Greatest Emperor (of Byzantium)

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.  

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 Βασί�λειος, ο χριστιανός χρονικο�γράφος Σωζομενός, καθώς και άλλοι συγγραφείς. Τα σχετικά στοιχεία εθνι�κών και χριστιανικών πη�γών δείχνουν ότι η συνωμο�σία 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

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.

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. 

i would say Justinian,not becouse he was an illyrian one but he was a great and important figure of bizant

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. 

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.

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.

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 -

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.