I meant Michael VII who was crowned right after Manzikert.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.
Justinian. What an unmitigated disaster...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Resources were withdrawn from the Danube, yes, I don't think one can argue that, but the Balkan provinces of the Empire were already pretty militarised by Justinian's time and had been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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Nonsense. Kantakouzenos was a loyal servant of Andronikos III and a trusted friend to the point that Andronikos named his son after him.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.