problematic.
@@socalchago I mean, if you use your brain, you might come to the conclusion that stuff happens for a reason and also if you have any knowledge of what the people wrote about this (pro tip, a lot of it is discussed in this video), you may find that what I said is a fairly moderate and sensible scenario when contrasted to the people from the time who were all trying to vilify the opposing side. And how can I make a sensible assumption? Because we're not discussing some fantasy, we're discussing things that actually happened, and the only thing that is in doubt are the details of how it exactly happened, and we get some clue to the true details by viewing how these biased historians of the time were trying to twist the detail to their own purposes. Example: Historian No.1 writes that "Michael was so gay he had Basil sleep in the same room as him." and Historian No.2 writes that "Basil was such a crook he manipulated Michael into making him his nightly guardian who sleeps in the same room". What can we deduce? That Basil was Michael's guardian at night. What else can we deduce? That Michael and Basil were probably on good terms, because you don't just make any random hobo the one person who could kill you as you sleep every night.
@@Torsteen-p3d Oh, because I'm not using my brain? We don't know what happened or if it happened. The accounts are all second hand or third hand, some hundreds of years after the fact, all by people with an axe to grind, much like you. Apparently, you have some fanciful wish that Michael viewed himself as an older brother to Basil (but not in any incestuous way, of course), And Basil was not gay at all, but just physically strong and very charming, nevermind that those traits aren't mutually exclusive. Whether Basil and Michael were gay or not is impossible to answer, since only they could tell us the answer, and even then , they could lie. But what you can answer, is why you are so convinced that they were not gay. Or rather, why it's so important to you that they not be gay.
@@socalchago Those traits are actually mutually exclusive. Show me one strong and charming homo LMAO. Not to mention all characters in this story are Christians in an era when people believed in their religion much more pedantically than anyone today.
@@royegabrieli5858 I'm a strong and charming homo. Well, strong at least. Very strong. I don't know how charming you would find me if you called me a homo to my face.
Adelphopoiesis does not mean "same-sex bond". That's a mistranslation. It was a ceremony of men adopting each other as brothers, i.e. establishing traditional kinship when they aren't related by blood.
Exactly. It wasn't a homosexual bonding (the Church would not have endorsed that), but more of an ecclesiastical replacement for old Roman adult adoption. It's not to say some wouldn't have secretly and illicitly *used* it that way, but it was not supposed to be any sort of union akin to marriage.
Thank you it was very interesting to research. It always bugged me that this would come up and yet no-one could ever explain exactly what happened. The explanation, nothing at all.
Firstly, Michael III died a young man at age 27. He was also emperor for 25 years meaning he is a child emperor with his mother Empress Theodora the Armenian the regent in his stead. For 15 years was she the regent until Michael III was 17 where he relegated her to a monastery. Therefore with these early life details we understand he has a soft spot for Armenians with himself being a half Armenian. That does not mean that he is a homosexual by any means. Basil I being very ambitious and knowing the Armenian culture and being handsome and charming whilst also being an alpha, one who is a champion wrestler and a horse rider. He definitely impressed himself with Michael III who is in search of loyal companions and retinue in a fiercely contested Byzantine throne. Moreover Michael III at a young age being called the Drunkard meant that he probably did not want to do much statescraft and administrative work and looked to be work shy. Being young and not experienced in the wily nature of the world, put his trust in Basil I, a man of incredible charisma and outward beauty. He decided to let Basil have plenty of power to act on his own behalf, little did he know that one day this Armenian who in actuality now is fully Byzantine, would bite him in the back, with a two edged sword literally
It is kind of frequent theme in history in which a weak and inexperienced emperor heavily relied on the so-called “strong men” only to be betrayed by them.
A futile question. Michel III adored his beautyful Eudokia with whom he was acquainted since he was 15 years, old and with whom he fathered two sons: LEON VI and Stephanos, the future Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperess widow Theodôra had married him to a pious Eudokia Dekapolitissa he never hommaged. After the birth of his firsth illegitimate son Leon , Michael who had realised that a bastard never could suceed him on the throne, he forced his favorite Basileios to marry Eudokia with the non discutable condition that Basileios NEVER would approach her. Alas ! Basileios fell in love with Eudokia and this could have been one of the reasons why he murdered his protector and co-emperor. A much more important poιnt is that Basileios could NOT found a new dynasty. 1.He was no Makedonian, but was born in Adrianopolis in an armenian familly. He had a jounger brother namens Bardas ,a typical armenian name. 2.Basil died without an issue. Sebastos the son of his firsth wife Maria was made co- emperor with the name of Constantine, but died at age 18. Alexandros, the unique son Basil had with Eudokia took the throne after the death of Leon VI , reigned 1 year and died without an issue. Grounding a dynasty necessitates three consecutive regnants : Grand father, father and son.This condition was not fullfilled and thereby there is NO MAKEDONIAN DYNASTY. The AMORID DYNASTY continued with Konstantinos VII porphyrogennetos, his son Romanos II and his two sons Basileios II the Bulgaroktonos and Konstantinos VIII. Two daughters of the late were emperesses: Zoe who suceeded in marrying four consecutive emperors, and her Sister Theodora who concluded the Amoride dynasty with a brillant reign dured two years as single Basilissa +1056.
It is a difficult question and I have seen eminant scholars argue for both, Mango saying that Leo was the son of Michael III, Tougher saying he was the son of Basil I. I think it is notable that regardless of his biological parentage, Leo VI after Basil's death referred to Basil and not Michael as his father.
@@EasternRomanHistory I've always hoped for Michael III, as I like the Amorians and I think Michael gets an unfair lashing in the histories. Would be cool for a "dynasty" to last that long. Also wouldn't put much stock in Leo saying Basil was his father, as otherwise he'd be a bastard of a disparaged emperor
Love the channel! I was wondering if you had thought of making a Thomas the slav episode? I don’t believe you’ve made one on his revolt but I could be wrong
I came searching for truth and found dick jokes on ancient chronicles, now c&b jokes aside great video as always man, I’ve got to admit this is one of my favorite periods of history and specially in regards to the Macedonian dynasty
Short answer is that we don't know and it is impossible to know. The more interesting question is what motivates people to pretend they know the answer.
@@socalchago sure, we'll never know, but the likelihood is extremely close to zero and the only reason people would want them to be gay is if they had a pro-lgbt narrative that they would want to force into history.
@@socalchago what reasons are there to think they were? The only sources which claim it were not contemporary to the events and were politically motivated to make the insinuation. The more interesting question is why some people are so desperate to question the sexuality of every historical figure they can
I think the biggest issue for me is that the historians who "uncovered" evidence of homosexuality between the two used it simply as another way of illustrating the poor character of Michael, and like of course that's what would happen in the 1940s but it's our job as modern historians to destigmatize that for modern audiences. 10th century historians may have used it as slander and its unrealistic that such a relationship would have manifested publically at the time but gay people were as prevalent then as they are now, even in the age of orthodoxy in the empire. I think it's important to teach about this as both a way to analyze imperial propaganda but also a way of teaching how homosexuality, though taboo, was still *fairly* commonplace, the idea of Basil at the very least giving sexual favors as a way to gain office when he first comes to Konstantinopolis points to wider sociopolitical expectations of newcomers
Based on all the info, the most likely case is that Michael III was young and insecure, and first tried relying on his uncle, but he got too powerful. So, Michael's response was to then rely on his friend Basil, who was not only physically strong and mentally clever, but was probably something akin to an "older brother" character to the young and impressionable emperor. And Basil seems to have just been a very charming and easy to trust man on the outside, but shrewd and ruthless on the inside. And thus, Basil exploited the circumstances to grab power from himself.
Based on all the biased, incomplete and hearsay evidence you mean? I don't see how we can even speculate on "the most likely case" when all the evidence is so problematic.
@@socalchago I mean, if you use your brain, you might come to the conclusion that stuff happens for a reason and also if you have any knowledge of what the people wrote about this (pro tip, a lot of it is discussed in this video), you may find that what I said is a fairly moderate and sensible scenario when contrasted to the people from the time who were all trying to vilify the opposing side. And how can I make a sensible assumption? Because we're not discussing some fantasy, we're discussing things that actually happened, and the only thing that is in doubt are the details of how it exactly happened, and we get some clue to the true details by viewing how these biased historians of the time were trying to twist the detail to their own purposes.
Example: Historian No.1 writes that "Michael was so gay he had Basil sleep in the same room as him." and Historian No.2 writes that "Basil was such a crook he manipulated Michael into making him his nightly guardian who sleeps in the same room". What can we deduce? That Basil was Michael's guardian at night. What else can we deduce? That Michael and Basil were probably on good terms, because you don't just make any random hobo the one person who could kill you as you sleep every night.
@@Torsteen-p3d Oh, because I'm not using my brain? We don't know what happened or if it happened. The accounts are all second hand or third hand, some hundreds of years after the fact, all by people with an axe to grind, much like you. Apparently, you have some fanciful wish that Michael viewed himself as an older brother to Basil (but not in any incestuous way, of course), And Basil was not gay at all, but just physically strong and very charming, nevermind that those traits aren't mutually exclusive. Whether Basil and Michael were gay or not is impossible to answer, since only they could tell us the answer, and even then , they could lie. But what you can answer, is why you are so convinced that they were not gay. Or rather, why it's so important to you that they not be gay.
@@socalchago Those traits are actually mutually exclusive. Show me one strong and charming homo LMAO. Not to mention all characters in this story are Christians in an era when people believed in their religion much more pedantically than anyone today.
@@royegabrieli5858 I'm a strong and charming homo. Well, strong at least. Very strong. I don't know how charming you would find me if you called me a homo to my face.
Adelphopoiesis does not mean "same-sex bond". That's a mistranslation. It was a ceremony of men adopting each other as brothers, i.e. establishing traditional kinship when they aren't related by blood.
Two men adopting each other as brothers sure sounds like a same-sex bond. Or did you mean to say "homosexual bond?"
Exactly. It wasn't a homosexual bonding (the Church would not have endorsed that), but more of an ecclesiastical replacement for old Roman adult adoption.
It's not to say some wouldn't have secretly and illicitly *used* it that way, but it was not supposed to be any sort of union akin to marriage.
Basil I's life deserves a movie! Thanks.
Closest thing we got was Krispos, basically Basil I but as Fantasy.
Yes!
i think i have never seen such a good research job for videos as what we get from you. keep going on mate
Thank you it was very interesting to research. It always bugged me that this would come up and yet no-one could ever explain exactly what happened. The explanation, nothing at all.
One of the most interesting part of the Byzantine history ! thanks !
Great Video! We have to be careful with Symeon's source because he is too bias as he clearly carries disdain for Basil.
Thank you very much. It could be argued that Symeon was alluding to a known secret but we would still need some proper evidence to actually prove it.
Firstly, Michael III died a young man at age 27. He was also emperor for 25 years meaning he is a child emperor with his mother Empress Theodora the Armenian the regent in his stead.
For 15 years was she the regent until Michael III was 17 where he relegated her to a monastery.
Therefore with these early life details we understand he has a soft spot for Armenians with himself being a half Armenian. That does not mean that he is a homosexual by any means.
Basil I being very ambitious and knowing the Armenian culture and being handsome and charming whilst also being an alpha, one who is a champion wrestler and a horse rider. He definitely impressed himself with Michael III who is in search of loyal companions and retinue in a fiercely contested Byzantine throne.
Moreover Michael III at a young age being called the Drunkard meant that he probably did not want to do much statescraft and administrative work and looked to be work shy. Being young and not experienced in the wily nature of the world, put his trust in Basil I, a man of incredible charisma and outward beauty. He decided to let Basil have plenty of power to act on his own behalf, little did he know that one day this Armenian who in actuality now is fully Byzantine, would bite him in the back, with a two edged sword literally
Yeah, but was Michael pitching or catching? That's what really matters
if i had to guess catching just cause Basil was this massive man. But its a guess
It is kind of frequent theme in history in which a weak and inexperienced emperor heavily relied on the so-called “strong men” only to be betrayed by them.
A futile question.
Michel III adored his beautyful Eudokia with whom he was acquainted since he was 15 years, old and with whom he fathered two sons: LEON VI and Stephanos, the future Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperess widow Theodôra had married him to a pious Eudokia Dekapolitissa he never hommaged. After the birth of his firsth illegitimate son Leon , Michael who had realised that a bastard never could suceed him on the throne, he forced his favorite Basileios to marry Eudokia with the
non discutable condition that Basileios
NEVER would approach her. Alas ! Basileios fell in love with Eudokia and this could have been one of the reasons why he murdered his protector and co-emperor.
A much more important poιnt is that Basileios could NOT found a new dynasty.
1.He was no Makedonian, but was born in Adrianopolis in an armenian familly. He had a jounger brother namens Bardas ,a typical armenian name.
2.Basil died without an issue. Sebastos the son of his firsth wife Maria was made co- emperor with the name of Constantine, but died at age 18. Alexandros, the unique son Basil had with Eudokia took the throne after the death of Leon VI , reigned 1 year and died without an issue.
Grounding a dynasty necessitates three consecutive regnants : Grand father, father and son.This condition was not fullfilled and thereby there is NO MAKEDONIAN DYNASTY. The AMORID DYNASTY continued with Konstantinos VII porphyrogennetos, his son Romanos II and his two sons Basileios II the Bulgaroktonos and Konstantinos VIII.
Two daughters of the late were emperesses:
Zoe who suceeded in marrying four consecutive emperors, and her Sister Theodora who concluded the Amoride dynasty with a brillant reign dured two years as single Basilissa +1056.
Which one of them was Leo VI's father?
It is a difficult question and I have seen eminant scholars argue for both, Mango saying that Leo was the son of Michael III, Tougher saying he was the son of Basil I. I think it is notable that regardless of his biological parentage, Leo VI after Basil's death referred to Basil and not Michael as his father.
@@EasternRomanHistory I've always hoped for Michael III, as I like the Amorians and I think Michael gets an unfair lashing in the histories. Would be cool for a "dynasty" to last that long. Also wouldn't put much stock in Leo saying Basil was his father, as otherwise he'd be a bastard of a disparaged emperor
Basil must’ve been hot af
A medieval Ricardo Montalban.
@@EasternRomanHistory thanks for name dropping this dude I can’t keep my eyes off him
Love the channel! I was wondering if you had thought of making a Thomas the slav episode? I don’t believe you’ve made one on his revolt but I could be wrong
Thank you very much.
Its a great suggestion I plan on doing it when I get to the Amorion dynasty.
You sometimes say Basilinikos and then say Basilikinos, which one is it?
Basil and Michael caught in HD
Gone wrong
Gone sexual
I came searching for truth and found dick jokes on ancient chronicles, now c&b jokes aside great video as always man, I’ve got to admit this is one of my favorite periods of history and specially in regards to the Macedonian dynasty
Basil was a Byzantine Talented Mr. Ripley.
Short answer: No.
Short answer is that we don't know and it is impossible to know. The more interesting question is what motivates people to pretend they know the answer.
@@socalchago sure, we'll never know, but the likelihood is extremely close to zero and the only reason people would want them to be gay is if they had a pro-lgbt narrative that they would want to force into history.
@@socalchago what reasons are there to think they were? The only sources which claim it were not contemporary to the events and were politically motivated to make the insinuation.
The more interesting question is why some people are so desperate to question the sexuality of every historical figure they can
@@jackwalters5506 so you are agreeing with me? Okay.
@@socalchagowhy does it make you mad that Michael III and Basil were not gay?
I think the biggest issue for me is that the historians who "uncovered" evidence of homosexuality between the two used it simply as another way of illustrating the poor character of Michael, and like of course that's what would happen in the 1940s but it's our job as modern historians to destigmatize that for modern audiences. 10th century historians may have used it as slander and its unrealistic that such a relationship would have manifested publically at the time but gay people were as prevalent then as they are now, even in the age of orthodoxy in the empire. I think it's important to teach about this as both a way to analyze imperial propaganda but also a way of teaching how homosexuality, though taboo, was still *fairly* commonplace, the idea of Basil at the very least giving sexual favors as a way to gain office when he first comes to Konstantinopolis points to wider sociopolitical expectations of newcomers
How was homosexuality fairly commonplace?
My favorite innuendo
is in your endo.... Basil
In my book i think its unlike
Pardon? I think Basil could have done a lot better than Mike #3! Thank you very much!
Kinda sus
Byzantium is great empire
Your wish is they to look like you ........not you to look like them !!!!!!!!!!!