I recently had a discussion with a Byzantinist who clung very tightly to his opinion that Basil II was the worst (or among the worst) Byzantine emperor.  His primary reasons were: 1) Basil expanded far too much for the Byzantine economy, causing its ultimate collapse, and 2) He did not leave any heirs, almost guaranteeing dynastic squabbles.

 

Now I agree with point #2, not leaving a male heir (not counting his hedonistic brother) is just plain irresponsible.  But as far as #1 is concerned, I have never read anything supporting it.  Sure, he expanded the borders to such an extent that had not been known in several centuries, but much of it was through small expeditions, show of force, and diplomacy, especially in the east with the Armenians, Tao, Taron, etc.  Not to mention his military campaigns were methodically executed with rather small(ish) to medium sized armies (as far as sources imply) for the most part, therefore cutting expenses.

 

Any feedback is appreciated, thanks all.

 

In general I would say Basil II improved on what he got and left the empire in a better state, although to little avail. To blame him for the mistakes of his successors is to misplace blame and overestimate Basil II's abilities (which among other things lacked the sixth sense).

 

I agree that to label a "greatest" or "worst" ruler of any given kingdom/empire/state is sketchy at best.

 

But anyway, to go back to Basil, it seems to me that his successors - Constantine, Romanos, the Michaels, Zoe, Theodora, and Constantine - were all said to have been more or less wastrels and/or lavish spenders.  Additionally, due to apparently lax administration, corruption grew, as did reliance upon foreign soldiers (some scholars do not agree with this last assertion, however).  After all, how could the other emperors have spent so much if Basil had already destroyed the economy?