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.He left the WRE to die.
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.He left the WRE to die.
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.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.
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."
Frankly,Maurice got what was coming for him.The army repeatedly warned that they are not gonna camp across the Danube in winter.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...)
Boys, let's go camp in the snow so we can hold off these invaders =/= grounds for murder.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!
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.
I wouldn't exactly call the man who lost Sicily to transport some marble for a church one of the greatest Byzantine emperors.
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."