Every Byzantine Emperor from Worst to Best 

Constantine XI was a chad

He at least went down like a legend though, ensuring he isn't remembered as the worst.

He did a decent job with what he had.

​​​@@huntclanhunt9697Exactly. Going down fighting is a more Roman way for the Roman Empire to end than a child "emperor" nobody really recognizes being deposed without a fight. (Though, tbh, Odoacer was pretty chadly himself if you learn about his history; he did depose an illegitimate emperor and basically reunify the empire under one ruler by making himself a vassal of the emperor in Constantinople; plus, the regular Romans of the time wouldn't have seen it as the end of Rome; that idea didn't come into vogue until Justinian used the apparent lack of "Roman" government in the west to justify his wars that left Italy as a whole and the city of Rome in particular far worse than he found them).

​@@James_Wisniewskieh not really, he was a vassal in name only and romans in the east probably wouldn't have seen him as the western Roman emperor. Although on a purely factual basis, he literally disbanded the western Roman empire and sent the regalia to the east.

his father made the ottomans his vassals through diplomacy, surely there was more to do

​@@TrajGreekFire I thought they became Ottoman vassals, not the other way around

​@@TrajGreekFireWhat? Lol

He backed the winning side during the ottoman interregnum, playing an important role i think, so the Ottoman Sultan was apparently very grateful. Its possible that he actually recognized the emperor as technically his superior but i am not sure. Would have been a technicality AKA like the emperor of Japan and the Shogun even if it did happen, but i can't recall the exact phrasing@@Goratrix66

It's not that he is bad, it's that there is a lot more emperors that accomplished more than he did, he simply did not have the resources or variability to do anything, such is the sad fate of history.

Not nikephoros. His diplomacy was garbage

@@Iamnotracistlmao His diplomacy per se wasn't the bad thing, it was his extremely necessary but unpopular economy reforms that doomed him. I don't think not banishing John Tzimiskes would have saved him.

@@madcrusader123 no his diplomacy was actually garbage

​@@IamnotracistlmaoIsn't it because of his strange madness?

​@@madcrusader123 Tzimisces has some claim to be the absolute GOAT. Pity about the horrible way he seized power.

Thank you very much. I took me a very long time putting this video together, admittedly a couple of errors slipped through but as you can imagine, keeping track of nearly 100 people is quite difficult. I would certainly love to do one for Trebizond. Epirus is much harder because it was conquered several times and broke up so a consistent line of Despots is quite difficult.

I would have placed some of them higher, some lower. To me Basil II the Bulgar-slayer, John II Komnenos and John III Vatatzes are the best emperors, while I have very mixed feelings towards both Justinian the Great, Heraclius, Constantine Himself and Theodosius, and enormous despise for several very unsuccessful basileii, first and foremost Phocas, but also Michael VIII's son and the Angeloi.

Leo the 3rd way better costant 2nd all though he did some good things but most of his reign was mediocre Leo was in more terrible time then costant 2nd because of Leo byzantine empire lasted 726 year thanks to him the Umayyad started to fragmented because of the lost in 717 and Anatolia defense made the gate of Europe and recent conquest of Spain the caliphate was too large and multicultural to controlled easily the caliph was in sirya the rulers of Spain were too far without Anatolia and Balkans no way he control it from that far sure his iconoclasm was bad but if was put in let say the 641 ad Egypt would even be still in byzantine hands and loses would have been only sirya to me Leo should be on high rank

Also u did great exposing the truth for leo the 5 was real savvy emperor he had some leo third genes at least his brain he kept Sicily/ crete save and Bulgaria in cheak he was great assassino had he killed krum I think I would give him 9/10 also second iconoclast wasn't that long

@@rickyyacine4818 I agree, I think Leo V was a very good emperor. The second Iconoclasm was a result of his own success. The second and, in many ways, the first iconoclasm were closely tied to military victory.

Actually a really good list but Constantine the IX is wayyyyyyyy too high. Flagrantly incompetent emperor, well worth reading Michael Psellos who served under him (he defends him but his poor decisions really bleed through). Otherwise great choices for especially the good and great Emperors! (Alexios I especially is well placed at 11)

Thank you very much. I am glad that I have been able to help and that you enjoy what I have to offer.

He meant the last as in the final emperor.

I am enormously grateful for such kind words. Thank you. My reasoning for the great Komnenian emperors is what you seem to be asking. So Alexios I is undoubtedly a great man and managed to achieve a huge amount during his reign. However, for sometime now, I have been keen to be more objective about his reign and not simply follow the obviously eulogising account of Anna Komnene's Alexiad as so many people do. John Zonaras holds a fair more objective assessment of the emperor, which is the course I try to follow these days. Why? I will attempt to be brief because no-one reads essays in RU-vid comments. He had a mixed military record (and no I am not just talking about the beginning of his reign); he was a usurper and chose to plunge the empire into civil conflict to seize power; he was a religious persecutor; his concessions to Venice essentially is what founded the Venetian maritime empire that would become a considerable thorn the empire's side; and, though necessary, his emergency measures in the 1080's were somewhat callous, had he died in 1092 when the crises were finally over but before he was able to start reforming the empire, we might remember him very differently. John II was very successful and generally a good ruler in whose reign the reforms of Alexios I really took root. However, possibly because we know so little about this emperor, my hand is stayed from entering too high in the list. Manuel I despite his ups and downs was a great emperor and would be the last great emperor for over a generation. Why? While people generally dwell on his failed expeditions to Egypt, Italy and central Anatolia, they seem to forget that he successfully managed to carry on this invasion of southern Italy, at the same time as fighting a Hungarian-Serbian coalition. His reign saw an immense amount of cultural achievement. It was of course, in his reign that Anna Komnene, John Kinnamos, Constantine Manassas, Michael Glykas and Niketas Choniates wrote their histories, just as an example. Furthermore, Manuel I was truly able to bring his empire's power to bare on the world stage. He sponsored repairs and building in the Crusader states, he carried on relations with Russia, he was pen pals with England, he tried to become Holy Roman emperor, nearly took southern Italy back, destroyed the power of Hungary and Serbia in the Balkans, had the resources to invade Egypt and also successfully fortified the provinces of Asia Minor and established the economy and defences necessary that ultimately ensured the empire's survival in Anatolia. While, I think a mitigation of Manuel I's reign is justified he was still a great emperor, though I might not but him quite so high in my list as I did.

You're overlooking a lot to not consider Justinian and Constantine as Godtier. You're thinking in terms of diplomacy, not geopolitics. They each holistically expanded trade and economic confidence, promoting remarkable stability despite challenging times. Their politics saw excellent administration and highly skilled bureaucracy which took serious work at this time. They each aimed to unify their citizens by centralising the creeds. Constantine restored the currency and Justinian's laws were adopted for centuries after. These guys simply didn't sleep and deserve their legacy, which also include enhancing the new capital which was a hallmark of Byzantine power. I am a huge Alexios fan and agree he's criminally underrated by most. An incredible planner, muti-dimensional and my favourite diplomatically. He's no doubt a top 10, but the more research I do the more clear the top 3 are: Basil II, Justinian I and Constantine I with an order that's subjective

@@rockstar450 In my understanding, the Great, the Greatest Emperor is not the one who was born in calm times and after him it got worse (and after CONSTANTINE AND JUSTINIAN IT BECAME WORSE, including through their fault) but the one who came in times of crisis and showed extraordinary abilities was able to leave behind a world much better than it was before him. Alexei Komnenos laid a lot of controversial foundations for the structure of the empire, but there was nothing that would not have been corrected over time. Yes, Justinian's legal code is awesome. But without his Italian campaigns, Byzantium would have been less likely to have faced the crisis of the 7th century, especially if the eastern and southern borders had been adequately defended. Yes, Constantine built a magnificent capital and established an excellent bureaucracy. But he unsuccessfully divided his empire between relatives, did not complete the work of strengthening Christianity, which led to crises with Julian and Eugenius, and was unable to properly secure the captured areas for himself. All this greatly diminishes the contribution of these two in my eyes. As I said, Constantine did not have a single real challenge or strong enemy. And Justinian, in isolation from his reforms, conducted extremely terrible wars with the Ostrogoths and Persians and laid a solid foundation for the loss of both Italy and Spain. In this regard, Vasily is much more worthy as a candidate for first place, but Vasily was not a great emperor. He turned defeats into victories (like Alexei), but he was completely blind to the issue of inheritance, which caused the whole crisis in the 1040-1070s, and he was also a military emperor and a good bureaucrat, but he understood very little economics and culture and therefore Byzantium was unable to take full advantage of the fruits of its conquests.

Basil II has to be on top of Justinian.

I agree with you especially on what you said about Manuel he could have pushed the Turks out of Anatolia but instead diverted most of his attention to Italy and the balkans which would cost the empire in the long run

I agree though I think Justinians reign would have been significantly better without the black deaths really took the wind out of the empires sails

I totally agree, Justinian overextended the Empire, the Eastern Romans literally could do nothing when the Lombards invaded Italy

Justinian didn't overextend the empire. It was profitable and strong but Justin II started wars on all fronts. Basil II isn't judged for Alexander nor other exposures. Justinian did many things Basil could not

Yeah, losing at Pliska and getting turned into a mug for Krum might have ruined Nikephoras I reputation.

Also being extremely unpopular contributed to his fall. I think he's an ok emperor, but certainly not as good as Theophilos

Thank you very much.

Thank you, I already did a collaboration with Maiorianus. Here is a link to the videos we made: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yl9iCpBkMQw.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l_qYPHwIFTA.html

I am in fact doing such a thing in Short form with each emperor going chronological order from Constantine XI to Constantine I. I am up too Theodore Ii so far.

What Theodosius done? Nothing. Just he murdered Pagans. Nothing else

@@lamastu2156 Not much. He made Christianity official, crushed the barbarian usurpers and kept the Empire Roman, and manipulated the Goths because after Andrianople the East practically had no army. That's all.

@@miramax6165 Every emperor that time crushed barbarians. How manipulated Goths when they destroyed all the western empire and Latin world? The only think who he done is thst he persecuted Pagans as I said before.

⁠@@miramax6165theodosius wasn’t the one who legalized christianity

​@@lamastu2156 It wasn't Theodosius' fault that the Goths ransacked the West. It was their need that turned to greed.

Justinian is the greatest politician but basil II is the greatest general

​@@constantinexii8182Nikephoros and Tzimiskes were more naturally talented generals, but Basil was better at staying alive which always matters more

@@geordiejones5618 He only lost one battle in his life and that was a night ambush, Tsimiskes lost once to Sayf and I don't think nikephoros ever lost a battle

Justinian vs Basil discourse will always be a topic of which one is better

Justinian reformed laws, administration and his holdings were so well restructured they held until Phocus and the Arabs. The HRE would emulate his law codes and the Hagia Sofia cemented New Rome as the world's capital

Alexios gave extensive trade rights to Venice and quarters in Constantinople to the Latins that doomed the empire in 1204. He is good but not that good. Get real

@@Iamnotracistlmao no, the massacre of the latins pretty much was a serious reason for the sacking of 1204, people always like to blame the west and one emperor but not one blames the nobles in constantinople for what happened too when they decided to riot. It was a murder of other christians and you can't go blaming others for what they and that was solely on the rome's part for that part.

​@michelleg7 massacre of latins never happened. The west never mention it. They talk about Manuel's expulsion instead

​@michelleg7 the 4th Crusade's sacking was due to greed. Period. The tensions you mention didn't exist. The citizens thought it was just a cue and didn't flee. The soldiers on the crusades were lied to frequently. It was greed which doomed the crusade movement and left the crusade states to fall

I am aware. It was an error I had not noticed until after I published the video.

a good video nonetheless.

Oh indeed, some of the silence over his reign by the Byzantines might simply have been due to him being an Monothelite heretic thus presenting similar source issues to the Iconoclast emperors. Although, as I said he was no military genius he was responsible for holding the line, he started reforming the empire, created the professional navy and was one of the very few emperors to actually bother with the western provinces of his empire. I wanted to acknowledge these facets to his reign. Also, you are correct, the much more contemporary history of Sebeos is far kinder and perhaps closer to contemporary feelings about Constans II, especially since he calls him a second David.

The Laskarids have legitimacy

@@TrajGreekFire in a way, Yes. Just not enough for me. I did a poll about this issue, remember?

@@epikurejczyk no

Thank you, although the civil war is partially his fault, responsibility also lays with the patriarch, Alexios Apokaukos and Empress Anna. I had a discussion with Dr Brian McLaughlin about John Vi which you can watch here:ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fgL5FgFD41k.html

Not at all. It's pretty mainstream. See, James O'Donnell, The Ruin of The Roman Empire. (Not to be confused with Arthur Dent, The Ruin of Rome).

He also overstretched the Empire to fuck, creating constant headaches against the Persians for all following Emperors. Imho he should've stopped after Africa at the latest. The plague was unfortunate tho.

@@broxim9668 Maurice considered reviving The Western Empire to administer the newly conquered provinces, but ultimately decided to set up the two "exarchates" of Africa and Italy as autonomous provinces. Byzantine Spain was considered part of Africa for administrative purposes.

​@@broxim9668no he didnt. Plague caused a population collapse.

Revisionist nonsense. The plague is what made it difficult to hold those territories. They lost a massive amount of population. Justinian couldn't stop that

Ah, small typo, it can happen when one is doing the write up for 95 people. It would probably be unpopular decisions, such as wanting to make soldiers martyrs, his coinage reform and his actions during the famine at the end of his reign.

asceticism is based

@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetardedi agree

alexios did extraordinary job of saving the empire but set the seed for more problems later he sold his soul the day he sing the treaty with Venice and calling the pop for help he should have bought mercenary and worked slowly on carful strategy to restore Anatolia he sacrificed byzantine sovrenity with a quick success he restore lands sure but after that he had to keep an eye on every crusade it coming to his land he was great man real savvy but he focused to much on today gain with worrying on later problems caused by his action his pronoia strategy worked well during his early years from 1081 ad to 1100 ad but rather going back to the thematic system he kept relaying on it so much that his successors used as defaults system the military aristocracy toke power and every the state become mush poorer and provinces become independed and military aristocracy become to powerful to the point that the civil aristocracy is gone again his great and savvy ruler in better times he would be number 3 or 1 but his quick actions give him short victories but long disasters afterward in just 24 years from 1180 ad to 1204 ad the byzantine collapsed so badly it lead to 4 crusade meaning after 1081 ad any retarded emperor or average one will be the end of byzantine

And I believe it was also Christmas day. Michael VIII was one of the few emperors who never escaped the stigma of usurpation due to how he treated his predecessor.

and decades later you have Andronikos II meeting you to give you apologizes when you've been a blind monk for most of your life

He was awful but he wasn't as bad as Alexios III. And there were many awful Emperors on the level on both men

​@@iDeathMaximuMII Phokas is difficult to judge. You could argue he was more unlucky than bad.

What do you mean?

Thank you.

I believe this better applies to Alexios I who gave Venice extremely generous trade rights and essentially is what allowed them to establish their trade empire, not Basil II.

​@EasternRomanHistory but how was the empire under Basil and how was under Alexios?? Alexios had no other choice. These two and Heraclius are the greatest Eastern Roman emperors for me. The one that made Eastern Rome one of the greatest powers ever and the two that saved the empire from sure collapse, gave it a breath of life and made it great again

makedonia einai ellinas

I think Constantine XI gets blown out of all proportion simply because he was the last emperor, but the facts speak for themselves, he lost Constantinople, he made decisions which actually worsened the empire's position, but was still competent and effective. I do like Maurice, he is a favourite of mine but he undid his own legacy. All the successes of Maurice were undone within 30 years. Although, he is an emperor that deserves significantly more study than he hitherto has received.

He was a legitimate Roman emperor from the Valentinian dynasty, it would be strange in my mind not to include him. I might well have wished to include Magnus Maximus as well.

@@EasternRomanHistory I was confused because neither him nor Gratian were eastern emperors, though I can understand seeing how Gratian did allow for the accession of Theodosius. I’m also wondering, do you have a comprehensive bibliography for your videos? I really like how you always cite your sources.

As Roman emperors I see no reason to split them off from the eastern Roman emperors. Coins of them were minted in both halves of the empire. Laws were issued in the names of all of the legitimate emperors. They were all related to the reigning dynasty and could move troops into each others territories, such as Gratian helping Valens against the Goths. Constantine II restored the Alexandrian patriarch. Constans I often worked together with Constantius II and his death led the latter into a civil war with his killers. Valentinian II fled to the east, his sister married Theodosius I and was restored to power by the eastern emperor. It would be difficult to make a complete picture of the Roman empire in the fourth century without them.

That is certainly true for the fourteenth century.

audio glitch, while rending I am afraid.

Thank you for the comment. For John II, even though I like him very much I do recognise that sometimes things did not go to plan, he lost the siege of Neocaesarea, he could not take Shaizar and carve out a new Crusader state for Raymond and was forced to resume the trade treaty with Venice. The annoying thing is that we just don't know that much about his reign. Theodosius I, I agree with you that he was not a terrible emperor as some channels like Majorianus have said and you are right, he saved the east while it was in a crisis. He may have even become emperor because of his early successes against the Goths. He could also be heavy handed like with the massacre of Thessalonica, which was rather senseless and could make poor decisions such as assigning his general Abogast as MM for Valentinian II the feud between the two directly led to a civil war because of it. One where Theodosius caught his mortal disease. Isaac II is mediocre, his biggest blunder was Bulgaria but spent a concerted effort to undo his mistake, which I can appreciate and on two occasions nearly destroyed the Bulgarian- Vlach revolt. I don't think he was a good emperor but it could have been much worse which for this period from 1180-1204 all of them were.

@@EasternRomanHistory Your channel is the most valid and historically accurate. I have stopped watching Majorianus videos because they are full of contradictions. He favors the barbarians and defies the historical truth. One channel I also like is Romaboo Ramblings.

​@giannisgiannopoulos791 Maiorianus is a terrible channel who outright lies at how Germanised the west was by its fall, hates Greeks and Christians. The lies he spins like Ricimir just being evil when he was doing more to save the west than even Majorian who was simply a good general who pandered to the senate. Justinian was a net positive for the empire no matter how you cut it.

While I consider Phocas a tyrant and an inept ruler, he was responsible for keeping the Persians in check for the first 8 years of the Persian war. An issue with the sources is that the majority of them: Theophylact, the Paschale Chronicle, John of Antioch and George of Pisidia all wrote during the reign of Heraclius, the usurper against Phocas. So Theophylact was purposefully trying to make Maurice look like a great emperor cut down but the evil Phocas, while the others were making Heraclius, whom they wrote under look like a saviour, who avenged Maurice and killed the evil Phocas thus justifying his own usurpation. So while, we should temper our account and try and be objective about the reign of Phocas, while he was not as bad as he is made out to be, I don't believe he was good either.

@@EasternRomanHistory i find it hard to believe phocas revolted for no reason..and that he sat on his hands while persia invaded. The west seems to have viewed him positively...plus the war in the west took years to overthrow him so he musst have held sway somewhere. but overall id say he was a mess. Maurice seems to me the kind emperor a historian loves but may not have been the kind of man youd like to live under. He was focused on restoring the treasury at the cost of some rather callous moves. Granted he was basically paying for tiberius' generosity.

Damn! I did not type up my reasoning for him, he has the reasons from Constantine IX. My apologies for this, there are a lot of emperors and can pose challenges to keeping track of all of them.