Worst Byzantine Emperor

Who was the worst Byzantine Emperor? In terms of what happened during the reign, as well as long and short term effects of it? My top choices are Michael VII and Andronicus II, mainly for disastes in Asia Minor during their reigns.
 
I can understand Andronicus II, since the loss of Asia Minor, the disastrous Catalan affair, and the start of the 14th century civil wars occurred under his watch. Michael VIII though, I don't. While it is true he neglected Asia Minor, helping to cause the disasters that occurred during his son's reign, he had a very good reason. He was having to focus all of his strength on fending off Charles of Anjou.

As for who I think was the worst, I'm going to second Phokas. All of the seventh century disasters Byzantium faced can be traced back to his reign. Although he is closely followed in my mind by Alexios III Angelos. At least Isaac II Angelos tried to be a halfway decent emperor (and failed, but it's the thought that counts). Alexios didn't even get that far.
 
I can understand Andronicus II, since the loss of Asia Minor, the disastrous Catalan affair, and the start of the 14th century civil wars occurred under his watch. Michael VIII though, I don't. While it is true he neglected Asia Minor, helping to cause the disasters that occurred during his son's reign, he had a very good reason. He was having to focus all of his strength on fending off Charles of Anjou.

As for who I think was the worst, I'm going to second Phokas. All of the seventh century disasters Byzantium faced can be traced back to his reign. Although he is closely followed in my mind by Alexios III Angelos. At least Isaac II Angelos tried to be a halfway decent emperor (and failed, but it's the thought that counts). Alexios didn't even get that far.
I meant Michael VII who was crowned right after Manzikert.
 
That one was just plain bad luck, had there not been a sudden outbreak of the plague they probably could have held onto atleast southern Italy.
No it wasn't just bad luck between his overextension and his paranoia he really didn't do the Empire any favors. But Phocas is still probably the worst by decent margin.
 
No it wasn't just bad luck between his overextension and his paranoia he really didn't do the Empire any favors. But Phocas is still probably the worst by decent margin.

The reconquest of Italy, if properly supported and not done the way it was thanks to his suspicion of Belisarius, might have been within the Empire's resources were it not for the plague, but that "might" isn't encouraging.
 

Zioneer

Banned
I would say Basiliscus was one of the worst. I mean, just look at the Wiki page for how terrible he was, pre-imperial status and during his stint as emperor!
 
While there are obvious imcompetents out there personally I hate the ones with promise who disappoint, like Manny K and Romanos Diogenes. They're like losing the Grand Final by a point in the last quarter because your star forward fucked up his kick, it's a bitter experience.
 
Justinian. What an unmitigated disaster...

How was his reign in any way a disaster? He held off the Persians, codified Roman law, advanced architecture to its next level, utterly dominated the Church, and managed to reconquer the most important parts of the West on a shoestring budget.

Not sure who was personally the worst, but certainly the most disastrous reign was that of Heraclius.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Andronikos II was probably the worst Palaiologid emperor.

Empress Anna of Savoy deserves an honorable mention for one of the worst latter-day Byzantine monarchs.
 
How was his reign in any way a disaster? He held off the Persians, codified Roman law, advanced architecture to its next level, utterly dominated the Church, and managed to reconquer the most important parts of the West on a shoestring budget.

Justinian's attempts to restore the old borders in the West were ultimately a waste of resources for little gain. Expansion in Italy, Spain and North Africa, though impressive, were mostly ephemeral. The war against the Ostrogoths in particular utterly devastated Italy and left it open to another wave of barbarian invasions (the Lombards) from which it would not recover for centuries.

The wars in the West drew military resources from the Danube and Eastern frontiers, a fatal error which directly led during the post-Justinian collapse to both the overrunning of Greece and the Balkans by the Slavs and the loss of the East to Persia, paving the way to the permanent loss of these provinces to the Arabs later. Furthermore, Justinian's wars and extravagant building projects stretched the Byzantine tax-base beyond its limits, which among other things lead to the collapse in military discipline which cost Maurice his life and gave the Persians a free reign in the east.

As to "holding off the Persians", this was only done by paying significant amounts of tribute, a temporary measure putting further strain on the treasury.

In other words, Justinian's blind ideological obsession with restoring the dead Roman Empire led directly to a territorial crisis from which the Byzantines would not recover for centuries (and I would argue never fully). The plague definitely carries a great deal of blame, but it can't vindicate the deep flaws in Justinian's character and policy.
 
Justinian's attempts to restore the old borders in the West were ultimately a waste of resources for little gain. Expansion in Italy, Spain and North Africa, though impressive, were mostly ephemeral. The war against the Ostrogoths in particular utterly devastated Italy and left it open to another wave of barbarian invasions (the Lombards) from which it would not recover for centuries.
Very few resources were wasted though, as the provinces were conquered and run on the cheap- and both Sicily and Africa would prove to be wealthy and important provinces in the future. The Italian war was so devastating because Justinian was determined not to waste resources in the peninsula. Don't dispute that it was devastating, but I do dispute the idea that it was a waste of money.

The wars in the West drew military resources from the Danube and Eastern frontiers, a fatal error which directly led during the post-Justinian collapse to both the overrunning of Greece and the Balkans by the Slavs and the loss of the East to Persia, paving the way to the permanent loss of these provinces to the Arabs later.
Resources were withdrawn from the Danube, yes, I don't think one can argue that, but the Balkan provinces of the Empire were already pretty militarised by Justinian's time and had been for a century or more before this point. In a sense, raiding by the Slavs didn't especially matter until the Avars came along later in the sixth century with technology that allowed the capture of fortified cities.

Furthermore, Justinian's wars and extravagant building projects stretched the Byzantine tax-base beyond its limits, which among other things lead to the collapse in military discipline which cost Maurice his life and gave the Persians a free reign in the east.
I think that extrapolating the costs of building projects in the 530s into the events of the early 600s is pretty dubious to say the least. If Justinian really did strip the cupboard bare, why was Tiberius II able to gain a reputation as such a profligate spender barely a decade after Justinian's death?

As to "holding off the Persians", this was only done by paying significant amounts of tribute, a temporary measure putting further strain on the treasury.
It was hardly a temporary measure, payment had always gone this way or that across the Eastern frontier. Besides the one, catastrophic breakout by the Persians that led to the sack of Antioch in 540, the Eastern front remained entirely intact for the duration of Justinian's reign, and even shifted somewhat to the Roman advantage in Lazica in the 550s.

In other words, Justinian's blind ideological obsession with restoring the dead Roman Empire led directly to a territorial crisis from which the Byzantines would not recover for centuries (and I would argue never fully). The plague definitely carries a great deal of blame, but it can't vindicate the deep flaws in Justinian's character and policy.
Justinian was a Roman Emperor behaving like a Roman Emperor, and his behaviour was entirely in line with how an Emperor should act. You might as well start talking about Elizabeth II's "blind ideological obsession" with remaining constitutionally neutral.
 
Andronikos II was in a difficult position throughout his reign; given the alternatives he had to choose from, I'm not sure that any decisions were going to work out all that much better than the choices he actually made. He wasn't a good judge of generals, esp. his son Michael who was a failure every time out.

Wouldn't argue with the nomination of Michael VII, who rejected a generous treaty with the Seljuks after Manzikert without having a counterplan.

Nikephoros III (who compounded the effects of Manzikert), Alexius III (4th crusade; Lord Norwich's pick as worst), Constantine IX (neglected the government, lucky to avoid catastrophe), Constantine X (reduced the army at a bad time), Phokas and John V were all bad too.
 
John Cantacuzene.

In his quest for power he destroyed the fabric of the Byzantine state, allowing the Serbs and then the Ottomans (probably not a bad thing, TBH, the Ottomans did end a lot of the strife in the Balkans) to take over the Balkan peninsula.
 
Basileus Giorgios said:
Resources were withdrawn from the Danube, yes, I don't think one can argue that, but the Balkan provinces of the Empire were already pretty militarised by Justinian's time and had been for a century or more before this point. In a sense, raiding by the Slavs didn't especially matter until the Avars came along later in the sixth century with technology that allowed the capture of fortified cities.

I won't contest that the arrival of the Avars was decisive, but the Slavs were already raiding the length and breadth of the Balkans, causing great devastation, with almost no reaction from the Byzantine army which was mainly occupied in the West and later in Armenia. Also, the very fact that the Avars could break the Byzantine frontier fortifications with such little resistance - plus the fact that within a quarter of a century the Slavs were able to essentially occupy the entire country south of the Danube, seems to me a pretty good indication of neglect of the Balkan frontier.

Basileus Giorgios said:
I think that extrapolating the costs of building projects in the 530s into the events of the early 600s is pretty dubious to say the least. If Justinian really did strip the cupboard bare, why was Tiberius II able to gain a reputation as such a profligate spender barely a decade after Justinian's death?

I'm not arguing that the building projects were that important - the wars were far more expensive. Financial strain is a cumulative effect, and the burdens placed on the system during Justinian's reign could not be eased after his reign due to the military insecurity of the Empire. At the end of Maurice's reign the worsening crisis finally erupted into a real disaster when the loyalty of the army could no longer be ensured.

Basileus Giorgios said:
It was hardly a temporary measure, payment had always gone this way or that across the Eastern frontier. Besides the one, catastrophic breakout by the Persians that led to the sack of Antioch in 540, the Eastern front remained entirely intact for the duration of Justinian's reign, and even shifted somewhat to the Roman advantage in Lazica in the 550s.

It was entirely temporary. Within a decade of Justinian's death the wars were resumed. The Byzantines won the first round in the last quarter of the 6th century, but the cumulative financial strain of the war plus Justinian's work of "restoration", meant that by the beginning of the 7th century there was very little left: hence, the total collapse of the Byzantine army between 602 and 610 under Phokas. Phokas was a dunce and a tyrant but he can't be blamed for such a total disaster as befell the Empire after the assassination of Maurice.

Justinian was a Roman Emperor behaving like a Roman Emperor, and his behaviour was entirely in line with how an Emperor should act. You might as well start talking about Elizabeth II's "blind ideological obsession" with remaining constitutionally neutral.

Sure, but that doesn't make him any more admirable or his policies any less flawed.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
John Cantacuzene.

In his quest for power he destroyed the fabric of the Byzantine state, allowing the Serbs and then the Ottomans (probably not a bad thing, TBH, the Ottomans did end a lot of the strife in the Balkans) to take over the Balkan peninsula.
Nonsense. Kantakouzenos was a loyal servant of Andronikos III and a trusted friend to the point that Andronikos named his son after him.

After being offered the co-imperium and turning it down several times, Kantakouzenos was set upon by a conspiracy of a jealous Empress consort, Kantakouzenos' own depraved protege, and an ungrateful Patriarch who owed his seat to John.
 
Nonsense. Kantakouzenos was a loyal servant of Andronikos III and a trusted friend to the point that Andronikos named his son after him.

After being offered the co-imperium and turning it down several times, Kantakouzenos was set upon by a conspiracy of a jealous Empress consort, Kantakouzenos' own depraved protege, and an ungrateful Patriarch who owed his seat to John.

I personally think that the Empire would have been in better shape if Kantakouzenos had actually claimed the throne as soon as Andronikos III was dead. That might butterfly the civil wars of the 1340s and 50s away, which would potentially give Byzantium the strength to evict the Turks as soon as they poke their noses in Europe.

The improved international respect of the Empire under his tenure can be seen in Byzantine-Venetian relations. In 1302 Andronikos II was emperor and Venice and Genoa were at war. Venice tried to bully Andronikos into joining, including extorting subsidies out of him by threatening to butcher refugees from Anatolia. Under Kantakouzenos the Venetians actually offered the Empire subsidies if they would join in another war with Genoa.
 
Top