Most Effective Palaeologan Emperor

I voted for my namesake John VI.  It is true that John Vi was responsible for bringing the Turks into Europe, but with enemies on all sides, who could really blame him at that point in time when he was fighting the civil wars?

Also I admire him for being willing to give up the throne, to avoid further damage to what was left of the empire.  One can only speculate about what he could have accomplished had he come to power at a more favourable time.

It was also unfortunate that Europe was afflicted with the Black Plague at a time when he needed men and money most.  It's probably the will of the heavens that everything was against him and the Byzantine Empire.

 I tending to lean more and more towards Manuel II also, i've looked over the reigns of all of the early Palaeologan Emperors worth going through and once I got to Manuels its difficult to find one better than him.

 He is just 1 of many of the late Emperors who deserved better times, the really incredible thing is how they still managed to shine in such a desperate period of Byzantiums history.

 Lately i've been thinking at what point Byzantiums decline became terminal and beyond the point of return, which specific event or reign meant no matter what there was no turning the situation around. You could always say a successful crusade could of gave the empire a chance no matter how late in the day, but thinking realistically at what point was Byzantiums destruction inevitable.

 Originally I looked to Andronicus II's reign seeing as it was during his reign Byzantium ceased being an effective military and naval force, but i've found myself looking much later.

 Its difficult to pinpoint the moment when destruction was assured in a state that was for the best part of a century bankrupt, lacking real military power and was fighting itself with what money and men it possessed. I still can't decide at what point I can say "this is the moment Byzantiums fate was sealed" even in 1453 there was always a chance a miracle could be pulled off.

 Perhaps its the obvious answer and it was only when the city istelf fell that Byzantium was truly doomed.

 I've thought about this alot lately, I think i've underestimated a few late Emperors.

 Andronicus III for one, I never realised how hard he did try to save the situation and John VI as talented a man as your likely to find almost anywhere in Byzantiums long and distinguished history, truly deservant of better times. Even Michael VIII I never until now fully appreciated the miracles he pulled off in the diplomatic sphere, saving Byzantium countless times.

 Andronicus and John especially, despite all the setbacks, always managed to offer me some hope of a revival even when it seemed impossible. Be it the rebuilding of the fleet such as it was, campaigning in the Balkans and confronting the Turks in Asia Minor, damnsight braver than Emperors before them who had infinitely greater resources at hand, vast armies and a quality fleet.

 Somebody who has escaped my notoriously vicious criticism for to long however if Andronicus II, this guy just made me want to stop reading on late Byzantine history through sheer annoyance. If anybody can explain to me why idiots tend to rule so long id be highly appreciative?

 Many of the late Byzantine Emperors also lower my opinion of the likes of Manuel I Comnenus, i've re-read much of the literature I possess which covers his reign. I've finally come to realise what an overrated Emperor he really is, i'm stunned everytime I read it the number of chances he had to re-establish Byzantine control over Anatolia and squandered them in favour of some pointless exercise in South Italy.

 There seems to have been more steel in some of those late Emperors who could nothing but watch their empire collapse than there was when the empire still had a chance.

Edited by Heraclius

Originally posted by Herschel Isn't it amazing how many times the West strung the Byzantine along to try to get a "re-unification" while the Byzantines always were the ones who had to make the consessions? I think the West did more damage to the East Roman Empire than a millenia of Arab and Turkish attacks.

Yeah, I totally agree.  The later emperors were willing to sacrifice not only their Orthodox heritage in order to gain military aid through church union, but also their political standing at home in what was already a very unstable environment.  All they received in return was empty words and outright hostility from their supposed Christian bretheren.

Originally posted by Constantine XI I personally don't think all that much of John VII, he was an alright Emperor but not a very good one. He really made a mess when he bungled the affair over that Ottoman prince and handing him over to the Sultan. Had he been born in better times he would have done a very capable job though. As the situation was at the time almost any minor wrong move would be disastrous.

Didn't the debacle with the prince happen during Constantine XI's reign?  Shortly before the siege of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmet was having some trouble with rebellious Beys in the provinces.  Constantine misjudged the severity of the situation and demanded from Mehmet the payments for the upkeep of the captive Prince Orhan.  This enraged Mehmet and the Sultan immediately made preparations to build the infamous "Throat-Cutter" fortification on the Bosphorus, complete with cannon on its ramparts. (this is in Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, pp. 64-65)

I think John VIII is commendable because he and the aged patriarch made the journey to Italy to attend the council of Ferrara-Florence in a futile attempt to obtain military aid from the unsymapthetic West.  Instead of sitting in the City and squandering precious time, (like the previous Andronici emperors had done), he used what bargaining power he had left to help the Empire.  Runciman mentions that he commissioned work to be done on the crumbling Theodosian walls.  I don't think any of the other Palaeologi, besides maybe Manuel II and definitely Constantine XI, had the sense to reinforce the old walls.

Originally posted by Herschel I voted for Manuel II, because of all the Roman emporers over its *almost* 2,000 year history, no other man cared so much for his people and his country. He was a brilliant diplomat who prolonged the life of Byzantium peacefully. Also, he had a genuine love for art and literature. I can't believe anyone voted for Michael. He was effective with the government of Nicaea, but he completely undermined the defences of Anatolia and ensured the death of an empire that, under any other ruler, could have rebounded. I suppose it's already been discussed, though.

Good choice.  I haven't actually voted in my own poll yet!  I am still torn between Michael VIII, Manuel II, and possibly John VIII.  I am still doing some research and study of these emperors before I cast my vote.

 I think your theory is sound Constantine, the old Roman empire was similar. When the empire was divided capitals were placed in hotspots and places where the Emperor could react to situations, Trier and Antioch for example.

 This proved far more effective than being closed away in Rome or Ravenna surrounded by luxery and favourites and becoming more and more detached from the realities of the empire.

 The Romans realised the city of Rome was poorly placed to react to the situation the empire was currently in, Rome was always going to be the symbolic capital, but it could not remain the effective capital of the empire.

 I can fully understand why the Byzantines couldnt imagine an empire without their beloved capital, but the empire couldnt afford to have Emperors seduced by the lavish luxery of the court it needed Emperors who were rough and tough who had experienced the hardships of provincial life and were in touch with the people. Not some secluded hedonist who gave away his authority to favourites and the like, because he was to busy and happy with the excitement of courtlife.

 The empire lost that hardened edge it had gained from the trauma it had suffered after the breaking up of the empire, constantly having to fight off invaders from west and east and always seemingly on the edge of destruction gave the empire some heart and unity again.

 An empire without Constantinople is almost impossible to imagine, perhaps in the end it was worth the cost to go down with their capital, its certainly secured Byzantiums popular immortality with 1453. And was a fitting and worthy end IMO. A total contrast to the shambolic dishonourable and pathetic demise of the western empire.

 Realistically though as hard as it would have been, the people should have realised the empire had changed before and it must do so again, I can see had things been differently a strong unified greek empire in Asia Minor, roughly comprising of modern Turkey with or without Constantinople the city could never be allowed to revert to the effective capital again and rather the symbolic one like Rome had to be.

Edited by Heraclius

I have a theory regarding that last paragraph. It is not 100% plausible, but it appeals to my instinct of how human nature works.

When the Emperors were based at Nicaea (or more often Nymphaion), they were thrust right into the action. No secluded palaces within the luxurous Queen of Cities, no more amusing themselves with symptuous luxuries and ignoring the gathering threat. The Emperors were faced with the day to day grind of their provincial cities, with the economic realities of Byzantium's real populace as well as their military realities. They adjusted themselves accordingly. Economic administration of that fragment of the Empire saw its lands and people thrive, their military received careful attention and proved itself capable of dealing with threats and expaning the Empire once more.

But then Constantinople is retaken. Once again away from the realities of the places which the Empire depended on, the Emperors were insulated against the realities of provincial life and could procrastinate and become indolent in the grandeur and amusements of their city. Behind the impregnable position of Constantinople's walls and the insularity which it induced, the Emperors were simply not compelled as strongly to adopt the proactive attitude which they needed to when in Nicaea. Constantinople was an entirely different world compared to the rest of Byzantium, and indeed any place in the medieval world.

In Nicaea the Emperors saw the peasant's lot, were in close proximity to learn of the situation regarding the encroaching Turks. In Constantinople they were in an entirely different world which simply put up a smoke screen to provincial matters which truly was what needed the Emperor's undivided attention. Rip criticism through this theory if you want, but my understanding of human nature compels me to find this credible.

 I find it confusing why Michael VIII neglected Asia Minor, the fact he did neglect it forces me to lean towards the argument that suggests the retaking of Constantinople caused more harm than good.

 The Nicaean empire was wealthy, strong and stable after 1261 and the retaking of Constantinople everything just seemed to fall to pieces, the focus was taken away from the vastly more important territories in Asia Minor and with there loss any hope of breathing new life into the empire was lost with, the Balkans was a lost cause anyway. Especially with the rise of the Bulgars and Serbs, whom Byzantium just couldnt hold back any longer.

 Had they simply focused on Asia Minor they could have taken better advantage of the Turks continuing divisions and infighting and not merely been an observer. There's no reason why Byzantium or rather Nicaea could not have carved out an even greater empire in Asia Minor and set the foundations for a later possible revival of the Byzantine empire.

 The empire was not just Constantinople, as hard as it may have been I think they'd of been better abandoning the great city rather than obsessing over it and thought more about their survival.

Not sure, though perhaps Donald Nicol's book on the last two centuries on Byzantium would shed some light. Lacking the materials just right now I have no way of checking, though I know a deal was made for Venice to receive Tenedos and the Byzantines would have their jewels back as part of the package. If they did get them back you can be sure they shortly after ended up selling it to keep their bankrupt state afloat.