Every Byzantine Emperor from Worst to Best
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2023
- Ranking every Byzantine emperor and empress from Constantine I to Constantine XI from best to worst.
I hope you enjoy.
Email
easternromanhistory@gmail.com
Discord
/ discord
If you would like to support Eastern Roman History, I have a Patreon:
/ easternromanhistory
All images used are for educational purposes, if I have used a piece of art and you would like me to credit you, please contact me and I shall do so.
To be fair Consantine XI couldnt do anything, he was in a pretty bad sittuation
Constantine XI was a chad
He at least went down like a legend though, ensuring he isn't remembered as the worst.
He did a decent job with what he had.
@@huntclanhunt9697Exactly. Going down fighting is a more Roman way for the Roman Empire to end than a child "emperor" nobody really recognizes being deposed without a fight. (Though, tbh, Odoacer was pretty chadly himself if you learn about his history; he did depose an illegitimate emperor and basically reunify the empire under one ruler by making himself a vassal of the emperor in Constantinople; plus, the regular Romans of the time wouldn't have seen it as the end of Rome; that idea didn't come into vogue until Justinian used the apparent lack of "Roman" government in the west to justify his wars that left Italy as a whole and the city of Rome in particular far worse than he found them).
@@James_Wisniewskieh not really, he was a vassal in name only and romans in the east probably wouldn't have seen him as the western Roman emperor.
Although on a purely factual basis, he literally disbanded the western Roman empire and sent the regalia to the east.
How you gonna put my boy Constantine XI at 52? Sure the empire fell under him, but that was in no way his fault, he got handed a corrupt and tiny empire with an extremely ambitious and powerful empire on his dorrstep that wished nothing more than to take constantinople. The fact the the siege of constantinople lasted several years is amazing given the lack of a full garrison due to the lack of people.
his father made the ottomans his vassals through diplomacy, surely there was more to do
@@TrajGreekFire I thought they became Ottoman vassals, not the other way around
@@TrajGreekFireWhat? Lol
He backed the winning side during the ottoman interregnum, playing an important role i think, so the Ottoman Sultan was apparently very grateful. Its possible that he actually recognized the emperor as technically his superior but i am not sure. Would have been a technicality AKA like the emperor of Japan and the Shogun even if it did happen, but i can't recall the exact phrasing@@Goratrix66
It's not that he is bad, it's that there is a lot more emperors that accomplished more than he did, he simply did not have the resources or variability to do anything, such is the sad fate of history.
Constantine I was renowed for his military and martial prowess,having reconquered Lower Germania and Dacia.He had never lost a battle in his lifetime and always fought on the frontlines.
26:32 apparently Andronikos III was a demon
Theophilos was so successful the mere mention of his name has distorted audio tracks throughout the ages.
Also, I think both Nikephoros II and John Tzimiskes should be higher, both were highly competent and Basil II-s strength came from their achievements.
Not nikephoros. His diplomacy was garbage
@@Iamnotracistlmao His diplomacy per se wasn't the bad thing, it was his extremely necessary but unpopular economy reforms that doomed him. I don't think not banishing John Tzimiskes would have saved him.
@@madcrusader123 no his diplomacy was actually garbage
@@IamnotracistlmaoIsn't it because of his strange madness?
@@madcrusader123
Tzimisces has some claim to be the absolute GOAT.
Pity about the horrible way he seized power.
The title should be "from Worst to Best". :D
I would also add to John VIII credit that he stopped the Theodore and Constantine conflict before a civil war could happen, succescfully won a naval battle against Epirus and Morea was expanding
3:20
I still think this dude is the worst emperor of Byzantium. Maybe he succeeded a little in religious matters (although I doubt it, because disputes between the Uniates and the Orthodox continued after), but he managed to lose all of Asia Minor, part of the territories in the Balkans, and actually destroyed the army of the empire, making it extremely ineffective , despite the fact that the emperor’s court was drowning in luxury and his friends were plundering the treasury. If the later Komnenos were forced to live and work in hellish and incredibly cramped conditions, then during the 40 years of the rule of this imbecile so much could have been done - revive the economy, establish a stronger presence in the Balkans, or take advantage of the fragmentation of the Rum Sultanate by capturing weak beyliks. But instead we have mediocrity, after which Byzantium really did not exist but SURVIVED.
13:00 correction Empress Irene’s reign was from 797-802 AD
I'd put Basil in front of Justinian but I guess his conquest are a big heritage. But I largely disagree on two things. Fitstly, Leo the 3rd only 16th? He was a top 7 easily, he was such a forward thinking ruler saving the empire for 700 more years.
Most importantly I cannot understand why Manuel is in front of brilliant Aleksios and John. He was a great ruler but he made so many uneccesary wars instead of finishing off the Seljucks. He spent his power and that's why 25 years later the state was doomed.
The rest of your ranking is great though, thank for you great work!
Q: why did the East survive?
A : Constantine. Undefeated in battle, restructured the state administration and redirected the religion to unify the empire. Finally restored the economy and refortified the empire, including New Rome, the gem of the world until 1204.
You should do this with the Byzantine Rump states such as the Empire of Trebizond and rank their emperors. Nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work, the dedication, and most of all time you put into this video. Keep it up!
Thank you very much. I took me a very long time putting this video together, admittedly a couple of errors slipped through but as you can imagine, keeping track of nearly 100 people is quite difficult.
I would certainly love to do one for Trebizond. Epirus is much harder because it was conquered several times and broke up so a consistent line of Despots is quite difficult.
What do you think of my rankings? Let me know in a comment below.
I am aware that a couple of errors snuck in to the video and an audio glitch. Marcian is missing his reasonings, Nikephoros II should replaced Scandolous personal life with unpopular policies and decisions, Michael VIII's reign is is wrong in dates; and Irene's reign has a typo. My apologises for these things.
I would have placed some of them higher, some lower. To me Basil II the Bulgar-slayer, John II Komnenos and John III Vatatzes are the best emperors, while I have very mixed feelings towards both Justinian the Great, Heraclius, Constantine Himself and Theodosius, and enormous despise for several very unsuccessful basileii, first and foremost Phocas, but also Michael VIII's son and the Angeloi.
Leo the 3rd way better costant 2nd all though he did some good things but most of his reign was mediocre Leo was in more terrible time then costant 2nd because of Leo byzantine empire lasted 726 year thanks to him the Umayyad started to fragmented because of the lost in 717 and Anatolia defense made the gate of Europe and recent conquest of Spain the caliphate was too large and multicultural to controlled easily the caliph was in sirya the rulers of Spain were too far without Anatolia and Balkans no way he control it from that far sure his iconoclasm was bad
but if was put in let say the 641 ad Egypt would even be still in byzantine hands and loses would have been only sirya to me Leo should be on high rank
Also u did great exposing the truth for leo the 5 was real savvy emperor he had some leo third genes at least his brain he kept Sicily/ crete save and Bulgaria in cheak he was great assassino had he killed krum I think I would give him 9/10 also second iconoclast wasn't that long
@@rickyyacine4818 I agree, I think Leo V was a very good emperor. The second Iconoclasm was a result of his own success. The second and, in many ways, the first iconoclasm were closely tied to military victory.
Actually a really good list but Constantine the IX is wayyyyyyyy too high. Flagrantly incompetent emperor, well worth reading Michael Psellos who served under him (he defends him but his poor decisions really bleed through). Otherwise great choices for especially the good and great Emperors! (Alexios I especially is well placed at 11)
Absolutely spectacular
I really appreciate your stance on Romanos IV
One thing I just have to disagree with is putting Theodosius III as "incompetent", when he was good as emperor, but just put his life first
loved this video ❤
The fact that a solid three quarters of these are at least competent may speak to how Eastern Rome lasted so long.
Edit: Why Constantine XI in last place? He couldn't have done anything else. (Well, except for the Demetrius part)
He meant the last as in the final emperor.
This makes me want to learn even more about the rulers of Byzantium! I want a series of all of them in chronological order!
I don’t think I’ve ever commented on your videos but they provide so much great research and find them more entertaining then cable history. You are up there with History with Hilbert, Mr.Beat, Fire of Learning and many others. Your vids on the Palaiologos are really great and have been helping me with trying to write some sort of historical drama been trying to make.
Thank you very much. I am glad that I have been able to help and that you enjoy what I have to offer.
Bro, loving the content but perhaps this should be in a 3 parts. It's epic enough to be. Other than that great vid.
What a great video of ranking all eastern emperors.
In my honest opinion
Leo I is if not one of the last roman emperors who really cared for the western empire along Justinian
But alas Aspar and Basilicus got in his way of retaking Africa
Anastasius I at rank no. 4 is well deserved! However, since you placed him so high, I think it would be also appropriate to place another "master of economics emperor" Nikephoras I higher. He deviced a method to tax the rich merchants by forcing them to take loans from the government and purchase land in western Anatolia (which was subjected to the land tax). His new European themes gave a lasting stability to Greece and some parts of the Balkans. His resettlement of anatolian soldiers and their families to greece re-romanized the slavs and the whole region. His reign in my opinion, like that of Anastasius, set the stage for the 2nd golden age of the roman empire during the reign of the Macedonian Dynasty.
Yeah, losing at Pliska and getting turned into a mug for Krum might have ruined Nikephoras I reputation.
Also being extremely unpopular contributed to his fall. I think he's an ok emperor, but certainly not as good as Theophilos
Thank you for putting Anastasius so high. He really set things in motion to allow for the empire to prosper through the crises that would occur in the 6th and 7th century.
And as the rotting cherry on top of Andronikos I's rancid sundae of misdeeds, the guy who overthrew him was the founder of the Angelos dynasty (the one with some of the worst rulers in Byzantine history).
5:53 I literally choked on my drink 😂😂😂😂
Man, I was SHOCKED Phocas wasn't bottom of the barrel, good arguments to keep him from it though. Love the video.
This is an amazing video. Thank you for the effort you have put into this as well as the entirety of your channel as a whole.
I wanted to pick your brain regarding the Komnennian Emperors. John II is considered the best of his family but he doesn’t rank the highest while Manuel I, who many consider to have a mixed record, ranks significantly higher than his father and grandfather. Alexios was indeed quite transformative. He may not have excelled in one area but his competency in many areas saved the polity. I’ll admit, I wouldn’t know how I would rank them and any of the three could be number one on any given day
I am enormously grateful for such kind words. Thank you.
My reasoning for the great Komnenian emperors is what you seem to be asking.
So Alexios I is undoubtedly a great man and managed to achieve a huge amount during his reign. However, for sometime now, I have been keen to be more objective about his reign and not simply follow the obviously eulogising account of Anna Komnene's Alexiad as so many people do. John Zonaras holds a fair more objective assessment of the emperor, which is the course I try to follow these days.
Why? I will attempt to be brief because no-one reads essays in TH-cam comments. He had a mixed military record (and no I am not just talking about the beginning of his reign); he was a usurper and chose to plunge the empire into civil conflict to seize power; he was a religious persecutor; his concessions to Venice essentially is what founded the Venetian maritime empire that would become a considerable thorn the empire's side; and, though necessary, his emergency measures in the 1080's were somewhat callous, had he died in 1092 when the crises were finally over but before he was able to start reforming the empire, we might remember him very differently.
John II was very successful and generally a good ruler in whose reign the reforms of Alexios I really took root. However, possibly because we know so little about this emperor, my hand is stayed from entering too high in the list.
Manuel I despite his ups and downs was a great emperor and would be the last great emperor for over a generation. Why? While people generally dwell on his failed expeditions to Egypt, Italy and central Anatolia, they seem to forget that he successfully managed to carry on this invasion of southern Italy, at the same time as fighting a Hungarian-Serbian coalition. His reign saw an immense amount of cultural achievement. It was of course, in his reign that Anna Komnene, John Kinnamos, Constantine Manassas, Michael Glykas and Niketas Choniates wrote their histories, just as an example. Furthermore, Manuel I was truly able to bring his empire's power to bare on the world stage. He sponsored repairs and building in the Crusader states, he carried on relations with Russia, he was pen pals with England, he tried to become Holy Roman emperor, nearly took southern Italy back, destroyed the power of Hungary and Serbia in the Balkans, had the resources to invade Egypt and also successfully fortified the provinces of Asia Minor and established the economy and defences necessary that ultimately ensured the empire's survival in Anatolia. While, I think a mitigation of Manuel I's reign is justified he was still a great emperor, though I might not but him quite so high in my list as I did.
29:59 this makes me so happy omg
I have never understood the tendency of people to rate Constantine and Justinian highly.
Constantine lived in calm and well-fed times; his opponents were real imbecils who could not normally govern the state or lead armies. Constantine simply did not have worthy enemies. The barbarians also did not pose much of a threat; the border was in complete peace. Although he was indeed an outstanding emperor, he had no challenges, no difficulties, and at the same time he very unsuccessfully divided the empire, laying the ground for political instability in the following years. Therefore, I would call him great but not the greatest.
Justinian was very effective until the 540s, but everything connected with the plague and after is agony. The huge treasury left behind by Anastasia was completely spent, Italy was ruined, Spain generally knows how it was managed and existed on its own. The only real gain was Africa and Carthage. Let’s not forget about the destruction of the borders by the Sassanids, whom neither Justinian nor Belisarius could defeat.
In my opinion, the truly successful and effective, GREATEST emperor of Byzantium was Alexei Komnenos. Yes, at the end of his life there was an obvious crisis at court due to the struggle between Anna and John, but Alexei, with minimal resources, was able not only to preserve the old borders but also to restore them as much as possible. Under such emperors as Phocas or Andronikos, Byzantium would have definitely perished in the 1080s, due to the attacks of Guiscard, Chaka, and the crusaders, but Alexei not only survived and won, but also took full advantage of all the circumstances, due to which Byzantium grew stronger and strengthened during the reign of his son and grandson.
This is a much greater achievement than anything that Constantine and Justinian did. He not only handed over the state to his descendants in a much better form, he did everything possible to ensure that the state was at its zenith until 1178.
You're overlooking a lot to not consider Justinian and Constantine as Godtier. You're thinking in terms of diplomacy, not geopolitics. They each holistically expanded trade and economic confidence, promoting remarkable stability despite challenging times. Their politics saw excellent administration and highly skilled bureaucracy which took serious work at this time. They each aimed to unify their citizens by centralising the creeds. Constantine restored the currency and Justinian's laws were adopted for centuries after. These guys simply didn't sleep and deserve their legacy, which also include enhancing the new capital which was a hallmark of Byzantine power. I am a huge Alexios fan and agree he's criminally underrated by most. An incredible planner, muti-dimensional and my favourite diplomatically. He's no doubt a top 10, but the more research I do the more clear the top 3 are: Basil II, Justinian I and Constantine I with an order that's subjective
@@rockstar450 In my understanding, the Great, the Greatest Emperor is not the one who was born in calm times and after him it got worse (and after CONSTANTINE AND JUSTINIAN IT BECAME WORSE, including through their fault) but the one who came in times of crisis and showed extraordinary abilities was able to leave behind a world much better than it was before him. Alexei Komnenos laid a lot of controversial foundations for the structure of the empire, but there was nothing that would not have been corrected over time.
Yes, Justinian's legal code is awesome. But without his Italian campaigns, Byzantium would have been less likely to have faced the crisis of the 7th century, especially if the eastern and southern borders had been adequately defended.
Yes, Constantine built a magnificent capital and established an excellent bureaucracy. But he unsuccessfully divided his empire between relatives, did not complete the work of strengthening Christianity, which led to crises with Julian and Eugenius, and was unable to properly secure the captured areas for himself. All this greatly diminishes the contribution of these two in my eyes.
As I said, Constantine did not have a single real challenge or strong enemy. And Justinian, in isolation from his reforms, conducted extremely terrible wars with the Ostrogoths and Persians and laid a solid foundation for the loss of both Italy and Spain.
In this regard, Vasily is much more worthy as a candidate for first place, but Vasily was not a great emperor. He turned defeats into victories (like Alexei), but he was completely blind to the issue of inheritance, which caused the whole crisis in the 1040-1070s, and he was also a military emperor and a good bureaucrat, but he understood very little economics and culture and therefore Byzantium was unable to take full advantage of the fruits of its conquests.
I don’t trust anybody that says Justinian I is better than Basil II lmao.
Justinian, to me, was great, but if we’re including Constantine, he’s not even in the top 3. His campaigns used up basically all of the gold that Anastasius I procured, and led to a severe decline of Italy. Yes, much of his resources were destroyed because of the plague, which is why I don’t blame him that much, but he’s still below Heraclius, perhaps Anastasius I, and certainly Basil II. Basil especially, as he gained money while still expanding territory. Furthermore, it’s not like Justinian’s succession was much better.
Also, saying that Manuel is the best Komnenos is wild. He easily falls below his father and grandfather, though he was still pretty great. John II was, in my opinion, the best Komnenos.
Basil II has to be on top of Justinian.
I agree with you especially on what you said about Manuel he could have pushed the Turks out of Anatolia but instead diverted most of his attention to Italy and the balkans which would cost the empire in the long run
I agree though I think Justinians reign would have been significantly better without the black deaths really took the wind out of the empires sails
I totally agree, Justinian overextended the Empire, the Eastern Romans literally could do nothing when the Lombards invaded Italy
Justinian didn't overextend the empire. It was profitable and strong but Justin II started wars on all fronts. Basil II isn't judged for Alexander nor other exposures. Justinian did many things Basil could not
35:35 He stubbed his toe but carried on, respect.
amazing.
Thanks for the video! Hope you can collaborate with Maiorianus and other Byzantine youtubers for content too!
Thank you, I already did a collaboration with Maiorianus. Here is a link to the videos we made:
th-cam.com/video/Yl9iCpBkMQw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/l_qYPHwIFTA/w-d-xo.html
I would love a version of this video that goes in chronological order rather than by merit (not that i don't appreciate a ranking video but a chronological version of this video would give such an awesome overview of Byzantine history.)
I am in fact doing such a thing in Short form with each emperor going chronological order from Constantine XI to Constantine I. I am up too Theodore Ii so far.
Very interesting list. However, I would give Phocas a spot to the awful ones. My top 10 would be
1. Constantine I
2. Basil II
3. Justinian I
4. Theodosius I
5. Heraclius
6. John II
7. Alexios I
8. John I
9. Anastasius I
10. John III
Honorable mentions
Leo III, Constantine V, Constantine IV, Theodore I
What Theodosius done? Nothing. Just he murdered Pagans. Nothing else
@@lamastu2156 Not much. He made Christianity official, crushed the barbarian usurpers and kept the Empire Roman, and manipulated the Goths because after Andrianople the East practically had no army. That's all.
@@miramax6165 Every emperor that time crushed barbarians. How manipulated Goths when they destroyed all the western empire and Latin world? The only think who he done is thst he persecuted Pagans as I said before.
@@miramax6165theodosius wasn’t the one who legalized christianity
@@lamastu2156 It wasn't Theodosius' fault that the Goths ransacked the West. It was their need that turned to greed.
I love your channer
Thank you very much.
Alexios I should be in top 5 as he saved the empire from absolute extinction. His actions saved the empire to live for another four centuries.
Alexios gave extensive trade rights to Venice and quarters in Constantinople to the Latins that doomed the empire in 1204. He is good but not that good. Get real
@@Iamnotracistlmao no, the massacre of the latins pretty much was a serious reason for the sacking of 1204, people always like to blame the west and one emperor but not one blames the nobles in constantinople for what happened too when they decided to riot. It was a murder of other christians and you can't go blaming others for what they and that was solely on the rome's part for that part.
@michelleg7 massacre of latins never happened. The west never mention it. They talk about Manuel's expulsion instead
@michelleg7 the 4th Crusade's sacking was due to greed. Period. The tensions you mention didn't exist. The citizens thought it was just a cue and didn't flee. The soldiers on the crusades were lied to frequently. It was greed which doomed the crusade movement and left the crusade states to fall
I am SO GLAD you gave credit to Constans II! He usually gets such a bad rap because most people look at only his reign as covered in Theophanes. The Armenian history of Sebeos shows how proactive he was in the Caucus and energetic his naval strategy was.
Oh indeed, some of the silence over his reign by the Byzantines might simply have been due to him being an Monothelite heretic thus presenting similar source issues to the Iconoclast emperors.
Although, as I said he was no military genius he was responsible for holding the line, he started reforming the empire, created the professional navy and was one of the very few emperors to actually bother with the western provinces of his empire. I wanted to acknowledge these facets to his reign. Also, you are correct, the much more contemporary history of Sebeos is far kinder and perhaps closer to contemporary feelings about Constans II, especially since he calls him a second David.
My personal list of Emperors, Worst to Best:
Phocas
Leo V
Alexios III Angelos
Michael III
Alexios IV
Staurakios
Andronikos I Komnenos
Constantine V
Constantine VI
Michael I Rangabe
Justin II
Theodore I Laskaris
Constantine IV the younger
Leo IV
Theophilos
Nikephoros III
Alexios I Komnenos
Justinian II
Heraclius
Theodosius III
Romanos I Lekapenos
Leo VI
Manuel I Komnenos
Basil I
Justin I
Leo III
Basil II
Justinian I
Constantine XI
Constantine I
Not all of the emperors because im either unsure or dont know enough about the rest of them
yet.
tHANK YOU
"So how many civil wars you want" The Byzantine Empire: "YES"
If anyone's obsessed with this I thoroughly recommend Schwerpunkt's Byzantine history playlist
Well one thing is for certain: this will be your most popular video in a few months. (Pre-watch)
Alexios Angelos could also be in a category of the worse than bad.
35:40 John is the greatest Komnenos emperor but Manuel’s rank is higher?
Do you have videos about iconoclasm?
I would have made quite a few changes. Theodosius II was a big suprise for me. Well, sooner or later I will make my own list, but only starting with Arcadius and excluding Laskarids.
The Laskarids have legitimacy
@@TrajGreekFire in a way, Yes. Just not enough for me. I did a poll about this issue, remember?
@@epikurejczyk no
Tip: don't name your child Andronikos.
This could easily be a reductive misinformed take, but IMHO, Justinian is the guy who lost the West. The barbarian-held kingdoms in the West were still at least on favorable terms with the East, operating something like franchises that at least cared about what Constantinople had to say. After Justinian tried to reconquer them, that's when they decided to go solo. So I would argue (again, possibly misinformedly) that Justinian made relations with the West far worse, and burned bridges with them.
Not at all.
It's pretty mainstream.
See, James O'Donnell, The Ruin of The Roman Empire.
(Not to be confused with Arthur Dent, The Ruin of Rome).
He also overstretched the Empire to fuck, creating constant headaches against the Persians for all following Emperors. Imho he should've stopped after Africa at the latest.
The plague was unfortunate tho.
@@broxim9668
Maurice considered reviving The Western Empire to administer the newly conquered provinces, but ultimately decided to set up the two "exarchates" of Africa and Italy as autonomous provinces.
Byzantine Spain was considered
part of Africa for administrative purposes.
@@broxim9668no he didnt. Plague caused a population collapse.
Revisionist nonsense. The plague is what made it difficult to hold those territories. They lost a massive amount of population. Justinian couldn't stop that
Correction @27:27, the dates for Michael VIII Palaeologos are at least 2 centuries off. Correct ones are 1261 - 1282.
I am aware. It was an error I had not noticed until after I published the video.
26:30 scared the life out of me
Great ranking! However, I believe that you are somewhat generous with Isaac II, and unfair with Theodosius I. I mean, if it weren't for him, I really don't know what would have happened after the defeat in Adrianople. For me, Theodosius I serves as a great paradigm for politicians who aim for the top and the challenges they could encounter as rulers. Definitely in the Top 10 for me.
I don't want to miss the opportunity to mention the opinion of a Byzantinophile friend of mine which always astonishes me. He believes that John II was the best Eastern Roman Emperor of all, including Constantine the Great! I also believe that perhaps John I deserves better. Thank you for your time doing this.
Thank you for the comment. For John II, even though I like him very much I do recognise that sometimes things did not go to plan, he lost the siege of Neocaesarea, he could not take Shaizar and carve out a new Crusader state for Raymond and was forced to resume the trade treaty with Venice. The annoying thing is that we just don't know that much about his reign.
Theodosius I, I agree with you that he was not a terrible emperor as some channels like Majorianus have said and you are right, he saved the east while it was in a crisis. He may have even become emperor because of his early successes against the Goths. He could also be heavy handed like with the massacre of Thessalonica, which was rather senseless and could make poor decisions such as assigning his general Abogast as MM for Valentinian II the feud between the two directly led to a civil war because of it. One where Theodosius caught his mortal disease.
Isaac II is mediocre, his biggest blunder was Bulgaria but spent a concerted effort to undo his mistake, which I can appreciate and on two occasions nearly destroyed the Bulgarian- Vlach revolt. I don't think he was a good emperor but it could have been much worse which for this period from 1180-1204 all of them were.
@@EasternRomanHistory Your channel is the most valid and historically accurate. I have stopped watching Majorianus videos because they are full of contradictions. He favors the barbarians and defies the historical truth. One channel I also like is Romaboo Ramblings.
@giannisgiannopoulos791 Maiorianus is a terrible channel who outright lies at how Germanised the west was by its fall, hates Greeks and Christians. The lies he spins like Ricimir just being evil when he was doing more to save the west than even Majorian who was simply a good general who pandered to the senate. Justinian was a net positive for the empire no matter how you cut it.
26:29 bruh I was terrified for a second there
a good video nonetheless.
Justinian should be No.3, behind Basil II, IMO.
Justinian is the greatest politician but basil II is the greatest general
@@constantinexii8182Nikephoros and Tzimiskes were more naturally talented generals, but Basil was better at staying alive which always matters more
@@geordiejones5618 He only lost one battle in his life and that was a night ambush, Tsimiskes lost once to Sayf and I don't think nikephoros ever lost a battle
Justinian vs Basil discourse will always be a topic of which one is better
Justinian reformed laws, administration and his holdings were so well restructured they held until Phocus and the Arabs. The HRE would emulate his law codes and the Hagia Sofia cemented New Rome as the world's capital
Constantine X Doukas is a difficult emperor to understand because the sources are so vague on what he was doing. It seems like he neglected the eastern front against the Turks but we don't really know for sure (or why he did it). I find it hard to believe that Isaac I Komnenos (who seemed to be a strong, responsible emperor) would select such a weak successor.
25:24 in what way was Nikephoros scandalous? He was not a hedonist but ascetic.
Ah, small typo, it can happen when one is doing the write up for 95 people. It would probably be unpopular decisions, such as wanting to make soldiers martyrs, his coinage reform and his actions during the famine at the end of his reign.
asceticism is based
@@LeoTheIi agree
36:54 That's not John III Doukas Vatatzes,that's an oil paiting of the Bulgarian ruler Boris 1 and his wife
Constantine the great pretty much created the Europe we all know today, he could be called the founding father of Europe.
Leontios was like if balicaruis toke the throne from Justinian the great and fail except he wasn't a bad governor either
I would put Tzimiskes, Nikephoros Phokas and Maurice higher than Michael the 8th
Forcibly blinded into retirement: the Byzantine Emperor pension plan. Worst 401k ever.
Interesting run through. Didn't John V concede to have his kingdom become a vassal to the Ottomans around 1371 (that is to Murad I?)? If so, could say the Empire ended then and there, in the literal sense of the word, as the Romans understood it. And that could make John V the worst, although Alexios III and IV and Michael Doukas VII were really bad, Phocas of AD 602 bad.
i understand that John 4th was blinded on his birthday-i think that one gift no one would want
And I believe it was also Christmas day. Michael VIII was one of the few emperors who never escaped the stigma of usurpation due to how he treated his predecessor.
and decades later you have Andronikos II meeting you to give you apologizes when you've been a blind monk for most of your life
Basil the 2nd did give major trade rights to venice which crippled byzantium as the major trade power of the med and made venice the great trade power of the med, by doing so he did weaken a shit ton the empire in the long run but still i can't argue that he was great, he did what the empire needed at the time.
I believe this better applies to Alexios I who gave Venice extremely generous trade rights and essentially is what allowed them to establish their trade empire, not Basil II.
@EasternRomanHistory but how was the empire under Basil and how was under Alexios?? Alexios had no other choice. These two and Heraclius are the greatest Eastern Roman emperors for me. The one that made Eastern Rome one of the greatest powers ever and the two that saved the empire from sure collapse, gave it a breath of life and made it great again
28:17 *conquered southern Greece.
Macedonia and Thrace are also part of Greece.
makedonia einai ellinas
29:44 *Moesia not Thrace
No phocas in worst or 2nd worst?
You did Alexios Komnenos dirty.
alexios did extraordinary job of saving the empire but set the seed for more problems later he sold his soul the day he sing the treaty with Venice and calling the pop for help he should have bought mercenary and worked slowly on carful strategy to restore Anatolia he sacrificed byzantine sovrenity with a quick success he restore lands sure but after that he had to keep an eye on every crusade it coming to his land he was great man real savvy but he focused to much on today gain with worrying on later problems caused by his action his pronoia strategy worked well during his early years from 1081 ad to 1100 ad but rather going back to the thematic system he kept relaying on it so much that his successors used as defaults system the military aristocracy toke power and every the state become mush poorer and provinces become independed and military aristocracy become to powerful to the point that the civil aristocracy is gone again his great and savvy ruler in better times he would be number 3 or 1 but his quick actions give him short victories but long disasters afterward in just 24 years from 1180 ad to 1204 ad the byzantine collapsed so badly it lead to 4 crusade meaning after 1081 ad any retarded emperor or average one will be the end of byzantine
How did Phocus make it up to 88th place!!! Surely he was just as bad as Alexios III?
He was awful but he wasn't as bad as Alexios III. And there were many awful Emperors on the level on both men
@@iDeathMaximuMII
Phokas is difficult to judge.
You could argue he was more unlucky than bad.
Huzzah!
yeeeeeeeeeeeeees
In what world is Constantine II an eastern emperor?
I think you rank Alexios V Doukas Mourzuphlos a bit too low. Yes, he did lose against the crusaders, but it was more due to the fault of all the Angeli before him, who blundered everything and basically made sure that Alexios V couldn't even field an army, who had been underpaid for years by that point, because the Empire was bankrupt. He did all he could with the populace that didn't care because they thought it was just another change in power and army who wanted more money from where was none, and although he was said to be an effective administrator and a ruthless politician, he couldn't do anything in that situation. I don't think even Basil II could have done anything there.
14:39 based, I already hear butts cracking
What do you mean?
I’m amazed with how low Maurice and Constantine XI are. Then again, it’s always kinda funny to think about how Phocas, one of the worst emperors, had his reign between two good ones, Maurice and Heraclius.
I think Constantine XI gets blown out of all proportion simply because he was the last emperor, but the facts speak for themselves, he lost Constantinople, he made decisions which actually worsened the empire's position, but was still competent and effective.
I do like Maurice, he is a favourite of mine but he undid his own legacy. All the successes of Maurice were undone within 30 years. Although, he is an emperor that deserves significantly more study than he hitherto has received.
Un popular opinion :
John the first > basil second think about he did so much gains in 6 years while basil toke him 36 years to do it from 986 ad to 1022 ad
John was a great general but Basil was a good general,an excellent diplomat and a great administrator AND a great financial administrator
@@Iamnotracistlmao yea but john did so much in 6 years I just wonder had he lived longer who knows
@@rickyyacine4818 Yeah but that's only a "who knows"
@@Iamnotracistlmao basil wasn't great as everybody claims to be
Toke him 10 years to get the games from 976 to 986
Then when he tried to do something he failed miserably at torjan gate
Then 3 years rebellion
From 989 to 999 ad he did ok campaign in Bulgaria but failed to win against the fatimed caliphet lost Tripoli in Lebanon today john toke it from 972 to 973 and had to make peace treaty with them he good from 1000 to 1003 but he wasted too much time after that until he got back to work in 1009 to 1018 that so much years wasted on Bulgaria fun fact he wasn't a brilliant general he was bad one but slowly learned to be cautious one and not make mistakes had he been a savvy general I think Bulgaria would been done 990s ad and maybe he would focused on other things like the fatimed and Sicily
As for john 6 years and had half of Bulgaria he used the kievn rus and then humiliated their king and almost reached Jerusalem but back out cuz he knew it hornet nest and can lure sunni back war like Saladin for example u knew he predicted the crusade before even there is one he negotiate with Armenian king and didn't annexed armina knowing it could be buffer state he had charisma intellect so much potential to be the greatest emporer had lived long oh and yes he made Sirya a vassle state with Mosul they remanded vassle states till saljik conquer them all of that in 6 years only while basil wasted to.much time on Bulgaria and then gorgia and did big mistake taking Armenia cuz many.will try to copy him and force the empire on the offensive and then when he wanted to take Sicily he died his good and all but not great to me he kept the treasury full I guess
@@rickyyacine4818 yap yap yap But Basil achieved more than John
Ive heard some folks arguing phocas wasnt so bad. It surprised me and i cant speak to it since i sympathize woth maurice and heraclius
While I consider Phocas a tyrant and an inept ruler, he was responsible for keeping the Persians in check for the first 8 years of the Persian war. An issue with the sources is that the majority of them: Theophylact, the Paschale Chronicle, John of Antioch and George of Pisidia all wrote during the reign of Heraclius, the usurper against Phocas. So Theophylact was purposefully trying to make Maurice look like a great emperor cut down but the evil Phocas, while the others were making Heraclius, whom they wrote under look like a saviour, who avenged Maurice and killed the evil Phocas thus justifying his own usurpation.
So while, we should temper our account and try and be objective about the reign of Phocas, while he was not as bad as he is made out to be, I don't believe he was good either.
@@EasternRomanHistory i find it hard to believe phocas revolted for no reason..and that he sat on his hands while persia invaded. The west seems to have viewed him positively...plus the war in the west took years to overthrow him so he musst have held sway somewhere. but overall id say he was a mess.
Maurice seems to me the kind emperor a historian loves but may not have been the kind of man youd like to live under. He was focused on restoring the treasury at the cost of some rather callous moves. Granted he was basically paying for tiberius' generosity.
Maurice done dirty
Phokas may have been more unlucky than bad.
I,m Bulgarian my favorite is Constantine the Great.Maybe in second place is Vasili 2, Basil 2 in East Roman Byzantine history only Emperator conquest mightry Bulgarian empire is Vasili 2 .and golden age is East Roman Empire .
what a splendid video. I agree on most of these. I particularly disagree on putting manuel higher than his dad and granddad. Yes, he ruled the empire at its apex, but this was mostly thanks due to his predecessors. Furthermore, he neglected anatolia, instead focusing on the west.
Constantine I, is one of my favorite and beloved Emperor's! (Alongside Aurelian, Justinian I, Anastasius I, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Hadrian!) Fun fact Constantine The Great was one of 15 Emperor's born in modern day Serbia!! #GloryToAncientRome 🛡️🗡️✨🤍
John VIII Palaiologos THE DECENT?! Why? Because he didn't win a couple of battles and didn't go chill in Constantinople for the rest of his days, like the other emperors? This guy practically sold his soul in Rome, just for a chance to save the empire
why did you include Valentian II?
He was a legitimate Roman emperor from the Valentinian dynasty, it would be strange in my mind not to include him. I might well have wished to include Magnus Maximus as well.
@@EasternRomanHistory I was confused because neither him nor Gratian were eastern emperors, though I can understand seeing how Gratian did allow for the accession of Theodosius. I’m also wondering, do you have a comprehensive bibliography for your videos? I really like how you always cite your sources.
However tyrannical, however corrupt or despotic, surely the emperors here named before Phokas lacked the sheer scale of widespread disruption and anarchy with which Phokas endangered the lives of very many, many people within the empire, on such a wider scale - political, social and strategic.
Bro Justinian and basil and nikephorus would take the top 3, Constantine the great didn’t have much to compare with them as his achievement was spreading Christianity and his greatest victory at the milviam bridge was set for him to win so he is a great reformer basil and nekphorus kept the Byzantine empire alive and Justinian re made the Roman Empire
I know what I'll be watching in bed tonight!
Thank you.
26:31 wtf happened to the sound
audio glitch, while rending I am afraid.
If Constantine XI had the same resources his predecessors had then he would’ve been more of the goat than he already was
the Byzantine Empire: " can we be an empire for like 5 minutes without a civil war breaking out"
That is certainly true for the fourteenth century.
The Macedonian and Komnenian dynasties established the Varangian Guards and established pleasant relations with Scandinavia and favorable mentality towards the Empire.
Leo the Isaurian is epic
Michael 8th Palaiologos dates are wrong
Constantine is by no stretch of imagination a Byzantine emperor. He was a sole emperor of an undivided empire.
Emperor constantine and Justinian the first are both saints in the eastern orthodox church
I know it's become a spicy take but I'm glad Justinian I for all his flaws ended up 2nd. If it had not been for environmental changes in the climate and the plague he would probably have gone down as the greatest emperor.
Overrated. Even without the plague, I'm not sure his conquests in Italy and Spain would have lasted long. Not to mention the hell that was happening on the Sassanian border. And all this for the sake of Italy, which was partially covered by the Lombards after 15-20 years.
@@user-pb7ch5kl8xso what. He made the Justinian code and got more than than any other emperor
Why do You count valentinian ii, constans and Constantine ii as byzantine emperors?
As Roman emperors I see no reason to split them off from the eastern Roman emperors. Coins of them were minted in both halves of the empire. Laws were issued in the names of all of the legitimate emperors. They were all related to the reigning dynasty and could move troops into each others territories, such as Gratian helping Valens against the Goths. Constantine II restored the Alexandrian patriarch. Constans I often worked together with Constantius II and his death led the latter into a civil war with his killers. Valentinian II fled to the east, his sister married Theodosius I and was restored to power by the eastern emperor. It would be difficult to make a complete picture of the Roman empire in the fourth century without them.
Didn't realize how many Emperors were asassinated for their scandalous personal lives (being "too gay")
For me the worth is Phokas(602 - 610). He usurped empire with problems and made all of them much worse and had quite terrible personality. I think arabs may praise this men for opening gates to their conquests, because terrible war with Sasanids was the aftermath of Phokas reign.
Best maybe Alexios Komnenos, because in such tough conditions he made quite a lot.
I would put the three komnenos and laskaris at the top