Greatest Emperor (of Byzantium)

I voted for Leo III. He put stability back in the country after the pointless power struggles of various weak emeperors who didn't see the threat from the east. It must be some odd case of luck that Leo III got the throne when he did. He was a true soldier after years of dumb rulers (in a military point of view). None the previous rulers could have kept the Arabs from entering Constantinople and have not stayed inside the city to govern the defence himself.

Justinian just had Belisarios, (and one general more who was a rather genius) and a crazy idea of restoring the former Roman borders, little to do with the battles AFAIK. The laws he created were his legacy and the uprising of Nike aswell.

Originally posted by rider Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I Erm, I hope someone can explain to me how is it that the Roman Empire was only 500 years while the East was in for a 1000 years. Rome began in the 800s BC (and is now being estimated to be a century earlier than that), and the Roman Empire lasted until 476 (West), which, IIRC, is a lot more than 500 years. Also, the Eastern Roman Empire survived until the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but, like Ihsan said, it's culture fell in the 7th century. I think that IIRC meant that the Roman Empire (not the Roman Republic) from Octavianus Augustus...

 

Rome began in the 800s?

By 735 Rome is supposed to be founded (even though there are no evidences besides what later Roman authors told about that date). Until the late 7th century it was a small and insignificant (even in Latium) agricultural settlement. In the period of the Etruscan kings (616-509 BC, IIRC) Rome started to grow a tad bit and become the later powerhouse it became. The true Roman expansion started in the 5th century BC.

And the Roman Empire lived in the West for a mere 500 years, so much is true. In the East, the same Empire lived on for more than a thousand years. Ain't that a treat?

Heraclius had a lot of bad luck

Very true.

Edited by Ptolemy

[Q]Not that quiet actually. He conquered Armenia and pushed the Byzantine-Muslim frontier to the other side of the Taurus, also capturing important Northern F�t�mid towns.[/Q]

Well, uhm... what I meant was that the threat posed by the Arab nations at that time wasn't as grave as the Persian and Arab threat under Heraclius and the Arab threat under Leo III, that's all

And Heraclius indeed had a lot of bad luck. You have barely overcome an almost hopeless situation, are barely restoring from it and then there comes another gulf

Heraclius' treatment of the Christians in Syria and Egypt wasn't helpful either.

Rome began in the 800s?

It's called a typo, I suppose the perfect Greeks have never had one huh?

Anyway, Justinian and Heraclius were the best IMO. Both made mistakes. Justinian managed to keep the Sassanians at bay, and reconquered a lot of the Western Roman Empire back, and even rebuilt the city of Constantinople after the Nika Riot. But he also made a few mistakes. He was the one who started the Nika Riot (IIRC), and he did weaken the empire deeply which may have influenced the later Sassanian invasion that forced Heraclius to beat them back in the first place.

Heraclius did an amazing job in reforming the economy, raising and army, and astonishingly, recovering all Roman territory lost to Persia, AND forcing them to a peace treaty after the sharp defeat. However, he killed the Roman Empire culturally....

I don't know if Hellenization was a good thing. Hehe, centuries of Romans fighting Hellenizing influence and the Eastern Empire embraces it... LOL!  And Heraclius was not Armenian, he was a Latin from Carthage (born) and through his mother's side Latin as she was a descendant of Roman colonists throughout the area. I'm not really sure about Heraclius's father, though, maybe he was African too? I mean, he was Military Exarch of Carthage.

Edited by Imperatore Dario I

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival I think Heraclius was very important as he played a significant role in the Hellanization of the empire. Some people say he was the reason for the foundation of the modern Greek nation by replacing Latin with vernacular Greek. It completely changed the face of the empire. And he was Armenian! As was Basil II (who reconquered Syria, Greece, as well as destroying the Bulgar army), John Tzimiskes and John Ducas. John Tzmiskes overthrew and killed Emperor Nikephorus Phokas to take the throne. Actually, 70% of the empire's existence was under the rule of Armenian emperors.

 

Heraclius was Armenian? Now that's funny, all sources give him as Greek by his father (I haven't seen anything about his mother though, his father was the offspring of a very well known Greek family) not even "with Armenian blood" (as was the case with Basil II and John Ducas and Tzimiskes - btw you can't call "Armenian" someone who doesn't even speak Armenian, the most you can tell is "he had Armenian blood by his father's side").  What would an Armenian governor be doing in Cyrenaica anyway?

And that 70% is a gross (extremely gross) innacuracy... only one dynasty was Armenian (read: rulers who could be considered "Armenian", didn't just have a drop of Armenian blood in their bloodline) while about 85% of the emperors from Heraclius until the bitter end, were Greek.

 

Edited by Rebelsoul

Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I I don't know if Hellenization was a good thing. Hehe, centuries of Romans fighting Hellenizing influence and the Eastern Empire embraces it... LOL!

I guess the strongest culture prevailed after all

Cappadocia was inhabited by Greek-speakers AFAIK.