Best Byzantine Emperor?

Best Byzantine Emperor

  • Justinian I

    Votes: 19 29.2%
  • Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer

    Votes: 20 30.8%
  • Heraklios

    Votes: 9 13.8%
  • Alexios I Kommenos

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • Michael VIII Palaiologos

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Manuel I Kommenos

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John II Kommenos

    Votes: 3 4.6%
  • Basil I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John I Tzimiskes

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Leo VI the Wise

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other? Specify.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • John III Vatatzes

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Nikephoros II Phokas

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anastasius I Dicorus

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Leo III

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Arcadius and onward, per the rules of my last poll. Latin Emperors, Muscovites, and any other non-Greco-Roman pretenders are not allowed. :)
 
I always had a soft spot for Heraclius. He gave his life and sanity to save the Empire from destruction against all odds, living to see all his work and sacrifice undone.

Not to mention that his reign had some of the most epic quotes in medieval Roman history.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I put other, and specify Anastasius Dicorus. No petty squabbling, no putting family ahead of the empire, left the treasury full so that that heinous incompetent Justinian could empty it in useless wars. The worst that can be said of him is that he drank the religious kool-aid that makes Byzantine history so much more interesting.
 
The best would have been John 1 tzimiskes if he had survived longer. He was a very competent general and was on the path to make byzantium reach its earlier greatness
 
I've always had a soft spot for Justinian. Even though his reconquest attempts were only partially successful (although that was largely due to the plague, which he can't reasonably be blamed for), you've got to admire his sheer determination to restore the Empire to its former glory. Plus, without the strategic depth Africa and the west gave, it's not clear that the Byzantines would have been able to successfully counterattack during the seventh-century Persian War.

Heraclius, on the other hand, I feel is overrated. For all that Phocas gets maligned in the sources, the big losses in the war against Persia (viz. Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor) all came during Heraclius' reign. Sure he managed to pull the Empire back from the brink of destruction, but he was the one who'd brought it to the brink of destruction in the first place.
 
Heraclius, on the other hand, I feel is overrated. For all that Phocas gets maligned in the sources, the big losses in the war against Persia (viz. Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor) all came during Heraclius' reign. Sure he managed to pull the Empire back from the brink of destruction, but he was the one who'd brought it to the brink of destruction in the first place.
I feel this is a bit harsh. Heraclius may have lost Egypt and Syria to the Persians, but this loss was only a temporary setback. Heraclius spent the time during which these losses happened rather wisely and managed to prepare the Empire for a counter attack, which after a few delays performed brilliantly. Heraclius wasn't the catalyst for the war, Phocas was and I don't think Phocas, or anyone else for that matter would have done even half as good as Heraclius when it came to repelling the Persians.

His victory may have been short lived due to the Arabs, but like the plague for Justinian, I don't think it's fair to blame him for not predicting something so sudden and unexpected.
 
I put Emperors commonly seen as really good. Many people like that he expelled the Latins. He is not one of my favorites, and for this I am going to have to with Basil II, with Alexios a close 2nd.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Justinian I. Because while his western reconquests didn't all manage last, he was so much more than just that one factor. He did wonders for Eastern Roman culture. His reign was an age of splendour. Only weeks after the Nika Revolt had caused the fire that burned down the second Hagia Sophia, Justinian decided to build a third basilica, which was even greater and more glorious than the first and second Hagia Sophia had been. It remains the epitome and the very emblem of Byzantine architecture; it's symbolic for what Justinian did for Eastern Roman culture as a whole. And besides this... he also oversaw the uniformisation and codification of Roman law in the Corpus Juris Civilis... which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. How's that for a legacy?

So, really, there's no doubt about that. Justinian was the best, no questions asked.


But he's not my favourite. That honour goes, in purely subjective fashion, to Constantine XI Palaiologos. The last Byzantine ruler; the "Marble Emperor" who will - the legend says - one day re-awaken and recover the Empire and Constantinople from the Turks. That kind of myth just speaks to me. Furthermore, Constantine personally led the defence of the city, actively fighting alongside his troops. While there are no known surviving eyewitnesses to his death, Michael Critobulus (writing in Mehmed's service) later describes that upon finding the city was lost and yet he survived, Constantine tore off his imperial ornaments so as to let nothing distinguish him from any other soldier... and led his remaining soldiers into a last charge. The fact that no positively identified body was ever found just adds to the mythology.

Constantine XI cannot be said to have been the best Byzantine emperor by any stretch of the imagination, but he'll always be the one I like best.
 
I don't like Justinian, because his western conquests were a waste of men and money (IMHO). However, he was pretty clever and if he had used his ressources to improve the situation in the east, he would have secured Egypt, Palaestine, Syria and Mesopotamia for Byzantium.

This makes him the best potential Byzantine emperor, and that's why I voted for him.
 

Red Orm

Banned
While there are no known surviving eyewitnesses to his death, Michael Critobulus (writing in Mehmed's service) later describes that upon finding the city was lost and yet he survived, Constantine tore off his imperial ornaments so as to let nothing distinguish him from any other soldier... and led his remaining soldiers into a last charge. The fact that no positively identified body was ever found just adds to the mythology.

I don't know, I've heard that he could also have been tearing off his vestments and armor in order to escape as a civilian.
 
There seem to be a couple of rather important names missing from the list:
1. Leo III for the successful defense of Constantinople in the Second Arab siege. No "Byzantine" Empire without that at all-just an East Roman state that was rapidly hellenizing before vanishing. I mean if Leo VI makes the list (how? what the heck did he do aside from a codification of laws....), the founder of the one dynasty that could go on the offensive against an intact Caliphate definitely should be in it, iconoclasm or otherwise.
2. John III Vatazes of Nicaea -far better than Michael VIII or Manuel I any time of the week. Of course not having Constantinople perhaps makes him not quite "Byzantine".
3. Nikepheros Phokas probably deserves a spot to complete the trinity of tenth century soldier Emperors.

Justinian is horribly overrated-yeah, sure: the strategic depth from having Africa and bits of Italy helped in the war against the Persians-but he neglected the Balkan frontier dangerously, paving the way to the fall that would not be reversed till Basil II. Otherwise all the strategic depth the Empire needed could have come from there. In fact Justinian did not care much for the two frontiers actually important for an Empire out of Constantinople-the Persian frontier and the Balkans (this one catastrophically) out of his desire to restore the Empire of old. An alliance with Hepthalites or Turks against the Persians would have yielded far more dividends than trying to cling onto Northern Italy.
The worst part is that there was so much potential-the full treasury left behind by Anastasios (I agree with Red Orm-one of the very best Emperors out there), and the chaos in the western frontier. He would have easily been the greatest had he stopped with Africa and Sicily+Magna Grecia. Yet he overextended-and the Empire paid the price. Coming to internal affairs, he bankrupted the Empire on his building projects and wars, along with hardening the divisions between the Miaphysites and Chalcedonians instead of trying to heal the divide. Perhaps he had forgotten where the core base of the Empire was in his Italian adventures, but that does not excuse that madness in the early part of his reign. The plague was not his fault-but the response was: seriously, what was the point of clinging on to Spain and the Ravenna-Rome corridor after that?

Justinian is loved in culture and AH.com because of his biggest flaw: he was obsessed with an unsustainable Latin past of the Empire and could not truly see the optimal future direction (a Greek East with Africa being the major Latin part, with some religious compromise instead of uncompromising Chalcedonianism). A fool with the best intentions perhaps, but a fool nonetheless. Rise of White Huns gives a case where the Romans don't do so hot in a case without Justinian, but that is IHMO an outlier. The Roman Empire would have done way better in 99% of the worlds without Peter Sabbatius making to the throne. Of course, the last Latin Emperor always gets a lot of love (whether a child packed off to Ravenna or a fool like Peter) because of cultural reasons, so the popularity should not surprise.

Coming to my actual vote, it is John I Tzimiskes. I may have wanked Basil II in my TL (and I like the guy a lot), but John built the base that Basil needed in order to even have time to learn, and succeed. A longer living John I could have actually led to a Levantine Reconquista, a POD I don't think is explored enough-with all the Justinian muck.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
I don't know, I've heard that he could also have been tearing off his vestments and armor in order to escape as a civilian.

When even the history commissioned by the enemy who defeated you doesn't make that claim, and instead states outright that you went down fighting... I'm inclined to just believe that. (There's also the fact that spending the whole battle fighting right besides your men, with the explicitly stated goal of either winning or perishing, even after having been offered the option of surrendering the city and being allowed to keep a small fief for yourself... doesn't really seem like the kind of thing a coward would do. Acting like that, only to then flee at the very end? Nah, I do't buy it.)

[Disclaimer: I am 100% guaranteed to always favour the more romantic view over the more cynical one.]
 
Justinian had his flaws, but I still vote for him. The attempts to retake the west were reasonable in context, even if they didn't prove as enduring as they could have been.
 
I feel this is a bit harsh. Heraclius may have lost Egypt and Syria to the Persians, but this loss was only a temporary setback. Heraclius spent the time during which these losses happened rather wisely and managed to prepare the Empire for a counter attack, which after a few delays performed brilliantly. Heraclius wasn't the catalyst for the war, Phocas was and I don't think Phocas, or anyone else for that matter would have done even half as good as Heraclius when it came to repelling the Persians.

Sure he needed to prepare for a counter-attack, but nine years seems a bit long, especially when the enemy are invading your most productive provinces and thereby making your counter-attack more difficult. Waiting so long was a massive gamble, a gamble which paid off, but still a gamble. Had Heraclius done everything up to 622 the same and ended up failing in his counter-attack, I've no doubt people would be blaming his sitting back and doing nothing whilst the Persians occupied the eastern provinces.

The plague was not his fault-but the response was: seriously, what was the point of clinging on to Spain and the Ravenna-Rome corridor after that?

The Ravenna-Rome corridor is the fault of Justin II. The Lombards didn't move into Italy until after Justinian's death.
 
The Ravenna-Rome corridor is the fault of Justin II. The Lombards didn't move into Italy until after Justinian's death.

Ah, you are right-sorry got my dates mixed up. OK, I can't blame Peter for this one thing, but I will still stick by the claim that the Spanish attempt was a disaster.
 
Sure he needed to prepare for a counter-attack, but nine years seems a bit long, especially when the enemy are invading your most productive provinces and thereby making your counter-attack more difficult. Waiting so long was a massive gamble, a gamble which paid off, but still a gamble. Had Heraclius done everything up to 622 the same and ended up failing in his counter-attack, I've no doubt people would be blaming his sitting back and doing nothing whilst the Persians occupied the eastern provinces.
Yeah I mean sure, that's a valid point. He also didn't spend the 9 years waiting, Heraclius did make some attempts to stop the Persians from invading Syria and failed. Although I can't put too much blame on the short loss of Egypt as many Copts simply let the Persians in due to dissatisfaction with Constantinople's religious policies. So he clearly made some mistakes and bad choices, like every Emperor, however his execution and importance are what matters, and by those factors Heraclius did the best anyone could in such a terrible situation overall. Infact I'd almost go so far as to say that if it was anyone else but Heraclius, the Persians would have won that war and the Romans would become a Sassanid puppet/tributary before being destroyed or weakened by the Arabs.
 
Last edited:

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I don't really think we can look at ERE history and point to one Emperor who was the best overall, it's just too long and too diverse of circumstances.

Here's my list:

330/395-610: Anastasius I. He laid the foundation for Justinian's ambitions. Justinian himself is a mixed bag of nuts, he had his great moments, his terrible moments, and his unfortunate moments.
610-780: Heraklios. He poured his heart and soul into saving the Empire and he did it... once. But, like Harold Godwinson after him, couldn't pull it off a second time.
780-1025: Easily Basil II. The most ambitious Emperor since Justinian, enough said.
1025-1185: Alexios I. The Empire upon his ascension was on course to destruction and by the end of his reign was on course towards it's post-Manzikert height.
1185-1261: Every Angeloi Emperor- just joking! Theodore I Laskaris. His actions allowed the Empire to continue on in exile. Course the bar was set pretty low by the Angeloi...
1261-1453: Andronikos III. Perhaps not the best potential Emperor, but he was the best with the available resources to take advantage of.
 
Top