Your Worst and Best Byzantine Emperor?

Lol, i put Herakleos at number 3. I replace him with Nikephoros Phokas

Constantine V desrves to be the in top 5, if not no1. He secured byzantine frontiers agains the arabs and bulgars decisively beating them in numerous battles. Put the empire on the offensive, giving it breathing room. He also repaired Constantinople after a huge earthquake. Constantine formed the tagmata, the emperors personal retinue that was always on the ready, consisting of the empires best soldiers. These troops alloud quick mobilisation and counter attacks against the empires enemies. The only flaw of his reign is his harsh iconoclast policies, that forbid the venitration of icons. 

Originally posted by xristar but blinding the enemy troops was way too extreme. Not really. At that age, he could have very easily executed al of them. -but he didn't.

What do you chose:
being killed instantly or living blind until the end of your "life"?And multiply the second by x12 000


Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 06-Jul-2007 at 09:57

Originally posted by Athanasios but these actions were common in the middle ages . I think that it was given too much gravity to this certain action because it is connected with the collapse of the first bulgarian empire.

It wasn't only Justinian. A lot was done by his generals who would have lived also without him. And I am not saying his legal doings weren't amazing, they were. I am just saying the Eastern conquests should have been left for some other state. 

That's true yes. Justinian overexpanded, without having the proper forces or resources to actually hold the newly conquered lands.But let's not be so hard at him. I mean, he created an impressive network of fortresses in the Balkans, he re-organized the military as well as the judicial and other secteurs. In the meantime, Justinian fell victim of his calculations. He and his stuff believed that the money drawn from Italy in the form of taxes would , in a few years, cover the cost of the campaign and be enough for sustaining a strong military presence.Also, if we take a look at the forces he sent, we will see that they were quite few. In the end, he lacked the ability of longterm planning. That was his biggest disadvantage.

Heraclius fought back two powerfull enemies, in two different fronts, at the eve of destruction and at the same time managed to wisely retreat behind the Taurus mountains, securing the survival of the Empire against the Arab threat. He is by far the best Byzantine Emperor. Without him there would be no Byzantine Empire, even before the Arab Conquest.

Edited by Spartakus - 04-Jul-2007 at 12:39

Best:

Best : 1 .Alexios Komnenos

It was a symbolic action. It was the penalty for those who claimed the throne from the legal emperor. I bet that if tzar samuil have fought in the battlefield-as the Byzantine emperor did- then he would be the only one who would get blinded(or maybe not, who knows?). In the today's standarts, it is a sadistic action(blinding 14000 christians one by one-of course not the Emperor himself-) but these actions were common in the middle ages . I think that it was given too much gravity to this certain action because it is connected with the collapse of the first bulgarian empire.