Favorite Byzantine Emperor

Who is your favorite Byzantine Emperor?

  • Constantine the Great

    Votes: 11 8.0%
  • Justinian

    Votes: 30 21.9%
  • Heraclius

    Votes: 23 16.8%
  • Basil II

    Votes: 41 29.9%
  • Alexios I Komnenos

    Votes: 14 10.2%
  • Alexius III Angelus

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 17 12.4%

  • Total voters
    137
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the poll, I voted for Constantine I, because he conquered the Roman empire in it's entirety (a feat that he was the last to achieve), instigated reforms, campaigned successfully, left three male heirs (two competent and one who sucked, but Crispus would've been best IMO), and left the greatest lasting impression of any emperor on the world in the form of Christendom and Constantinople. That said, he had what I assume was a killer temper and a tendancy to act somewhat rashly, so I would not want to spend any extended period of time with him for fear of being killed:eek:.

I might have to choose Constantine XI as my favorite though, since he repeatedly refused to back down, despite being given an out that would have been an Angelus' wet dream. He ultimately knew that he would die if he fought to defend Constantinople, and fought anyways. He also seemed like a competent and likeable fellow, just given next to no chance of success by fate (and Andronicus II, my personal least favorite after the obvious Alexius III). For a man to willingly die for his country takes courage, so I can't help but respect and admire him.

Also, since he's come up allot, I thuroughly dislike Julian. He sounds like a whiney narcissist prick to me. He constantly compared himself to Constantine I, and would wonder why the people didn't like him if he was just like Constantine only better, even though he had given them no reason to like him, just like he has given me none. His only value IMO is as a cautionairy tale about vanity, and an example of idealism without competence.
 
Also, since he's come up allot, I thuroughly dislike Julian. He sounds like a whiney narcissist prick to me. He constantly compared himself to Constantine I, and would wonder why the people didn't like him if he was just like Constantine only better, even though he had given them no reason to like him, just like he has given me none. His only value IMO is as a cautionairy tale about vanity, and an example of idealism without competence.

The thing about Justinian that makes people like him was that he was the last old style Roman Emperor. Course I voted for our friend the Bulgar Slayer but there are apeals to Justinian.
 
In the poll, I voted for Constantine I, because he conquered the Roman empire in it's entirety (a feat that he was the last to achieve), instigated reforms, campaigned successfully, left three male heirs (two competent and one who sucked, but Crispus would've been best IMO), and left the greatest lasting impression of any emperor on the world in the form of Christendom and Constantinople.

Yeah probably the most, though his flip flopping on Arius was redonkulous.
 
For admiration, it has to be Basil II. A deeply grim character, but one whose sheer force of personality allowed the total centring of the then-most powerful state on Earth around himself.

As for who'd have been the best company, I'd wager it might have been one of the Emperors that are traditionally panned by critics- Constantine VII and Constantine IX, in particular, seems to have been cheerfully pleasant fellows. Manuel Komnenos, too, is an attractive character.

I'm going to pre-emptively disagree with my friend Elfwine here, who I'm certain will pick John Komnenos. John was a good commander, yes, but in terms of personal company, he seems to have been a complete and utter bore. :p

Just for sheer badassery, Basil II. I agree with Constantine VII being good company, however. Seemed to be a bright, if ineffectual, fellow.
 
Ditto Henry of Flanders. He was really something. If it'd been him and not Baldwin who was the elder brother and took the throne in 1204, who knows how much longer the Frankokratia could've lasted. Henry was a good general, sympathetic to his Greek and Orthodox subjects, and knew when to be merciful. He worked miracles with an army that never comprised more than about 2-3,000 men.

Basil I is my favorite "naughty" emperor. The guy had style! Coming to Constantinople to make it in the big city, Midnight Cowboy style, and end up master of one of the most powerful empires on earth. Hat's off to you, Basil. But only my hat.

Justinian II is such an over-the-top character that I nominated him for Badass of the Week a couple of years ago: http://badassoftheweek.com/justinian.html
 
Constantine VII's effectiveness is underrated, but I cannot think of anything Constantine VIII, IX, or X did that was good for the state - okay, the university of law in the capital for Constantine X.

But I'll put it this way, because recent scholarship seems to like those guys (as BG will point out if he didn't):

Basil, who fought wars from the beginning of his reign to the end, left a considerable surplus in the treasury, without difficulty - barring the whole war on the aristocracy, which should have been a drain rather than a gain..

By Isaac I, despite the empire spending less time at war, which should mean lower expenses (all things being even), that surplus is gone and then some.

Enough said.

I refuse to count Latins as Byzantine Emperors, but I second the praise on Henry. I don't know if he could have made a working polity of from that mess, but if anyone could, my money's on him.

And Justinian II is just . . . on that fine line between genius and lunatic. Too bad for him that he lost it entirely at some point after losing his nose.
 
Julian, because he almost fixed the Empire before it really got going. I wish he had ruled 20 years and appointed a successor.

Romanos IV Diogenes because he wrecked it. Well, Alp Arslan had something to do with it but he was on top at the time.

Constantine the XI because he was last and he did the best he could in an impossible situation.

I, unlike a lot of people here don't really like the Byzantine Empire. The main good thing it did was retard the spread of Islam, but basically it was a despotic empire that had a much weaker intellectual tradition than the classical world. It was basically proto fascist and you see its influence on Orthodox countries which either have a negative influence on the world or non importance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top