Was Basil II of Byzantium Evil?

Originally posted by Anton     "if he knew how to write"   "They were hired to do it.Didn't they?"   "Michael from Syria is not Encyclopedia Britannica"   "7.Do i seem to have neighbours as the Belgium, Finland, Holland Luxemburg and Swisserland? I don't think so..."   "Ambush is the most effective tactic of the weak and coward , "   "9.Well, actually only Krum and his Boyars knew how the skull of Nikephorus looked like...thirsty anyone?"   "12.Actually Skyloioannis did a crime over a carcass.nothing more , nothing less..."   "Well as far as i know your rebelions before Assen bros. were fiaskos."   It seems you don't have enough respect to your "barbarian" neighbours. Go to learn their history and come back prepared. Especially your statement number seven is masterpiece. Thank you for it.   Are you sure you like history, Athanasios?     Do you have any prooves for the opposit? I'm opened. Yes statement n. 7 *1/2 was a masterpiece .wasn't it? Are you sure you don't like nationalist propaganda Anton?

konstantinius, please provide an English translation. All discussions on these fora must be in English.

For those who wish to continue the discussion of the morality of Basil II, this is the thread to do it in. But first, a few guidelines. Though this topic may be a source of emotiona involvement for some members, members who post here must be reminded to keep control of their tempers. Discussions are to be scholarly, polite and to concern the topic which the thread is about. Basil was a fascinating character and his history deserves objective analysis, I am confident members here are able to discuss him in a manner befitting a lover of history.

Edited by Anton - 07-Jul-2007 at 19:51

I have never heard of the incident before. But yes, that does sound creatively brutal. On the other hand what is there it dislike about Basil? Good old Bazza! One would have to be blind or one eyed not to like him!

There is a nasty logic to this story. Killing the men would have been more merciful than sending them back in physical state where they could not work at their former professions It would seem the intention was for once able bodied men to become an economic drain on the state that sent them.

As for the original question, my answer is no, because I avoid using the word, evil. It sounds somewhat childish and naive. But if a person depicts Genghis Khan as a demon and considers Basil as an emperor who did what he had to do, he is a hypocrite.

Originally posted by elenos There is a nasty logic to this story. Killing the men would have been more merciful than sending them back in physical state where they could not work at their former professions It would seem the intention was for once able bodied men to become an economic drain on the state that sent them.

This is exactly what I am thinking about this incident.

Been catching up on the history. It appears Basil, in the middle of a bloody war for power over Eastern Europe, was in no mood to negotiate. In retrospect he could have shown mercy and cut a deal with the Bulgars who were in a weak position after having lost a major battle. That the opposing Samuil fainted at the sight of his returning men and died two day later is an indication he would have been ready for a truce in favour of Basil.

I am not sure I understood you, rider. Could you please explain your point? Byzantium is not equal to Greece but Greeks played important if not dertermining role in Byzantine Empire at that time.