Playing a Basil that's already an emperor in January 1st, 867 simply feels like not playing Basil I at all. It's hardly the rags-to-riches story which made the character's background appealing in the first place.
Conversely, Michael III was the last of the Amorian dynasty; couldn't it be said to be more interesting to play and continue the dynasty well beyond their historical demise?
Conversely, Michael III was the last of the Amorian dynasty; couldn't it be said to be more interesting to play and continue the dynasty well beyond their historical demise?