The Worst Byzantine Emperor

Who is the worst Byzantine Emperor?

  • Phocas

    Votes: 37 45.7%
  • Andronikos I

    Votes: 18 22.2%
  • Alexios IV

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • Romanos IV Diogones

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Michael VII

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • Leo III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Arcadius

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 14.8%

  • Total voters
    81
Status
Not open for further replies.
As did Honorius, the East was Arcadius' resonsibility and for his credit the East did far better under him than the West under his brother.
The East was never in any significant danger.The West on the other hand was a different story.Theodosius has completely gutted the Western army.The East was also much wealthier and populated than the West.The fact that the East did better wasn’t due to Arcadius.

And to correct you,the West did send him when the East was in danger.During the 390s,the Western army under Stilicho was sent to aid the East in the Balkans against Alaric.Just when they were about to finish him off,Arcadius ordered Stilicho to leave the Eastern Empire and withdrew the Eastern army.The Eastern army was so pissed that they lynched Arcadius’ minister.
 
Last edited:
Phocas was a competent ruler, it was the usurper Heraclius who ruined Roman control over Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.

In other words, Heraclius is my vote under "Other."

I think you're doing Phocas too much credit and Heraclius too little, although I tend to agree that most people over-rate Heraclius (and under-rate Phocas as a consequence). Sure, Phocas wasn't a particularly good ruler, but the war against Persia didn't go seriously tits-up until Heraclius' rebellion and accession. Then he did practically nothing for twelve years to reverse the course of the war. So yes, whilst Heraclius did well in pulling the Empire back from the brink, he was also responsible for pushing it to the brink in the first place.

Anyway, for worst Emperor I put Michael VII, since it was his inability to deal with the Turks, or even to make a proper peace with them, that turned Manzikert from a defeat to an Empire-shattering catastrophe.
 
Thus begins a lengthy rant.

I always viewed the title of Worst Byzantine Emperor as a three-way tie between Constantine X (The Weak) Isaac Angelos (The Lazy) and Michael VII (The Moron). Constantine, while a learned aristocrat, was also complete buffoon, with little understanding of how to run an army (just look at what happened to the Armenian Themes during his reign). His son Michael "Hatbox" Doukas almost single-handedly ruined the Empire (with a little help from fellow nincompoop Michael Psellos). Isaac Angelos seems adequate by comparison, although I can't imagine that he ever left the Imperial Palace.

On the topic of Phocas, I actually view him as a hapless (and almost sympathetic character) but the offing of Maurice, a decent fellow and superb Emperor, was a sour misdeed. Byzantium would be in a different place if Maurice had survived that cold November night.

(I'll be getting my coat now...)
 
Thus begins a lengthy rant.

I always viewed the title of Worst Byzantine Emperor as a three-way tie between Constantine X (The Weak) Isaac Angelos (The Lazy) and Michael VII (The Moron). Constantine, while a learned aristocrat, was also complete buffoon, with little understanding of how to run an army (just look at what happened to the Armenian Themes during his reign). His son Michael "Hatbox" Doukas almost single-handedly ruined the Empire (with a little help from fellow nincompoop Michael Psellos). Isaac Angelos seems adequate by comparison, although I can't imagine that he ever left the Imperial Palace.

On the topic of Phocas, I actually view him as a hapless (and almost sympathetic character) but the offing of Maurice, a decent fellow and superb Emperor, was a sour misdeed. Byzantium would be in a different place if Maurice had survived that cold November night.

(I'll be getting my coat now...)
Frankly,Maurice got what was coming for him.The army repeatedly warned that they are not gonna camp across the Danube in winter.
 
Boys, let's go camp in the snow so we can hold off these invaders =/= grounds for murder.

To be fair, two of Byzantium's greatest Emperors, John Tzimiskes and Basil I, both gained power through strategically murdering their predecessors, with little or no justification. Still doesn't make it right, of course!
 
To be fair, two of Byzantium's greatest Emperors, John Tzimiskes and Basil I, both gained power through strategically murdering their predecessors, with little or no justification. Still doesn't make it right, of course!

I wouldn't exactly call the man who lost Sicily to transport some marble for a church one of the greatest Byzantine emperors.

I don't have a single choice for worst Byzantine Emperor, but there are quite a few whom I have no sympathy for:

* Justin II - for the way he got the throne, not the circumstances which he inherited from Justinian.
* Leontius
* Phillipicus Bardanes
* Eirene of Athens
* Alexander II (son of Basil I. I personally don't count Domitius Alexander as a legitimate emperor)
* Constantine VIII, Zoe & Theodora
* Constantine IX Monomachos
* Constantine X & Michael VII
* Nikephoros III Botaneiates
* Isaac II, Alexios III and Alexios IV Angelos
* Michael VIII, Andronikos II, & John V Palaiologos
* John VI Kantakouzenos
 
I think you're doing Phocas too much credit and Heraclius too little, although I tend to agree that most people over-rate Heraclius (and under-rate Phocas as a consequence). Sure, Phocas wasn't a particularly good ruler, but the war against Persia didn't go seriously tits-up until Heraclius' rebellion and accession. Then he did practically nothing for twelve years to reverse the course of the war. So yes, whilst Heraclius did well in pulling the Empire back from the brink, he was also responsible for pushing it to the brink in the first place.

Anyway, for worst Emperor I put Michael VII, since it was his inability to deal with the Turks, or even to make a proper peace with them, that turned Manzikert from a defeat to an Empire-shattering catastrophe.

In fairness to Heraclius, he was actively trying to stop the Persians (without much success) throughout the 610s and basically had to rebuild a functional Roman army. He was also effective enough to stop his and Phocas's coups becoming trend setters, which would definitely have doomed the empire. Phocas's far greater sin than losing a few border fortresses (although that was a big reason why the Persians were able to advance so rapidly into the Roman east) was his failure to defend the Balkans effectively, which made the crisis of the latter 7th century much worse. At the end of the day, both men were pretty reactive emperors and were having to cope with mismanagement running back to Justinian's reign.

I'm going to make a very controversial suggestion - Basil II. While he did conquer Bulgaria, it was a massively bloody struggle and his predecessors had conquered much more extensively and at a lesser cost. Furthermore, his failure to produce a suitable heir or even plan for the succession in any way basically meant that the empire's golden days were over the moment he died. Other than that, then I'd probably say that Justinian II and Romanos IV are pretty good choices as is Manuel I for not focusing on digging the Turks out of Anatolia.

teg
 
I wouldn't exactly call the man who lost Sicily to transport some marble for a church one of the greatest Byzantine emperors.

I get your point, but I don't see Basil as being any less competent than Alexios I or Nikephoros II. And Sicily was pretty much lost to Byzantium by the 860's. He wasn't without his flaws, of course (that may seem a bit of an understatement) but he set in motion great things.
 
Last edited:
I can't let Justinian be hit unfairly. He always sought inexpensive conquest, it was the plague and the ambitious quarreling of his generals including the sometimes loose-tongued Belisarus that screwed up his reconquest of Italy. It should be noted he frequently offered to accept partial conquest but was pressed by the generals to let them continue. His attempt to use the marriage of Gothic Queen heir Matasuntha and his nephew Germanus to win over the Goths was a wise move that nearly succeeded.
 
Phocas was a competent ruler, it was the usurper Heraclius who ruined Roman control over Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.

In other words, Heraclius is my vote under "Other."

Can't agree. Phocas created the chaos that Heraclius righted. It's not Her's fault that the Byzantine army had to be rebuilt over a decade before the reconquest could begin. It was a pity he wasn't healthier and younger in 636 to meet the new challenge of the Arabs. I suspect he would have won at the Yarmuk in his prime.

I say Phocas, followed by Issac Angelus and Andronicus II.

Best. Alexis I, Anastasius I/Romanus I tie, Justinian I, John II

Runners up or Died too soon John I, Maurice I
 
The problem with Phokas was not that he was particularily uncompetent, not in the level it's sometimes put at least, but that he overthrew one of the most competent emperors of the era : Maurice had to deal with the half-butchered Justinian expansionism and rely on a fiscal pressure to make it viable.The resentment of the population and the (overblown, for good and bad reasons alike) army was real. Phokas was simply not fit for the challenges Maurice partially managed, and that Heraclius didn't much more dealt with on the long term.
Phokas was just the herald of a pissed army, which is always a shaky base for a rule, and even if he was more skilled than he was IOTL, he wouldn't have much choice than biting the hand that feed him.

I would tend to think that Justinian II, for his unability to understand what political balance does means, would deserve a mention on this list : he's a living proof that being skilled and hard-working doesn't mean much if you lack political sense and leadership (and, no, repressing the heck out of everything is not leadership).. Eventually it mostly owed Byzzies a round of military anarchy.
Giving we're talking of a strong state and institutions, I think the personal skill of the ruler are relatively less important than how he does manage to pull them within the state.

Personally, I would go for Andronikos I: yet again, someone not having a clue what political balance does means, and abandoning Manuel's sound policies for no real political gain, except legitimizing oneself. Not necessarily worse than Phokas' reign, but it really represented a decisive step into Byzantine decline.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top