Most Effective Palaeologan Emperor

 Ive always wanted to know what became of the imperial crown jewels, I know they were pawned to the Venetians, but what later became of them?

 I'd be interested if they are still in existance to see what they looked like in things other than on mosaics etc. The fact I have been unable to find much of any reference to them after they were pawned, leads me to think they no longer exist, if anybody knows about them then i'd like to know.

 I checked for an achievments to this dynasty I findout the retook of constantinpole under  Michael VIII this the first achievments.

The second was more significant in my opinion is the bravest last stand by Constantine XI.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Tempted though I am to vote my namesake, his reign was too short for us to really know. He only shines out because he exhibited exemplary and exceptional conduct over a short and very desperate period of time.

Yes, Constantine XI accomplished much in his short reign.  Even before he became emperor he worked indefatigably to build up Mistra and the Morea as despot.  He was a patron of the arts, as can be seen in his support for Gemistos Plethon.  When his brother John VIII traveled to Italy to attend the Council of Florence, Constantine guarded the city and ruled in his stead.  And of course, as emperor he organized the final defense of the city, however small it was, and encouraged both Greeks and Italians in their fight against the Ottomans.  If somone of his stature had ascended the throne , say, after Michael VIII, he might have been able to make a difference.

I am tempted to vote Michael VIII because he handled the West so well and incorporated so much land back into Byzantium, but he so terribly neglected Asia for his Western aims that the Empire was once again shrinking when he died, and this time had the walls of Constantinople to provide their rulers a degree of insular comfort.

I wonder if Michael's infatuation with the West and its Catholicism was what makes him deserving of the title "mitigated failure"?  Granted his skilfull diplomacy foiled the Sicilian Vespers situation with Charles of Anjou, but his acceptance of the Catholic faith enraged the Byzantine clergy and people.  In effect, he traded a victory for a loss.  I wonder why did not concentrate on using diplomacy in the west, and employing the Byzantine army in the East against the Turks?  Michael's army was probably the largest and best trained of any of the Palaeologan emperors; I think he could have made some headway in Anatolia if he had tried.  Instead he ignored the East like you pointed out.

Honestly it would be a contest between John VI and Manuel II, probably with Manuel II winning because John carries a degree of blame for bringing the Turks into Europe and putting Byzantium through a civil war.

John Cantacuzenus had great potential as emperor.  He successfully dealt with the Zealot revolts in Thessaloniki and demonstrated some military talent as well.  The civil war with John V was disastrous for the Empire at the moment when time was crucial - do you think that his abdication was a good move, considering the war would have continued and caused even more damage?  I wonder what a combination of Michael VIII dealing with the Turks in Anatolia and John Cantacuzenus gaining the upper hand in the civil war and deposing John would have done for the Empire?

Originally posted by Belisarius Effectiveness is measured in success, and each one of these emperors, except Michael, failed in whatever they attempted to do.

I tried to make it clear in the first post that yes, the Palaeologan emperors did not slow down the destruction of the Empire that much.  However, I would not go as far as to say that all of them utterly failed in what they tried to do.  Michael VIII failed on a religious and political level, as you may well know, but he was a wiley Byzantine in terms of diplomacy and he was a good general on the battlefield from some of the accounts that we have.  I can also say that Manuel II, John VIII, and even Constantine XI might have bought the Empire some more time with their decisions and talent.  Emperors like the Andronici and John V, on the other hand, made some very poor decisions and could be considered total failures.

I am actually torn between Michael VIII, John VI, and Manuel II.  I want to do some more reading before I decide who I will vote for.

By the time of the civil wars of the middle 14th century, it seems the most evident that the Empire would not be around much longer as a political entity.  Massive territory loss, religious discord, and military impotence had dealt the Empire its mortal wounds.  Despite the impending fall of Byzantium, there were some emperors of the Palaeologan dynasty who tried to make the best of the resources they had.  Some were men of great ability and intellect, which we can see by their writings and their performance in battle.  Others squandered what little time and wealth the Empire had left and made poor choices on both military and diplomatic levels.  Which ones do you think are commendable for the what they did, despite the awful circumstances?  Which ones did poorly, in your estimation?