Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Greatest Emperor (of Byzantium) Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 08:19 |
He 'died' (actually murdered from christians) young but because of him Constantius managed to save all of the western province in gales and germans out of rome, while he was a fine manager. I cant imagine us having a useless general as ceasarin western provinces, celts would be out of rome by 360 a.d.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 08:27 |
Unknown, where is your source that he was murdered by Christians?
The most reliable sources I have read, including the primary source of
his campaign staff officer, stated that he died when a Persian javelin
hit him in the chest during a battle in which Julian did not put on
proper armor.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 10:02 |
this was a good debate, christians were saying tha agios merkourios did it..(you know how they were thinking), authos like Mitsios say that he was killed from christians. Marcelios who was Greek, not christian, said that this was rumour and the julian died from a persian. we will never know who killed him but surely there were many traitors.
I have read on foreign books but i have available for the time been a greek source
Σύμφωνα με τις
ενδείξεις δολοφονήθηκε από Χριστιανό για ιδεολογικοπολιτικούς και θρησκευτικούς
λόγους, όπως υποστηρίζουν ο Έλληνας ιστορικός Λιβάνιος, ο χριστιανός ιεράρχης
Βασίλειος, ο χριστιανός χρονικογράφος Σωζομενός, καθώς και άλλοι συγγραφείς.
Τα σχετικά στοιχεία εθνικών και χριστιανικών πηγών δείχνουν ότι η συνωμοσία
στήθηκε από τον άξονα ΑντιόχειαςΚαππαδοκίας του πλουτοκρατικού και θεοκρατικού
κατεστημένου. . (Πηγή: Περιοδικό Άβατον, άρθρο
Ιουλιανός, η αποκατάσταση ενός ιστορικού θρύλου, Αλέξανδρος Χ. Μήτσιος,
συγγραφέας και διπλωματούχος του ΑΠΘ με ειδικότητα σε θέματα ελληνικού πολιτισμού,
πολιτικής ανθρωπολογίας και φιλοσοφικής και ιστορικής αποκατάστασης, τεύχος 44,
σελίδα 74)
It is believed that Mercurios killed him and he became a saint for this andraga8ima.
Edited by Unknown - 23-Aug-2007 at 10:12
|
|
what_is_history
Janissary
Joined: 23-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:22 |
Justinian. No doubt about it!
|
"It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
-Mark Twain
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 13:06 |
I voted for Basil II quite possibly the best statesman Byzantium ever
had, an excellent military commander but also an able Administrater,
governor and refomer who left the empire far larger and more secure
then it was when he ascended the throne and yet at the end of his reign
the empire still had a full treasury. He rose from Puppet emperor to an
emperor whose control of the empire was more absolute then the majority
of his predesesors gaining ascendency over powerful generals and the
landed aristocracy that they represented and wrested power from
powerful ministers. He was one of the most well rounded of Byzantium's
emperors and perhaps among them demonstrated the greatest
self-discipline.
Heraclius comes close and was quite possibly the best emperor as a
general, Byzantium ever had but had little oppurtunity to show
administrative or political ability (though he did help with the
development of the Theme system) and his attempts at dealing with
issues concerning religion aside from it's application to improve troop
morale were largely failures. Overall an excellent emperor.
Justinian was a man of extreme's capable of great genius and incredible
stupidity, though overall he was a good emperor. Many of his greatest
achievement's however can and often should be attributed to others eg.
Belisarius, Tribonian, Narses etc. However there was such an array of
talent around Justinian, FAR too much to be a coincidence as Justinian
was an incredible judge of talent and ability (much like Genghis Khan)
however he was not a good judge of Character, mistrusting the loyal
Belisarius (ok I admit it I'm a Belisarius fan) and trusting men like
Procupius and Tribonian. He could be both extremely petty and a
visionary able to see the big picture. He is perhaps the most
interesting emperor but not the best.
Regards, Praetor.
|
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 09:23 |
Yes , Julian was a great personality. Eventhough his reign was too short, he had managed to be one of the most interesting characters in late Roman- early byzantine history... As i can see, we can choose the Greatest emperor of Byzantium with Justinian as a starting point(chronologicaly)... That might be correct, because we can only consider Byzantium as a culturaly continuation of Roman empire, or else , we will fall in the same trap as Gibbon did, considering the eastern roman empire as a fundamental carcass , lying in the eastern Mediterranean ...
Totally dangerous simplification...
About Heraclius, i believe that he really made a "feat" back then ... I can't really remember another medieval monarch being in such a difficult position and suceed in the end (Avaro-slavs and Persian(Sassanids) attacking the empire i the same time!). In my opinion , he could easily manage to restore the territories of the old Hellenistic world if he didn't want to conservate a Persian buffer in his eastern frontiers ... Probably an expansion like this would have the same luck with the Justinian's in the west...
Unfortunately for him , prophet Muhamad had other "plans" and his sucess was quickly erased by the Arab conquers...
About Julians death, i'd also read that it was caused by a poisoned Persian Javelin...
A grotesque christian version of Julian's death
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 06:24 |
Maybe christians wanted to prove that their 'god' existed and killed Julian by making frescos of Mercurius kiling Julian. However, if he had not die, the empire would have managed to wipe out the persian threat and improve relations with gaules and germans, making an empire from britannia up to deep persia.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 16:56 |
Originally posted by Unknown
Maybe christians wanted to prove that their 'god' existed and killed Julian by making frescos of Mercurius kiling Julian. However, if he had not die, the empire would have managed to wipe out the persian threat and improve relations with gaules and germans, making an empire from britannia up to deep persia.
|
Julian was killed during the withdrawal from Persia, he was no longer on the offensive having found Ctesiphon impenetrable. Although he had achieved success against the Persian army outside of the capital, the war was by no means a deathblow to the Sassanids. His survival would likely of allowed him to in future launch another assault upon Persia, the result of that war would be open to speculation and by no means a certain Roman victory.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
etnosoul
Immortal Guard
Suspended
Joined: 28-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 08:59 |
i would say Justinian,not becouse he was an illyrian one but he was a great and important figure of bizant
|
|
Julius Augustus
Earl
Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 05:43 |
No doubt, Heraclius!
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 05:49 |
It would come down to a close tie between Basil II, Alexios I and Herakleios. So out of sheer favouritism I would go with Alexios. They resemble a good balance between civil, military and political success and savvy.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 17:53 |
If i were to base my choices on administration alone, the fact that Justinian left the empire completely bankrupt, doesnt sit to well. Basil II, after all of his wars, was able to amass 14,400,000 nomismata (or 200,000 pounds of gold) for the imperial treasury due to his prudent management. Hērakleios would be my second choice.
|
|
Sun Tzu
Consul
Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 17:12 |
Yea Justinian really made the Empire more weak than powerful after he died, as for me I would say Heraclius because I could only imagine all the other things he could have done if he had not have died.
|
Sun Tzu
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 19:16 |
In my opinion, Herakleios should have 'died earlier'. Due to him becoming frail later in life, deemed him unable to take much of a part in state affairs, like campaigns in the East. This was very costly to his reputation, as nowadays many attribute the massive loss of territory to the Arabs late in his life, as his doing. This was hardly the case, and though Herakleios had spent a great deal of his career expanding the Empire, it was all being undone - with him being unable to do anything about it. I still, as aforementioned, would have no quarrels in ranking him as #1 Byzantine Emperor.
- Knights -
|
|
Julius Augustus
Earl
Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 04:52 |
Originally posted by Knights
In my opinion, Herakleios should have 'died earlier'. Due to him becoming frail later in life, deemed him unable to take much of a part in state affairs, like campaigns in the East. This was very costly to his reputation, as nowadays many attribute the massive loss of territory to the Arabs late in his life, as his doing. This was hardly the case, and though Herakleios had spent a great deal of his career expanding the Empire, it was all being undone - with him being unable to do anything about it. I still, as aforementioned, would have no quarrels in ranking him as #1 Byzantine Emperor.
- Knights -
|
good points, but I still rank him number, might be a case of Alexander, he might have garnered the great in his name if that was the case, cant really blame him for those losses, the Arabs had an advantage, fervor--they could not be stopped, they converted a lot of people, a few legionaries who had input on roman tactics, same goes with the sassanids, plus both empires were caught by surprise.
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 00:59 |
I voted Basil II but one of my favorite is Constantine Palaeologus, not on the list. If circumstances were different I think he would have made an excellent Emperor. The Byzantine Emperors remind me of the Hebrew Kings of Israel; some were great, some were corrupt, some were lame and some were outright evil.
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 01:54 |
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus
Originally posted by Knights
In my opinion, Herakleios should have 'died earlier'. Due to him becoming frail later in life, deemed him unable to take much of a part in state affairs, like campaigns in the East. This was very costly to his reputation, as nowadays many attribute the massive loss of territory to the Arabs late in his life, as his doing. This was hardly the case, and though Herakleios had spent a great deal of his career expanding the Empire, it was all being undone - with him being unable to do anything about it. I still, as aforementioned, would have no quarrels in ranking him as #1 Byzantine Emperor.
- Knights -
|
good points, but I still rank him number, might be a case of Alexander, he might have garnered the great in his name if that was the case, cant really blame him for those losses, the Arabs had an advantage, fervor--they could not be stopped, they converted a lot of people, a few legionaries who had input on roman tactics, same goes with the sassanids, plus both empires were caught by surprise.
|
Hi Julius. I bolded a part of your quote about "number" - I think you forgot to put in which number you'd rank him. Thanks. Also, the whole point of my earlier post was to point out why Herakleios shouldn't be blamed for the loss of territory late in his life, just in case you misunderstood. Regards, - Knights -
|
|
Efraz
Pretorian
Joined: 23-Apr-2008
Location: Istanbul
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 23:24 |
Well there are many many great Bysantine Emperors actually... a hard one.
I'll say Iuistinianos the Great too. sorry :)
Reviver of the Roman Empire; maybe as Ostrogorsky pointed last golden peak of the old world. And builder of many wonders in Constantinopolis. Including the Hagia Sophia.
Herakleios was a man of hard times. Also some say he is in fact "first" Bysantine Emperor or real Greek Emperor. Although he was said to be an Armenian by blood if I am not mistaken. I respect him too. A great warrior.
A movie or a novel about him would be great... I wonder if there is one?
Also recapturer of Constantinopolis: Mikhael VIII (thanks to Aleksios though)
Theodoros I son of Manouel. He was a hero who astonished me on my post-1204 readings.
Edited by Efraz - 27-Apr-2008 at 23:25
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2008 at 06:37 |
That is a rather long time period. Heraclius definetly did not have the same resources as Justinian. Nor did Basil II. Heraclius did his part late in his life to consolidate the Empire. With such devastating results he had enough foresight that the Eastern losses were probably lost permanently. He consolidated Carthage and his coastal Balkan possessions alongside Anatolia.
Alexius too had his own quarrels to deal with. The loss of Anatolia was devastating. The loss of recruitment grounds solidified mercenary reliance, which was not the greatest thing in the long run. Nevertheless, he was able to use politics and arms to regain half of Anatolia.
Then again the Lascarid iEmperors post 1204 gained a great agricultural and viable anatolian state that if managed properly could have lasted longer as an anatolian power.
I would have to say for me that Heraclius is one of the top Emperors. losing that much land and a war with the Persians before that proved him capable enough to be a viable administrator. Not many could have maintained their remaining possessions and solidify them as a base for a slow and steady expansion by his sucessors.
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2008 at 13:01 |
I'd go with: - Heraclius
- Alexios I Komnenos
- John II Komnenos
- Justinian I
- Basil II
- Nikephoros II Phokas
- Leo III the Isaurian
- Maurice
(Of course, this is using my numerical rating system for leaders...) I don't like Justinian's administration as well as most. Basil II--I think he was building on his predecessors' successes more than his own ideas.
|
|