'Elections' in Byzantium

Okay, here is a tidy way to bring both current news (elections) and very old news (Byzantine succession) in my blog.

So how did the Byzantine handle a situation like today, where, for the uneducated mob there was no clear choice for successor to the emperor? Well if there was no heir of royal blood (Jeb Bush?), then there would almost always be some sort of civil war. Two or more claimants to the throne would duke it out in classic battle royale, or siege royale, or whatever.

In order to increase the comparison with today, let us say one potential leader was a veteran in the army, popular with the troops but not trusted by the Constantinopolitan elite. The other possibility is the darling of the bureaucracy, not well-known but a gifted showman and wealthy, to boot. So who would win in this historical tossup? Typically, whoever could secure the loyalty of the army, with their weapons and vim, would emerge victorious (today, politicians rely not on the military, but on swaying the masses: those with wallets and short attention spans). But long story short, it could be anyone's game. Possessing the capital was important, as was the army. There were instances when an emperor, cozied up in Constantinople, resisted for years assault and blockade and withstood the usurper. On the other hand, many who controlled the military easily ousted the rebel cloistered in the city. So, to repeat the point above, only time could tell.