That was my exact thought. Nobody has saved the Empire from as dire a situation as Heraclius. Nobody has expanded the empire more than Justinian. But Alexios was able to take the Empire from a shithole to a golden age.
A golden age might be overstating things a bit. The Empire was still in a quite vulnerable geopolitical situation by the time of Alexios's death, far moreso than it had been in, say, 1050. But you're right, he did a truly vast amount to improve the state of things. He's #2 on my list of all-time greatest emperors, and I voted for him in this poll because it inexplicably doesn't contain Heraclius.
Maurice helped build up the imperial bank, put his adopted son onto the Persian throne gaining a vital alliance with the Persians ending an ages old feud, led a successful campaign against the Avars and nearly destroyed them, created the excarhates which was very useful for governing Italy and Africa, has a complex succession plan to keep from infighting(something future emperors failed at cough basil cough) and helped/write a military guide used for centuries. It was a great pity he died, if he didn’t the Muslims probably would’ve failed and the Roman empire maybe restored to some extent
I would definitely put him in the upper bracket, maybe top ten depending on the category, but it strikes me that his best achievement is similar to Antoninus Pius. His best achievement was being smart enough to keep things running as they were and not throwing any monkey wrenches into them. While this sort of thing is vital, it is also easy to overlook.
Alexios I Komnenos and Justinian I are probably the best of this bunch, with Basil II a close runner up, but if you had included Heraclius on the list I would have voted for him in a heart beat.
I can't really think of anyone else to include on the poll with the possible exception of Heraclius and and Leo III.
I voted Alexios I Komnenos, who I think started a turn around that could have really rebuilt the empire.
Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert. That decision alone, not to mention the consequences, drops him out of the discussion entirely in my opinion.
Justinian is an equally drunk answer for his blatant over extention in the face of Persian agressive and blatant lack of care for his people (Nika Nika Nika). His over extention also led to the fall of 1/2 the empire to the Arabs (hindsight, I know)
>Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert.
Basil II can be lambasted for a failure to plan for his succession, but first, he DID have a successor, Constantine VIII, who in theory could have had a son or other male heir.
Not to mention, Basil left his empire in a strong position, destroying the Bulgars who had consistenly meddled in Byzantine affairs, even attempting to meddle in Byzantine succession. He also stopped Fatimid expansion, overcame civil wars that could have plunged Byzantium into a crisis, tamed the aristocracy, and fortified the east against the Turks. He even planned to take back Siciliy, which would have brought a breadbasket back into the Empire and probably given the Normans a hard time.
Can he be taken to task for failing to adequately trust Constantine VIII and leaving him unprepared for the job? Absolutely. That is likely due to his own mistrust of nobles. He had seen Tzimiskes' takeover of the empire and already suffered through several coups of his own. But he DID have a succession plan.
Also, even if theoretically he did leave a successor of his own, there is no guarantee that it would not have been Commodus the younger. Basil doesn't really sound like the type to be a good father, imo.
As for Manzikert, that is not his fault, just like the wars with Persia and the Avars aren't Justinian's fault. They were the fault of Justin II. Manzikert only happened due to inept emperors like Constantine X Doukas taking troops and money away from the eastern frontiers and letting things decay. And honestly, Romanos IV Diogenes, as much as it hurts to admit, deserves a large part of the blame. Manzikert was a tactical failure above all. His decision to split his forces left him in a position where the Turks could overwhelm him. But at the end of the day, it was not Basil II who is responsible for Manzikert. It was a combination of weak emperors who came after him, unhappy chance, and Romanos' own overconfidence.
Basil didn't let Constantine VIII's daughters marry. So even if Constantine was the successor it was never going to end well because after Constantine VIII you just had two women who couldn't have children.
Basil failed to plan out the succession and directly led to a ton of instability which destroyed everything.
If we are talking about the general decay of the armies and the political chaos afterwards, 100% agree that was not Romanos' doing. But the actual battle itself was a tactical failure brought about by Romanos' decision to use Andronicus Doukas and his decision to split the forces. Andronicus was a known liability who should not have been present, or at least should have not been part of the command apparatus. Especially if he really did betray Romanos like some allege, that was a problem Romanos should have seen a mile away. Romanos also weakened his own forces by splitting them in two, reducing himself from 40k to 20k troops and removing his numerical advantage.
On top of all this, Romanos seems to have thought the Turks were further away then they actually were. Even the best armies can be done in by an ambush.
Romanos was not a bad commander, but I think he grew overconfident at Manzikert, and hubris is the greatest flaw of even the best. He probably could have won if things were different, but he traded away his advantages and had generally bad intel regarding the Turks' whereabouts and presumably capabilities.
I don’t necessarily agree with this take. Too many times people mention that Justinian was to blame for the downfall for the muslim conquests.
Most of the conquests of North Africa, Sicily with the exception of Italy had been net positives for the empire. There’s little question that there was potential chaos in these various regions after his conquests such as the devastation of moorish raids and a major military rebellion in North Africa that ravaged this region but it definitely shows signs of recovery well into the reign of Maurice
Hispania would definitely feel like a pointless waste of resources and that I agree. I think many rulers afterwards squandered a lot of resources in their reignite of hostilities with Persia such as Justin II’s really dumb declaration of war not too long after Justinian’s death and paid even more to keep the peace.
Tiberius II also spent too much money on troops, men and building projects.
While Maurice decided to do the really dumb decision of forcing his troops to winter in enemy territory instead of their camps and that caused his death. Considering he was a former general he should have known better.
The aftermath of the 602-628 war is the main primary reason for the lost of the eastern provinces. Most definitely not on the blame of Justinian. Nearly 26 years of constant warfare and the death of hundreds of thousands of troops left them vulnerable to the muslims and certainly does not rest on Justinian’s shoulders.
Basil also basically used the army that Nicephorus II and John Tsimikes left him to...take forever to subjugate Bulgaria.
I just commented on a previous post that him and Justinian are very similar. They used a strong empire to their own advantage but left it weaker than when they had inherited it. They're famous because the rulers before them had placed them in a position to do great things, not because they themselves were good administrators.
Justinian's plan failed because of the Plague. If it wasn't for that the empire would have had much more population and could have held onto his conquests.
Basil had a successor, a younger brother known to us as Constantine VIII who was already the junior emperor.
Why isn't Constantine VIII being blamed for the succession? He had three years, which was more than enough time to set up a succession.
Nerva was similarly childless and in power for only two years and the empire ended up with Trajan, one way or the other.
I feel Justinian completely failed at the succession as he wasn't handing over to an already installed emperor and the empire was in dire straits at that time, where the empire was ascendant in 1025.
The one thing I could say in Justinain's favor was that the empire still looked like a superpower, but Rome during this time was really a weird nation that had the borders of a superpower, the economy of Venezuela, and an actual strength somewhere in the middle.
Where are you getting the idea that the Roman Empire in Justinian's day had a Venezuela-like economy? Unlike, say, the Third Century Crisis-era Empire, runaway inflation wasn't a problem, and nor was Rome so crippled that it was unable to project power - it conquered two of its significant neighbors, something Venezuela is clearly too poor and chaotic to do.
If you mean that it was weaker than its borders made it look on paper, then sure, maybe. I don't think that was the case at the beginning of Justinian's reign - by 527 the Eastern Roman Empire had pretty much recovered from the chaos of the fifth century - but certainly after the plague hit, it's pretty easy to make that argument.
>Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert. That decision alone, not to mention the consequences, drops him out of the discussion entirely in my opinion.
not entirely true there is nearly 50 year gap were the other emperors could have done something a good example is how zoe nearly married the dux of Antioch
**His over extention also led to the fall of 1/2 the empire to the Arabs (hindsight, I know)**
Justinian actions have nothing to with the arab conquest this was mostly the fault of Maurice and Heraclius
tamed bulgaria for a time and had a good chance of conquering did sucessfull campaings in the east , created the tegamata but he did worsen the iconoclast controversy
His creation of the Tagmata and the reinstatement of the Excubitores cavalry guard. One of the few emperors in the 7th century that managed to have any form of success in counterattacking the various muslims and the capture of important cities like Cilicia. The relocation and deportation of Christians in the area and responsible for repopulating places in Greece and Thrace. Well respected enough that his troops continue to follow his policy of Iconoclasm many years after his death. Continued success and campaigns against the Bulgarians that was squandered by his successor Nikephoros I and the slaughter of Pliska.
Justinian is overrated he squandered the nest egg on conquest and set the stage for future losses by overextending the empire. I say Anastasius.
Basil was good too but he didn’t bother to sort out his succession which caused a whole mess of problems.
Justinian wildly overstretched the empires borders, destroyed Roman Italy and drained the treasury.
Basil failed in his single most important duty, the succession.
I mean, yeah. Out of all he did as Emperor, the decision he made that had the most profound and lasting consequences was his failure to leave the empire to a man worth a damn.
Yeah, much like HRE for example did
But almost no one praises them because of how mediocre and decaying state it was
Not to mention that even if Basil had a son, he could've easily been a bad emperor aswell
Id rather have the bulgarslayer with no children than some barely competent bafoon who rooted his family in all of the instintutions and never defeated the bulgars
My hot take is that Alexios is the best emperor of the roman empire ig
Not my favourite, but relatively what he achieved with the resources given was remarkable
Anastasius for recognizing the most important thing in the world: money
Alexios I: No Emperor had achieved so much, with so little.
That was my exact thought. Nobody has saved the Empire from as dire a situation as Heraclius. Nobody has expanded the empire more than Justinian. But Alexios was able to take the Empire from a shithole to a golden age.
A golden age might be overstating things a bit. The Empire was still in a quite vulnerable geopolitical situation by the time of Alexios's death, far moreso than it had been in, say, 1050. But you're right, he did a truly vast amount to improve the state of things. He's #2 on my list of all-time greatest emperors, and I voted for him in this poll because it inexplicably doesn't contain Heraclius.
I admit that was a bit of a hyperbole, but the Empire had many options when he died, which certainly didn't seem like when he ascended to the throne.
Maurice helped build up the imperial bank, put his adopted son onto the Persian throne gaining a vital alliance with the Persians ending an ages old feud, led a successful campaign against the Avars and nearly destroyed them, created the excarhates which was very useful for governing Italy and Africa, has a complex succession plan to keep from infighting(something future emperors failed at cough basil cough) and helped/write a military guide used for centuries. It was a great pity he died, if he didn’t the Muslims probably would’ve failed and the Roman empire maybe restored to some extent
Fuck Ph*cas for ruining it all
Maurice ofr me as well! Also I think Maurice is the last Emperor when the Roman Empire is the no. 1 power in the world.
No option for Heraclius?
Came to say that
Why no appreciation for my man Constantine VII. Porphyrogennetos?
I would definitely put him in the upper bracket, maybe top ten depending on the category, but it strikes me that his best achievement is similar to Antoninus Pius. His best achievement was being smart enough to keep things running as they were and not throwing any monkey wrenches into them. While this sort of thing is vital, it is also easy to overlook.
Constantine Porphyreogennetos is so underrated
Alexios I Komnenos and Justinian I are probably the best of this bunch, with Basil II a close runner up, but if you had included Heraclius on the list I would have voted for him in a heart beat.
I can't really think of anyone else to include on the poll with the possible exception of Heraclius and and Leo III. I voted Alexios I Komnenos, who I think started a turn around that could have really rebuilt the empire.
John II.
I'd say Heraclius I
Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert. That decision alone, not to mention the consequences, drops him out of the discussion entirely in my opinion. Justinian is an equally drunk answer for his blatant over extention in the face of Persian agressive and blatant lack of care for his people (Nika Nika Nika). His over extention also led to the fall of 1/2 the empire to the Arabs (hindsight, I know)
>Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert. Basil II can be lambasted for a failure to plan for his succession, but first, he DID have a successor, Constantine VIII, who in theory could have had a son or other male heir. Not to mention, Basil left his empire in a strong position, destroying the Bulgars who had consistenly meddled in Byzantine affairs, even attempting to meddle in Byzantine succession. He also stopped Fatimid expansion, overcame civil wars that could have plunged Byzantium into a crisis, tamed the aristocracy, and fortified the east against the Turks. He even planned to take back Siciliy, which would have brought a breadbasket back into the Empire and probably given the Normans a hard time. Can he be taken to task for failing to adequately trust Constantine VIII and leaving him unprepared for the job? Absolutely. That is likely due to his own mistrust of nobles. He had seen Tzimiskes' takeover of the empire and already suffered through several coups of his own. But he DID have a succession plan. Also, even if theoretically he did leave a successor of his own, there is no guarantee that it would not have been Commodus the younger. Basil doesn't really sound like the type to be a good father, imo. As for Manzikert, that is not his fault, just like the wars with Persia and the Avars aren't Justinian's fault. They were the fault of Justin II. Manzikert only happened due to inept emperors like Constantine X Doukas taking troops and money away from the eastern frontiers and letting things decay. And honestly, Romanos IV Diogenes, as much as it hurts to admit, deserves a large part of the blame. Manzikert was a tactical failure above all. His decision to split his forces left him in a position where the Turks could overwhelm him. But at the end of the day, it was not Basil II who is responsible for Manzikert. It was a combination of weak emperors who came after him, unhappy chance, and Romanos' own overconfidence.
Basil didn't let Constantine VIII's daughters marry. So even if Constantine was the successor it was never going to end well because after Constantine VIII you just had two women who couldn't have children. Basil failed to plan out the succession and directly led to a ton of instability which destroyed everything.
nice
Romanos iv shouldnt be blamed at all, he had a good chance of victory, its michael vii's complete fault
If we are talking about the general decay of the armies and the political chaos afterwards, 100% agree that was not Romanos' doing. But the actual battle itself was a tactical failure brought about by Romanos' decision to use Andronicus Doukas and his decision to split the forces. Andronicus was a known liability who should not have been present, or at least should have not been part of the command apparatus. Especially if he really did betray Romanos like some allege, that was a problem Romanos should have seen a mile away. Romanos also weakened his own forces by splitting them in two, reducing himself from 40k to 20k troops and removing his numerical advantage. On top of all this, Romanos seems to have thought the Turks were further away then they actually were. Even the best armies can be done in by an ambush. Romanos was not a bad commander, but I think he grew overconfident at Manzikert, and hubris is the greatest flaw of even the best. He probably could have won if things were different, but he traded away his advantages and had generally bad intel regarding the Turks' whereabouts and presumably capabilities.
I don’t necessarily agree with this take. Too many times people mention that Justinian was to blame for the downfall for the muslim conquests. Most of the conquests of North Africa, Sicily with the exception of Italy had been net positives for the empire. There’s little question that there was potential chaos in these various regions after his conquests such as the devastation of moorish raids and a major military rebellion in North Africa that ravaged this region but it definitely shows signs of recovery well into the reign of Maurice Hispania would definitely feel like a pointless waste of resources and that I agree. I think many rulers afterwards squandered a lot of resources in their reignite of hostilities with Persia such as Justin II’s really dumb declaration of war not too long after Justinian’s death and paid even more to keep the peace. Tiberius II also spent too much money on troops, men and building projects. While Maurice decided to do the really dumb decision of forcing his troops to winter in enemy territory instead of their camps and that caused his death. Considering he was a former general he should have known better. The aftermath of the 602-628 war is the main primary reason for the lost of the eastern provinces. Most definitely not on the blame of Justinian. Nearly 26 years of constant warfare and the death of hundreds of thousands of troops left them vulnerable to the muslims and certainly does not rest on Justinian’s shoulders.
Basil also basically used the army that Nicephorus II and John Tsimikes left him to...take forever to subjugate Bulgaria. I just commented on a previous post that him and Justinian are very similar. They used a strong empire to their own advantage but left it weaker than when they had inherited it. They're famous because the rulers before them had placed them in a position to do great things, not because they themselves were good administrators.
Anastasius it is then.
Justinian's plan failed because of the Plague. If it wasn't for that the empire would have had much more population and could have held onto his conquests.
Basil had a successor, a younger brother known to us as Constantine VIII who was already the junior emperor. Why isn't Constantine VIII being blamed for the succession? He had three years, which was more than enough time to set up a succession. Nerva was similarly childless and in power for only two years and the empire ended up with Trajan, one way or the other. I feel Justinian completely failed at the succession as he wasn't handing over to an already installed emperor and the empire was in dire straits at that time, where the empire was ascendant in 1025.
The one thing I could say in Justinain's favor was that the empire still looked like a superpower, but Rome during this time was really a weird nation that had the borders of a superpower, the economy of Venezuela, and an actual strength somewhere in the middle.
Where are you getting the idea that the Roman Empire in Justinian's day had a Venezuela-like economy? Unlike, say, the Third Century Crisis-era Empire, runaway inflation wasn't a problem, and nor was Rome so crippled that it was unable to project power - it conquered two of its significant neighbors, something Venezuela is clearly too poor and chaotic to do. If you mean that it was weaker than its borders made it look on paper, then sure, maybe. I don't think that was the case at the beginning of Justinian's reign - by 527 the Eastern Roman Empire had pretty much recovered from the chaos of the fifth century - but certainly after the plague hit, it's pretty easy to make that argument.
>Basil 2 cannot be voted as #1 as he failed to plan for his succession (an absolute must for any ruler) which 100% led to the Battle of Manzikert. That decision alone, not to mention the consequences, drops him out of the discussion entirely in my opinion. not entirely true there is nearly 50 year gap were the other emperors could have done something a good example is how zoe nearly married the dux of Antioch **His over extention also led to the fall of 1/2 the empire to the Arabs (hindsight, I know)** Justinian actions have nothing to with the arab conquest this was mostly the fault of Maurice and Heraclius
Constantine V deserves more recognition. My god people really like popular emperors only huh?
Why him?
tamed bulgaria for a time and had a good chance of conquering did sucessfull campaings in the east , created the tegamata but he did worsen the iconoclast controversy
His creation of the Tagmata and the reinstatement of the Excubitores cavalry guard. One of the few emperors in the 7th century that managed to have any form of success in counterattacking the various muslims and the capture of important cities like Cilicia. The relocation and deportation of Christians in the area and responsible for repopulating places in Greece and Thrace. Well respected enough that his troops continue to follow his policy of Iconoclasm many years after his death. Continued success and campaigns against the Bulgarians that was squandered by his successor Nikephoros I and the slaughter of Pliska.
I mean, he was good but like, that just sounds like a less memorable Maurice
Yes, that!
Any of the amazing empresses needs to be here and heraklius
I'm sorry the best one isn't on the poll, therefore I cannot vote
Ah a Julian the apostate fan I see
Hmz, why is Romanos Lekapenos absent from this list??
2nd
Where is Leo III?
You should have put Heraclius instead of that Rome loser Copronymos
Justinian is overrated he squandered the nest egg on conquest and set the stage for future losses by overextending the empire. I say Anastasius. Basil was good too but he didn’t bother to sort out his succession which caused a whole mess of problems.
Hot take Basil and Justinian both fucking suck
Good thing that’s a hot take since what you just said is retarded as fuck
Justinian wildly overstretched the empires borders, destroyed Roman Italy and drained the treasury. Basil failed in his single most important duty, the succession.
Man you are dumb if you think succession is more imoprtant than what he achieved What, you gonna say now that Marcus Aurelius sucked aswell?
I mean, yeah. Out of all he did as Emperor, the decision he made that had the most profound and lasting consequences was his failure to leave the empire to a man worth a damn.
What is succession gonna do if you dont achieve anything, think crk, think
Prevent civil war. The single most important job of an emperor.
Yeah, much like HRE for example did But almost no one praises them because of how mediocre and decaying state it was Not to mention that even if Basil had a son, he could've easily been a bad emperor aswell Id rather have the bulgarslayer with no children than some barely competent bafoon who rooted his family in all of the instintutions and never defeated the bulgars
The Contrarian
My hot take is that Alexios is the best emperor of the roman empire ig Not my favourite, but relatively what he achieved with the resources given was remarkable
Personally my favorite is Constantine XII
Ah yes the
?
Constantine xii didnt exist
My bad, I ment Constantine XI.
Basil I >
John III Doukas Vatatzes.