Some of the people on the list are excellent commanders, even military geniuses. Basil II was not a military genius; he was defeated a number of times early on, and humiliated at the Gates of Trajan. But he learned and improved, and most importantly he was not just a soldier-emperor; he administered the empire well and not only avoided bankrupting it with military expenditures but vastly increased its resources. He wisely looked after conquered territories, allowing the Bulgarians to pay their taxes in kind, a policy which was foolishly reversed by his later successors to disastrous results. If you want the best tactician to wear the purple, it's not Basil - try John Tzimiskes, perhaps - but military acumen isn't the whole ballgame.
There are two claimed faults with Basil II:
1. He left no heirs; and
2. He arguably shifted the empire's policy of defense towards the central field army at the expense of the thematic armies
The first issue, while glaring, would have been totally moot if his brother had produced sons - as I mentioned in another thread, had Theodora Porphyrogenita been born a man the empire would have been in an excellent position going forward. The second is, to me, not all that relevant: the Byzantine collapse in the late 11th century was IMO less because of any specific military organizational principle than the collapse of legitimacy following the demise of the Macedonians which allowed the throne to bounce from one family to another and led to interminable civil war. Basil's emphasis on the central army was a predictable result of the revolts against him early in his life (both of which were led by Anatolian generals leading provincial forces) and would not have been a serious deficiency had the empire not already been in crisis before Manzikert.
There are two claimed faults with Basil II:
1. He left no heirs; and
2. He arguably shifted the empire's policy of defense towards the central field army at the expense of the thematic armies
The first issue, while glaring, would have been totally moot if his brother had produced sons - as I mentioned in another thread, had Theodora Porphyrogenita been born a man the empire would have been in an excellent position going forward. The second is, to me, not all that relevant: the Byzantine collapse in the late 11th century was IMO less because of any specific military organizational principle than the collapse of legitimacy following the demise of the Macedonians which allowed the throne to bounce from one family to another and led to interminable civil war. Basil's emphasis on the central army was a predictable result of the revolts against him early in his life (both of which were led by Anatolian generals leading provincial forces) and would not have been a serious deficiency had the empire not already been in crisis before Manzikert.