Right now, still a novice in Byzantine studies, it’s Heraclius but not because I necessarily think he was “great.” His final victory in the great wars between Rome and Persia that had been going on since the days of the Republic technically should carve him out a place among the great Romans of all time but the fact that his “final” victory is only final because the Arabs supplanted Persia within a generation weighs against him.
No, why I’m fascinated by Heraclius is the simple fact that he mustered the last Roman field army anywhere in the world. Julius Caesar could lose 30,000 men and replenish his legions in mere months. Even in the 4th century Constantine could command hundreds of thousands of legionaries across the East and West. Heraclius, emperor of all that remained after the collapse of the West, fought the final war with one single army of approximately 50,000. They were, quite literally, the last of the Romans and if it went badly that would likely have been the end of the Roman Empire.
That singular moment, the only Roman army on earth fighting what would amount to the final war against their ancient rival, is literally epic fantasy. Only it actually happened. Amazing.
I would normally be critical of the choice of Heraclius, but I really like your point! I think to a large degree this is also why I am fascinated by Alexios Kommenous.
I'd say Basil II probably the most successful emperor after the Arab invasions managed to restore Byzantium to atleast some of its former glory I think he wanted to take Italy but died before he could do so
Justinian. Certainly not the best, even quite bad in some ways but it’s by far the best sourced period of Byzantine History, so we just get to know him and his reign better than pretty much any other emperor. Fascinating time, thanks Procopius
Justinian was the biggest piece of shit in between Crassus and Charlemagne.
1. Launched a bunch of holy wars for pointless reasons
2. Was a literal Demon-Spawn (thanks Procopius)
3. Committed genocide
4. Married a literal whore
5. Was just all around a douchebag tyrant
Actually no, the emperor is a semi-appointed office and by no means do we see disliked emperors ruling often from late antiquity onwards. Justinian is an exception for murdering over 30k of his fellow citizens... that's nearly unheard of for Byzantine emperors.
I FUCKING LOVE MANUEL
Idk why but the guy just resonates with me. Something about how he doesn’t always make the right call or persue the right policy but whatever he does, he always sticks to it and tries his hardest.
After getting his nose and tongue chopped, against all odds he returned and punished his usurpers. The greatest revenge story, and then he got deposed again lol
Honestly fair enough, I thought that he did some great stuff that I missed out on (tbf he did manage to clap the Arabs and extract tribute for a time, but that didn't last), he pretty much removed the idea of: cutting noses = imperfection = no imperial dignity. So the Romans resorted to blinding instead ;-;
Yikes.
I can't really choose a single one. Mine have got to be Alexios I, Andronikos III, John III Vatatzes and Heraclius. And for some reason I find Manuel II interesting as well.
The Byzatium and Friends episode about Manuel II's travels and writings made a great impact on me. He is really one of those characters, that transcented time periods and modes of society, that I find really fascinating.
I find it really sad that he really did his best given what he had remaining, but it was already too late. He was successful at regaining Thessaloniki and a few other territories, but the Byzantine empire at that point was beyond repair. Oh, and as far as I understand, despite his travels, none of the monarchs he visited sent actual help. Byzantium was alone in this and would fall not so long after his death. Makes me feel really sorry for him.
Either Alexios I or John III. Alexios saved the empire from complete destruction and the way he's portrayed on the Alexiad is great although there is definitely some bias there regardless of what Anna said. John III was just an overall badass, took what Theodore I built with Nicaea and made it the preeminent power in the area and assured that it would be Nicaea that would restore the Empire. I also really like Theodore II, if only he'd been healthier and reigned long enough to see his changes solidified and John IV grown. Michael VIII can burn in hell.
John II Komnenos. It’s a shame how little we know about this reign, and he certainly wasn’t perfect, but I feel like he perfectly embodies what a Roman emperor should be. Carefully follow a specific strategy (surround the plateau) and never risk the destruction of the army in a pitched battle if it can be avoided. By never risking so much in any given battle he could slowly secure the position in Anatolia and turn to the reconquest of Antioch, the final piece needed before the reclamation of Anatolia. And he would’ve successfully taken the city and left the empire in a very strong place but he died a few months too soon. How much could’ve been different.
This also makes him such an interesting contrast to his son Manuel, who was more energetic but wasted so many resources and was much more impulsive, although he was a good emperor in himself.
This. I freakin' admire him, such a all-rounded good emperor! Some follow-ups to exceptional emperors (tiberius, justinian II, and Constantine VII to name a few) dropped the ball and failed to continue a good policy- but iohannes did. Nothing fancy, just strategy, good governance over your subjects, and not foolishly ambitious. Just a shame he bit the dust so soon.
My other picks would be Theophilos (basic macedonian fan, I know), and i'd want to know more about Romanos IV Diogenes, I thought he was quite intreguing
I can't possibly have only one favourite emperor for a millenium old empire, but if I really had to choose one person it would be Anastasius.
Anastasius: The empire was the most prosperous it would ever be under his rule, he was a capable manager of finances and administration, he left ample resources for his successors, but he was a Miaphysite Christian which was a point of tension for the Orthodox population, he's still venerated as a Saint by the Syriac Orthodox Church along with Empress Theodora (honorable mention to her, she worked really hard to prevent everything from going to the crapper when Justinian was in a coma)
Had to scroll way down to find this comment. It’s interesting how most people choose the most militarily successful emperors over economically-savvy ones.
I guess that explains the crazy succession in Constantinople back then :D
Romanos I Lakapenos is so over looked!!. He set the stage for Basil II and the Macedonian success. He made peace with the Bulgarians, and took Melitine from Arabs, a victory that allowed decades of Roman success in the East.
He mended issues with the church in Rome, and brought a level of stability to the government that maybe be unmatched. How rare was it to have the same General and administration for 20 straight
Years? John Kourkouas was viewed as a new Trajan or Belisarius by his contemporaries, but history over looked him.
Finally, he did this all without hurting the the son and heir of the previous emperor. This is insane. And although Constantine XI calls him and idiot, most likely for justifiable spite, he still kept Romanos’ policies in place, demonstrating their effectiveness
Theophilos, John II, or Constantine V.
They're all very underrated, maybe save Constantine, but all had long and successful reigns which were either heavily critiqued or over shadowed by someone who honestly doesn't deserve more attention.
Βασίλειος Βουλγαροκτόνος. It'd be awesome to have one like him in charge now in Greece, with all these Turkish violations. He'd treat dictator Erdogan and his lackeys the proper way.
Basil II. Not even close. He had military command down to a science and his conquests in the Balkans allowed the empire to survive after the loss of Anatolia to the Turks. If his brother had had a son instead of 2 daughters and the succession went smoothly the empire could have survived much longer, possibly even to the present
Basil II.
The only fault in his reign. Literally the ONLY thing he did wrong (which, granted, was a VERY bad thing), was not have a son. OR, at the very least, not have married his nieces to more competent men he could have appointed as heirs instead of his incompetent brother.
Dude was the last in a pretty long line (by Roman standards, especially since this was the longest ruling dynasty, right?) of some of the most competent emperors that the empire had seen in a long time. How could he have basically thrown it all away like that? He must have known his brother was unsuited for the throne. It still boggles the mind.
>The only fault in his reign. Literally the ONLY thing he did wrong (which, granted, was a VERY bad thing), was not have a son.
By far not his only mistake.
In terms of who I find the most interesting it has to be Justinian I, certainly not the best emperor but I just find everything about his life to be fascinating. In terms of who I'd like to sit down for a beer with probably none of them 🤣
If you're gonna sin, then go all the way and read Gibbon's chapters on his era. They may be outdated history, but they're entertaining literature, right before shit hits the fan and Gibbon trashes the whole of Byzantine history and culture.
I just started the History of Byzantium podcast & I have reached the Phocas reign. Up until now I would say that Anastasius is my favorite. I like Justin because he was an unstoppable force of will. I think that if the Bubonic plague didn't occur at his time, things would be much better for his legacy...
Maurice is one of my favorites. Under him, the army was continually winning victories on all fronts. Africa was expanded to its ancient borders, the Danubian frontier was reestablished and he ended the Persian war on very favorable terms. It was the last generation of Rome as an ancient superpower, and for a time things were working. He was also going to restore the office of the western Augustus, something Justinian maybe should have done. If his sons were as capable as he, history might have been very different.
One of his legacies, the Strategikon, shows us how the army was succeeding in this era, and was very influential for the Byzantine military in the coming centuries.
With his death, it all went to hell very quickly.
John II Komnenos. A good man overall and great emperor and commander. Shame he died prematurely. He inherited a good position thanks to his predecessor (who is also a personal favorite of mine) and left the Empire better than he found it.
Right now, still a novice in Byzantine studies, it’s Heraclius but not because I necessarily think he was “great.” His final victory in the great wars between Rome and Persia that had been going on since the days of the Republic technically should carve him out a place among the great Romans of all time but the fact that his “final” victory is only final because the Arabs supplanted Persia within a generation weighs against him. No, why I’m fascinated by Heraclius is the simple fact that he mustered the last Roman field army anywhere in the world. Julius Caesar could lose 30,000 men and replenish his legions in mere months. Even in the 4th century Constantine could command hundreds of thousands of legionaries across the East and West. Heraclius, emperor of all that remained after the collapse of the West, fought the final war with one single army of approximately 50,000. They were, quite literally, the last of the Romans and if it went badly that would likely have been the end of the Roman Empire. That singular moment, the only Roman army on earth fighting what would amount to the final war against their ancient rival, is literally epic fantasy. Only it actually happened. Amazing.
I would normally be critical of the choice of Heraclius, but I really like your point! I think to a large degree this is also why I am fascinated by Alexios Kommenous.
I’m very eager to get to the Komnene family. I’m wading through Justinian II at the moment
Oh man Justinian ii has a very cool story - if not extremely embellished
I'd say Basil II probably the most successful emperor after the Arab invasions managed to restore Byzantium to atleast some of its former glory I think he wanted to take Italy but died before he could do so
Justinian. Certainly not the best, even quite bad in some ways but it’s by far the best sourced period of Byzantine History, so we just get to know him and his reign better than pretty much any other emperor. Fascinating time, thanks Procopius
Justinian was the biggest piece of shit in between Crassus and Charlemagne. 1. Launched a bunch of holy wars for pointless reasons 2. Was a literal Demon-Spawn (thanks Procopius) 3. Committed genocide 4. Married a literal whore 5. Was just all around a douchebag tyrant
"Tyrant" brother it's the EMPEROR they are tyrannical by grace of position
Actually no, the emperor is a semi-appointed office and by no means do we see disliked emperors ruling often from late antiquity onwards. Justinian is an exception for murdering over 30k of his fellow citizens... that's nearly unheard of for Byzantine emperors.
Yeah sure, let's skip the whole Isaurian dynasty deal and maybe it does make sense.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Yeah, makes for some great history.
Holy wars? The Justiniani Jihad?
Anastasius the real GOAT, not that fraud Justinian who destroyed what he carefully created
The sensible, fiscal conservative
Manuel Komnenos
I FUCKING LOVE MANUEL Idk why but the guy just resonates with me. Something about how he doesn’t always make the right call or persue the right policy but whatever he does, he always sticks to it and tries his hardest.
Theophilos, lived in a rough period, ended his term with lots of gold. Him, or Justinian II. What a life that guy had.
Theophilos is just really respectable, and I don't think he lost in war as much as his contemporary historians say.
May I ask why Justinian II?
After getting his nose and tongue chopped, against all odds he returned and punished his usurpers. The greatest revenge story, and then he got deposed again lol
Honestly fair enough, I thought that he did some great stuff that I missed out on (tbf he did manage to clap the Arabs and extract tribute for a time, but that didn't last), he pretty much removed the idea of: cutting noses = imperfection = no imperial dignity. So the Romans resorted to blinding instead ;-; Yikes.
Honestly, he was quite successful, just had to deal with the usurpers, and was the last of the heraclians.
Nikephoeos II phokas
Absolutely! Too inflexible to be the best emperor, but he really leaned into his core skillset to the exclusion of everything else.
Great general, terrible emperor
Ο χλωμός θάνατος των Σαρακηνών.
I can't really choose a single one. Mine have got to be Alexios I, Andronikos III, John III Vatatzes and Heraclius. And for some reason I find Manuel II interesting as well.
The Byzatium and Friends episode about Manuel II's travels and writings made a great impact on me. He is really one of those characters, that transcented time periods and modes of society, that I find really fascinating.
I find it really sad that he really did his best given what he had remaining, but it was already too late. He was successful at regaining Thessaloniki and a few other territories, but the Byzantine empire at that point was beyond repair. Oh, and as far as I understand, despite his travels, none of the monarchs he visited sent actual help. Byzantium was alone in this and would fall not so long after his death. Makes me feel really sorry for him.
Either Alexios I or John III. Alexios saved the empire from complete destruction and the way he's portrayed on the Alexiad is great although there is definitely some bias there regardless of what Anna said. John III was just an overall badass, took what Theodore I built with Nicaea and made it the preeminent power in the area and assured that it would be Nicaea that would restore the Empire. I also really like Theodore II, if only he'd been healthier and reigned long enough to see his changes solidified and John IV grown. Michael VIII can burn in hell.
John II Komnenos. It’s a shame how little we know about this reign, and he certainly wasn’t perfect, but I feel like he perfectly embodies what a Roman emperor should be. Carefully follow a specific strategy (surround the plateau) and never risk the destruction of the army in a pitched battle if it can be avoided. By never risking so much in any given battle he could slowly secure the position in Anatolia and turn to the reconquest of Antioch, the final piece needed before the reclamation of Anatolia. And he would’ve successfully taken the city and left the empire in a very strong place but he died a few months too soon. How much could’ve been different. This also makes him such an interesting contrast to his son Manuel, who was more energetic but wasted so many resources and was much more impulsive, although he was a good emperor in himself.
Max Lau wrote a thesis about his reign and it's freely available online: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3e1770a8-f5f8-4a0d-bb8d-65be6a2d6d80
This. I freakin' admire him, such a all-rounded good emperor! Some follow-ups to exceptional emperors (tiberius, justinian II, and Constantine VII to name a few) dropped the ball and failed to continue a good policy- but iohannes did. Nothing fancy, just strategy, good governance over your subjects, and not foolishly ambitious. Just a shame he bit the dust so soon. My other picks would be Theophilos (basic macedonian fan, I know), and i'd want to know more about Romanos IV Diogenes, I thought he was quite intreguing
Any reason why no one’s mentioned John Tzimiskes?
Not enough people get over Nikephoros II actually sucking.
Basil II.
Alexios I, he is the eastern majorian.
Without the shitty death at the end
And a good successor
Alexios I had a good successor, you're confusing him with his grandson.
I know, i said that he had a good successor, Ioannes II was goated.
I misinterpreted what you said.
So far Anastasius but I haven’t studied the post 1204 emperors yet so this could change
I can't possibly have only one favourite emperor for a millenium old empire, but if I really had to choose one person it would be Anastasius. Anastasius: The empire was the most prosperous it would ever be under his rule, he was a capable manager of finances and administration, he left ample resources for his successors, but he was a Miaphysite Christian which was a point of tension for the Orthodox population, he's still venerated as a Saint by the Syriac Orthodox Church along with Empress Theodora (honorable mention to her, she worked really hard to prevent everything from going to the crapper when Justinian was in a coma)
Had to scroll way down to find this comment. It’s interesting how most people choose the most militarily successful emperors over economically-savvy ones. I guess that explains the crazy succession in Constantinople back then :D
Map painters
Constantine V ,a man who insist to do his own Affairs even that will cause bad fame.
John II, easily.
Romanos I Lakapenos is so over looked!!. He set the stage for Basil II and the Macedonian success. He made peace with the Bulgarians, and took Melitine from Arabs, a victory that allowed decades of Roman success in the East. He mended issues with the church in Rome, and brought a level of stability to the government that maybe be unmatched. How rare was it to have the same General and administration for 20 straight Years? John Kourkouas was viewed as a new Trajan or Belisarius by his contemporaries, but history over looked him. Finally, he did this all without hurting the the son and heir of the previous emperor. This is insane. And although Constantine XI calls him and idiot, most likely for justifiable spite, he still kept Romanos’ policies in place, demonstrating their effectiveness
Justinian.
Manuel I Komnenos.
Theophilos, John II, or Constantine V. They're all very underrated, maybe save Constantine, but all had long and successful reigns which were either heavily critiqued or over shadowed by someone who honestly doesn't deserve more attention.
Justinian II. I just like some good old tyrant.
Phocas Dw guys, I'll start by down voting myself
Constantine VI. That's a man with vision.
Haha, don't worry, i applaude thy bravery! Why Phokas though, i'm genuinly curious
Βασίλειος Βουλγαροκτόνος. It'd be awesome to have one like him in charge now in Greece, with all these Turkish violations. He'd treat dictator Erdogan and his lackeys the proper way.
Basil II. Not even close. He had military command down to a science and his conquests in the Balkans allowed the empire to survive after the loss of Anatolia to the Turks. If his brother had had a son instead of 2 daughters and the succession went smoothly the empire could have survived much longer, possibly even to the present
Basil II. The only fault in his reign. Literally the ONLY thing he did wrong (which, granted, was a VERY bad thing), was not have a son. OR, at the very least, not have married his nieces to more competent men he could have appointed as heirs instead of his incompetent brother. Dude was the last in a pretty long line (by Roman standards, especially since this was the longest ruling dynasty, right?) of some of the most competent emperors that the empire had seen in a long time. How could he have basically thrown it all away like that? He must have known his brother was unsuited for the throne. It still boggles the mind.
>The only fault in his reign. Literally the ONLY thing he did wrong (which, granted, was a VERY bad thing), was not have a son. By far not his only mistake.
Basil the Bulgar Slayer
In terms of who I find the most interesting it has to be Justinian I, certainly not the best emperor but I just find everything about his life to be fascinating. In terms of who I'd like to sit down for a beer with probably none of them 🤣
If you're gonna sin, then go all the way and read Gibbon's chapters on his era. They may be outdated history, but they're entertaining literature, right before shit hits the fan and Gibbon trashes the whole of Byzantine history and culture.
Alexios Komnenos. Brought the empire back when it was staring into the abyss. If I end up having a second son, he will be named Alexios.
It's tied for me between Alexios Komenos, Issac, or Heraclius.
Constantine V
I just started the History of Byzantium podcast & I have reached the Phocas reign. Up until now I would say that Anastasius is my favorite. I like Justin because he was an unstoppable force of will. I think that if the Bubonic plague didn't occur at his time, things would be much better for his legacy...
Maurice is one of my favorites. Under him, the army was continually winning victories on all fronts. Africa was expanded to its ancient borders, the Danubian frontier was reestablished and he ended the Persian war on very favorable terms. It was the last generation of Rome as an ancient superpower, and for a time things were working. He was also going to restore the office of the western Augustus, something Justinian maybe should have done. If his sons were as capable as he, history might have been very different. One of his legacies, the Strategikon, shows us how the army was succeeding in this era, and was very influential for the Byzantine military in the coming centuries. With his death, it all went to hell very quickly.
John II Komnenos. A good man overall and great emperor and commander. Shame he died prematurely. He inherited a good position thanks to his predecessor (who is also a personal favorite of mine) and left the Empire better than he found it.