Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Most Effective Palaeologan Emperor

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: Who was the most effective Palaeologan emperor during the last years?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [11.11%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [11.11%]
0 [0.00%]
4 [44.44%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [33.33%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Herschel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 30-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 172
  Quote Herschel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most Effective Palaeologan Emperor
    Posted: 03-Nov-2005 at 00:21
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.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2005 at 00:41

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.

Back to Top
Jazz View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
  Quote Jazz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2005 at 04:14
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.


Easily agreed.  It is interesting to note that the Latin West basically acted like an unappreciative sibling, that after centuries of being allowed to grow out of it's shell while the Roman-East was busy buffering and absorbing the shock of the Islamic tides, they would not really give a hand in return.

Back to the Theodosian walls for a sec:  Why did not the dual-layer fortifications not run all the way up to the Golden Horn? (it ended just north of the 6th Military Gate)   It was obvious that anyone planning an attack would concentrate their forces there (like Mehmet did)


Edited by Jazz
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 01:36

 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
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 14:10

Originally posted by Heraclius

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.

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?

Yeah, Michael VIII did a good deal of good and set up the Empire for some hard times at the same time.  It was too bad that his son and successor Andronicus II was not of the same caliber as his father.  Although it was good for the Byzantine clergy and people, Andronicus' reversal of his father's union work with the Catholics at Lyons placed another firm wedge between the East and the West and probably cancelled right then and there any hope of a solid military commitment to aid from the West.

I echo your praise of John VI Canatacuzenus.  It is such a shame that his reign, and the reigns of three other emperors, were wrapped up in the deadly civil war that all but outright killed the Byzantine state.  If he had been elected in the normal way and not had to mess with the turmoil of civil unrest, it is interesting to wonder what he could have accomplished.

I still have not voted in my poll yet as I am still reading on the later emperors.  I am, however, leaning heavily towards Manuel II, for he seems to have all the good qualities (diplomatic skill, military savvy, and literary talent) of a Byzantine emperor and did not squander a single prescious second in trying to save the Empire.

Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 14:28

 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.

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 16:22
Manuel II, whose efforts to perserve the Byzantine Empire in defiance of the Osmans should not be overlooked. 
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Emperor John VI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2006
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Emperor John VI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 08:30

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.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:14
I am voting for Manuel II, the most capable of the choices to me at least due to his versatility, and ability to keep the Empire alive for a while longer, he was sucessful when you take into account the restrictions he had on his rule, and on how much of a sucess he could have as Emperor. The Empire was doomed before he ever accended to the throne, and he could have with more support created a longer lasting later Empire in my mind, he had the capabilities, and recoursefulness to do so. Had he been born in an earlier age when the Emprie still had at least some capital, and recruiting ground he would have built up a strong enough state to withstand for generations. In a way he is almost born at the wrong place, and time, had he been Emperor in the 600s he most likely would have been able to regain, and hold at bay the Caliphate, and the various barbarian invasions in the Balkans.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.