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.
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.
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.![]()