When was the Byzantine Empire at its peak?

The Byzantine Empire existed from the fifth century AD all the way to 1453. But when was the empire at its peak? This can include territory, artistic and cultural achievement, and wealth. If you had to pick a year, what date would you choose?
 
A thousand years is too big a timeframe to answer that question. I'd say something like this:

Early Empire (330-650s): c. 600, with Emperor Maurice's reign

Middle Empire (700s-1204): c. 1025, with Basil II and the Macedonian dynasty

Late Empire (1204-1453): c. 1258, with Theodore II and the Laskarid dynasty

Basil II is often considered the height of the empire, but really it's not comparable to Maurice's empire at all.
 
The Byzantine Empire was at its peak for as long as its borders included Mt Elbrus, the highest mountain in the Caucasus Mountains (and indeed all of Europe).
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Maybe, but considering that the empire endured a massive plague, brutal crackdowns, and an extremely costly war in Italy that had almost no chance of success, I wouldn't say it was exactly a second Pax Romana.
All true I was just speaking in the territorial sense.
 
What is the latest possible "golden age" for Byzantium?

Well, I might be biased as I'm writing exactly this scenario, but considering the cultural renaissance in the Morea and the Palaiologos Renaissance hypothesis, then a failed conquest of Constantinople in 1453 (which isn't entirely unlikely according to accounts on both sides of the walls) could lead to such a Golden Age. The sheer prestige, combined with the likely civil war between the different factions of Ottoman Viziers/Pashas and dethroning the now failed Murad (Who was NOT popular pre-conquest) leaves a window for the Romans, ranging from seizing the Bosporan forts if abandoned, and using the interlude to repeat the conquests of Athens and Thebes by Constantine in his rule as Despot of the Morea. Effectively being able to control the Bosporus, housing many of the very texts that the Renaissance was inspired by, combined with adopting Ottoman military techniques (i.e. gunpowder weapons for example), is enough of a melting pot that even if it isn't a great restoration, considering the starting point would certainly be a Golden Age for the Romans, especially culturally with philosophers like Pleithon, and integrating the cultural developments of the Ottomans if Europe can be regained. (It isn't an EASY/LIKELY possibility, but it isn't impossible or implausible when looking at the actions of Constantine at the time, who certainly seems like a big old gambler compared to others, exactly the sort of ruler the Romans need at this point.)
 
Well, I might be biased as I'm writing exactly this scenario, but considering the cultural renaissance in the Morea and the Palaiologos Renaissance hypothesis, then a failed conquest of Constantinople in 1453 (which isn't entirely unlikely according to accounts on both sides of the walls) could lead to such a Golden Age. The sheer prestige, combined with the likely civil war between the different factions of Ottoman Viziers/Pashas and dethroning the now failed Murad (Who was NOT popular pre-conquest) leaves a window for the Romans, ranging from seizing the Bosporan forts if abandoned, and using the interlude to repeat the conquests of Athens and Thebes by Constantine in his rule as Despot of the Morea. Effectively being able to control the Bosporus, housing many of the very texts that the Renaissance was inspired by, combined with adopting Ottoman military techniques (i.e. gunpowder weapons for example), is enough of a melting pot that even if it isn't a great restoration, considering the starting point would certainly be a Golden Age for the Romans, especially culturally with philosophers like Pleithon, and integrating the cultural developments of the Ottomans if Europe can be regained. (It isn't an EASY/LIKELY possibility, but it isn't impossible or implausible when looking at the actions of Constantine at the time, who certainly seems like a big old gambler compared to others, exactly the sort of ruler the Romans need at this point.)

I think you mean Mehmet, not Murad? Mehmet was Sultan in 1453...

That aside, I love this as a brave and possibly over-optimistic, but interesting scenario for a late Byzantine resurgence.

1. Do the ideas of the philosopher Plethon get implemented? He had a pretty revolutionary program which might have revitalised the whole society had it been adopted.

2. How will the Byzantines get money to build a fleet/control the Bosporus?

3. Even with a total Ottoman implosion, by 1453 they already controlled most of the Balkans and Anatolia. Even if this fragments into tens of small beylik states, The Turks are still in control. How will they be dislodged?

4. How big will this restored Byzantium get? Will it achieve the frontiers of Andronikos III? Or are we going all out divine intervention and restoring the empire to its Komnenian frontiers?

I'm looking forward to see where this goes!
 
I think you mean Mehmet, not Murad? Mehmet was Sultan in 1453...

That aside, I love this as a brave and possibly over-optimistic, but interesting scenario for a late Byzantine resurgence.

1. Do the ideas of the philosopher Plethon get implemented? He had a pretty revolutionary program which might have revitalised the whole society had it been adopted.

2. How will the Byzantines get money to build a fleet/control the Bosporus?

3. Even with a total Ottoman implosion, by 1453 they already controlled most of the Balkans and Anatolia. Even if this fragments into tens of small beylik states, The Turks are still in control. How will they be dislodged?

4. How big will this restored Byzantium get? Will it achieve the frontiers of Andronikos III? Or are we going all out divine intervention and restoring the empire to its Komnenian frontiers?

I'm looking forward to see where this goes!


Sorry, you're right. How did I mix that up? *embarrassed*

Well, for my timeline, I'm going to keep schtum on too many details,

1) I don't see his economic program being installed (I'm actually taking it the opposite direction).
2) Thats quite easy - fundamentally Mehmet has done this for the Romans. Ignoring the small Roman fleet, and the potential capture of the Ottoman fleet if 1453 goes awry, the key is controlling the forts that Mehmet and his father built to allow them to shoot any passing ships. There are two within visual distance of Constantinople, and the others are at the Dardanelles. Whilst the Bosporan forts allow control over the entry/exit of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles would control access to the Sea of Marmara. Even just the Bosporan forts give the Romans a major revenue stream, the exact stream that was lost with the Ottoman rise to power.
3) I wouldn't leave it just to the Romans to do that IMO - Serbians, rebellious Bulgarians, Hungarians et would all be interested in taking a piece, all whilst they're fighting each other. Meanwhile the Romans have just fought alongside and have as an ally the only legitimate Osman heir, there are number of factors that would benefit them, most of all having the safest place in the chaos - Constantinople.
4) I plead the 5th! In terms of plausibility, I think within a lifetime you'd at best see Greece restored and control over the Sea of Marmara (which could potentially include a capture of Bursa, at a push), but it depends on how Europe and Anatolia settle (or if they do for that matter).
 
I think if we're talking economics and overall prosperity then the golden age of the Empire would for sure be during the late reign of Anastasius and Justin I. Anastasius ruled a vast Eastern Mediterranean Empire with a gigantic population, he also ended his reign with a full treasury. His successor Justin did not take part in any massive, expensive military conflicts and as such the prosperity Anastasius left behind stayed.
However this golden age ended with Justinian. The Nika Riots were already a bad start, but Justinian emptied Anastasius' treasury with his expensive, costly and ultimately pointless wars. Then on top of all of this the plague hit, destroying the Empire's population and economy.

The Empire of Basil II and the immediate aftermath deserves to be an honorable mention too though. In 1025 Byzantine art/culture was the model for much of Europe, it's economy was the strongest on the continent and it had a centralized governmental apparatus that was only matched by China.
 
Last edited:
Nobody going to go with 1143? John II Komnenos was a powerful emperor. He may have been one of the best.
The Byzantines were plagued with many problems by that point, the tenuous control over Central Anatolia threatened the empire, the now virtually permanent loss of Italy made the empire limited to holding the Balkans and Anatolia, neither of which was particularly secure as we saw IOTL 40 years later.
 
The Byzantines were plagued with many problems by that point, the tenuous control over Central Anatolia threatened the empire, the now virtually permanent loss of Italy made the empire limited to holding the Balkans and Anatolia, neither of which was particularly secure as we saw IOTL 40 years later.

Sure, but in John's day the empire's prestige was high. The Turks were divided between Danishmend and Seljuk. John won a lot siege battles in Anatolia, although he didn't put enough resources into holding them once taken. But the sheer scale of his vast expeditions to Cilicia and Syria showed that he had the manpower and money available.

His policy seems to have been mainly about showing dominance rather than extensive conquest, perhaps because he didn't feel the expense justified. He was known to be frugal and careful in his personal expenditure, although he was generous in his charitable endowments to the poor.

He tended not to fight major pitched battles (although he did win a crushing victory over the Pechenegs in Europe this way), carefully taking strongolds instead one at a time. John II was known for his just and pious reign. He was an exceptional ruler of his era, renowned for his success in battle (he never lost a battle) as well as his chivalry and honourable reputation.

He was one of the best Byzantine emperors, and I feel if he had put a bit more into Anatolia and a bit less into Syria (as well as not dying prematurely in a hunting accident), he might well be remembered as the best Byzantine emperor of them all.

There is a mosaic of him in the upper gallery of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, which can still be seen today. The bag of money he is holding is a charitable donation he gave to the church.

Jean_II_Comnene.jpg
 
Top