Well, having done a video on the Roman Emperors as well as another one on the Western Roman Emperors, I give you the East. Also, I'm very tired. So hope you enjoy it.
The location of Constantinople is such a double edge sword.. Major enemies on both sides, with the capital at the most strategic place possible, and everyone wanting a piece of it
And if it wasn’t for plagues,a failed crusade and several emperors getting assassinated. Rome could’ve survived well through the middle ages. It’s a miracle it lasted so long.
@@rav9066 Actually being so close to enemies on all sides was a good thing. It meant that they were never too far away from enemies to respond in time. Unlike Rome for example.
@@connorgolden4 the theme system also helped alot with that. Also, succession laws changing so the empire became a semi-republic helped stabilize the main issue the toman empire had. There were still crisis's but it helped.
Just imagine... a Persian Empire tearing itself apart... while Byzantium recovers its strength... Mesopotamia is... right there... in need of - nay - desperate for stability... I can see it before my inner eye: A larger than life statue of Trajan right there in front of the White Palace in Ctesiphon, just because. The inscription reads "ez get rekt Khozrow (all of them)". It just seems so perfect an ending to the rule of a hero such as Heraclius. As if it was... meant to be. But NO! Of course fate had to be a bitch again and so some random Arabian merchant got up one day and decided he wanted to be a fucking cult leader.
@@menospeakwelsh Cult, yeah ok. Prophecy is Prophecy m8, Ishmales great nation had to be fulliflled. Muhammad who had a very good opinion of heraclus and was the reason they managed to defeat the persians thanks to Allah is this fillfillment.
The greatest flaw of Basil II was his negligency over succession. He lived his whole life dedicating to the State, yet he did not think about what would have happened after his death. Not only he had no children, he did not even choose a valuable heir.
@@dantedo9758 what evidence is there of him being a womaniser? There is only a complete black hole where family and ones exploits typically get some mention... just like Freddy Mercury, they likely all knew and overlooked it because he was the damn good.
@@dantedo9758 these are news to me but thanks for politely sharing them. As for dynastic security, having an heir usually secures a ruler more than destabilises
@@Dustz92 Iwant to say I agree with you but Phokas is really awful. Maurice is a pretty good emperor, but wiht Phokas mismanagement the empire almost fell. If he didnt do shit, the Arabs if they did rise wouldnt be able to conquer more than half of the empire
11:19 the reason why John VIII has such a good portrait is because he was a catholic convert and was very very much liked by the latin Italians. So much that they made a painting of him and you know how good the Latins were at painting (because of the Rennaisance)
I don’t really agree with Romano’s IV being so low, sure he lost manzikert but if he had been reinstated as the emperor he would have easily held onto Anatolia as the Seljuks didn’t want Anatolia initially
Absolutely agree my fellow Emperor! He wasn't so bad and he could've been a good Emperor if the Manzikert. Not to even mention that the battle was less of his military blunder, than it was the betrayal of part of his army!
Anatolia was lost due to trechery, poor Romanos was actually pretty ok. On a side note, I think the biggest proof of how Roman the ''byzantines'' were was their tendency to self-sabotage and implode because some dumbass killed a good emperor and/or did something stupid for personal gain. Oh, the Romanity...
@@spiritbond8 he was actually quite kind to the conquered Bulgars. One of the most successful integrations. It was only the Bulgars he met on the battle field that needed to fear him.
@@12jswilson ye he was great at assimilating them.. it was only a joke anyway, also since we're correcting each other it's Bulgarians* not Bulgars, Bulgars are the original tribe that migrated from the steppe, but by that time this tribe was no longer even the dominant element in society (if it ever was)
Indeed. His actual rule, wielding power, was almost 50 years. If you count his childhood, when he had the Imperial title, but the actual ruling was done by Nikephoros II and John I, he served for over 60 years.
Probably not the longest but ruling for 50 years and managing to snap the Bulgarian Empire out of existence is a good sign that you are a legendary man
0:54 Phocas (602-610) 1:37 Alexios IV Angelos (1203-1204) 1:50 Alexios III Angelos (1195-1203) 2:07 Irene of Athens (797-802) 2:27 Romanos IV Diogenes (1068-1071) 2:40 Isaac II Angelos (1085-1095) 2:53 Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078) 3:05 Alexios V Doukas (1204-1204) 3:24 John VI Kantakouzenos (1347-1354) 3:42 Constantine X Doukas (1059-1067) 3:57 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328) 4:06 Leo V the Armenian (813-830) 4:17 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185) 4:28 Constantine VIII Porphyrogenitus (1025-1028) 4:45 Leo VI the Wise (886-912) 4:58 Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055) 5:06 Basiliscus (475-476) 5:15 Arcadius (383-408) 5:31 Justin II (565-578) 5:47 Heraclonas (641-641) 5:58 Constantine VI (780-797) 6:04 Alexander Porphyrogenitus (912-913) 6:17 Philippikos Bardanes (711-713) 6:29 Leontios (695-698) 6:43 Anastasios II (713-715) 6:59 Tiberius III (698-705) 7:11 Theodosios III (715-717) 7:21 Justinian II (685-695) & (705-711) 7:30 Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) 7:45 John V Palaiologos (1341-1391) 8:00 Artabasdos (741-743) 8:08 Michael III (842-867) 8:25 Michael V Kalaphates (1041-1042) 8:29 Michael VI Bringas (1056-1057) 8:37 Alexios II Komnenos (1180-1183) 8:46 Leo IV the Khazar (750-780) 8:55 Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078-1081) 9:03 John IV Laskaris (1258-1261) 9:15 Staurakios (803-811) 9:23 Leo II (473-474) 9:29 Andronikos IV Palaiologos (1376-1379) 9:35 Heraclius Constantine III (641-641) 9:48 John VII Palaiologos (1390-1390) 9:54 Michael I Rangabe (811-813) 10:03 Constans II (641-668) 10:15 Michael II the Amorian (820-829) 10:29 Nikephoros I (802-811) 10:46 Marcian (450-457) 10:58 Theodora Porphyrogenita (1055-1056) 11:09 Romanos III Argyros (1028-1034) 11:17 John VIII Palaiologos (1425-1448) 11:25 Isaac I Komnenos (1057-1059) 11:33 Zoe Porphyrogenita (1042-1042) 11:44 Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328-1341) 11:54 Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1034-1041) 12:02 Constantine IV (668-685) 12:10 Tiberius II Constantine(578-582) 12:20 Theodosius II (408-450) 12:40 Leo I the Thracian (457-474) 12:56 Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180) 13:12 Constantine V (741-775) 13:20 Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258) 13:29 John I Tzimiskes (969-976) 13:39 Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos (1449-1453) 13:56 Theodore I Laskaris (1208-1221) 14:14 John III Doukas Vatatzes (1221-1254) 14:26 Michael VIII Palaiologos(1259-1282) 14:38 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391-1425) 15:00 Nikephoros II Phokas (963-969) 15:18 Romanos II Porphyrogenitos (959-963) 15:30 Basil I the Macedonian (867-886) 15:57 John II Komnenos (1118-1143) 16:13 Romanos I Lekapenos (920-944) 16:27 Zeno (474-475) & (476-491) 16:58 Justin I (518-527) 17:12 Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) 17:34 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (913-959) 17:57 Heraclius (610-641) 18:54 Maurice (582-602) 19:16 Anastasius I Dikorus (491-518) 19:33 Justinian I the Great (527-565) 20:16 Basil II the Bulgar Slayer (976-1025)
Phocas seems extra worse considering the fact that he pretty much started the last Roman Sassanid war, by killing the previous Roman emperor and his family (that emperor was friends with the Sassanid shah). This was was costly, and unfortunately timed, to the point where it led to the loss of North African provinces and Middle eastern provinces to rashidun caliphate.
hands down the best, but he does lose significant points for doing everything in his power to make sure he didn't have a decent successor. One of Hadrian's greatest acts was orchestrating the proper education and guidence and ascendence of Aurelius. Aurelius' greatest failure was not doing the same for his son
utterly decimated? Do you even know what that means, the Bulgarian Empire was attacked by various enemies during that period and it took him about 45 years to finally put down an extremely weakened state, mainly due to his generals. Nearly lost his life in a battle in 986 too. I swear people need to read about the Komnenians more, they were actually far more capable emperors.
@@causantinthescot Yeah, Constantine VIII who was in his mid 60s by that point. Basil also forbade Constantine's daughters Zoe and Theodora from marrying which put the nail in the coffin for the Macedonian dynasty.
It’s really telling that out of over 70 entries, there were only about 10 entries of “these emperors were really terrible” before we got to “these emperors were just mediocre.” No wonder the ERE lasted, like, 1000 more years after the west.
@@BritishRepublicsn I think good is probably underselling the guy. Majorian was great and would have reunited the West if he wasn't betrayed by Ricimer
Not really They're not from Rome They're not Roman/Latin They're capital is Constantinople, or as it was originally called - Byzantium. They're Greek in all but name,, but don't get me wrong - doesn't make it any less badass. Justinian the 2nd was the last person who could be called Roman, and it could be said he was ruling over the Roman Empire, because he was Latin, he reconquered Rome and Italy and held Rome as the spiritual Capital.
@@TheUrobolos Yeah, i don't study history, i'm just a huge fan/hobbyist of it, and even i can see the distinctions without it, and i'm tired of hearing this misconception. Nobody was Rome, neither the Unholy German Confederation, neither the Greeks. Rome went out with a whimper, when the Greeks assimilated the last Latins circa 7th century AD. That, of course, depends on what your characteristics of a culture and nation are. For me it's: the Roman-Hellenic culture, and the Roman language. You can literally see how until the 6 to 7th century AD most of the Eastern Empire was bilingual, with Latin culture and language slowly phasing out because Rome was dying and lost it's relevance (since it had no power base to project it's culture onto others, thus = dead). Think of it as modern day English - if the US/UK lost it's importance, influence and power - we would stop speaking English and start speaking Chinese or something.
@@gae_wead_dad_6914 Most Roman citizens were not from Rome. Most of the Romans were not Latin. Remember they started assimilating tribes since their founding. The Western Empire's capital was moved from Rome to Ravenna without it being the start of a Ravennan empire. Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern Empire and the Eastern Empire was regarded as thoroughly Roman and the legitimate successor after the fall of the western half. The name Byzantine empire was never used by themselves or any other state that interacted with them because they were always called The Roman Empire. This name was only formulated by historians to distinguish it between time periods.
To be fair, Leo I actually took action regarding the west, sending one of the greatest naval expeditions in ancient history to drive Vandald out of Africa. Unfortunately he put in charge his demented brother in law
Basiliscus should be much lower: the fact that he was the architect of the infamously terrible attack on the Vandals is really indicative of his rule in general.
In terms of sheer lack of talent, Basiliscus should be lower than even Flavius Phokas. There's not a single good thing that can be said about him. I guess you could argue that since the disastrous Cap Bon expedition took place before he was emperor that it shouldn't be counted, however that's letting him off far too easily. If Nikephorus Phokas gets credit for capturing Crete, then Basiliscus gets blame for that.
@@darrynmurphy2038 Basiliscus was lucky he managed to initially escape justice by hiding in a church, else old Emperor Leo would have had him flayed alive.
@@darrynmurphy2038 I don't think either should get credit for their deed, illustrious or infamous, before their reigns began, assuming you're ranking their "emperorships." But yes, Basiliscus is definitely near the bottom. My own ranking has him as fifth-worst (granted, I'm only up to 1143).
Manzikert was a disaster long time in making due to multiple reasons, like bloated bureaucracy, overreliance on mercenaries, mismanagement of budget and simple decadence. Romanos introduced some necessary, but unpopular reforms and would continue to do so after his alternate reality victory at Manzikert, putting him in conflict with bureaucracy, provincial governments and rival families (Doukas as chief opposition). There is a good chance he would end up assassinated or overthrown just like it happened in reality. With the tools he got at his disposal, I don't know what kind of genius Romanos IV would have to be to avoid disaster. When half of your army bails out after seeing one Turk in the area, and rearguard leaves you to be surrounded and slaughtered, good luck with that. What he could certainly avoid though, was not placing member of chief rival family as head of his rearguard. That was stupid.
@@masterexploder9668 he put a rival member at his rear guard but this wasn’t an abnormal thing to do. You give rivals some power but not enough to overthrow you. You’re speaking from hindsight when the army fell apart. Rival or not, deserting a fellow Roman on the battlefield was a disgustingly unthinkable act that nobody saw coming.
Meh, I'll say that I'm somewhat ok with being the 2nd. Basil II was a based Emperor, although we both suffered from the same problems - shitty successors. Although I'm not really sure about some people here on the list. For example, why is Manuel I so low? The guy reformed the army, conquered Antioch, made both Crusader states and Hungary, then one of the most powerful countries in Europe, his vassal states! Sure he lost at Myriokephalon, but that battle was neither a decisive defeat nor did it greatly diminished the Eastern Roman Army. He did, as did so many great Roman emperor before him, had a bad string of heirs, perhaps worse than any great Emperor had after their death!
In fact Andronikos I was one of the best and most competent administrators, but at the same time he was a brutal and savage tyrant, he could've maintained the komnenian revival but was too tyranical
His entire life is screaming for an over the top hollywood film. Lifelong playboy who gains the throne, turns into a paranoid tyrant and with the most gruesome ending.
BTW the book, which seems to be based on very good historical research, supports your view that Andronikus was very competent. On the other hand it portrays Manuel I in a poor light.
I wonder if some of his brutal reputation is an exaggeration because his reforms pissed off the nobility. Vladislav III Tepeš was certainly brutal but the stories about him being a cannibal or holding banquets with impaled prisoners in the hall are lies made up by Transylvanian Saxons who hated Vlad for weakening their trade monopolies.
Arcadius-5:14 Theodosius II-12:19 Marcian-10:46 Leo I-12:39 Leo II-9:24 Zeno-16:27 Basiliscus-5:06 Anastasius I-19:15 Justin I-16:58 Justinian I-19:33 Justin II-5:31 Tiberius II-12:10 Maurice-18:53 Phokas-0:54 Heraclius-17:56 Constantine III-9:35 Heraklonas-5:47 Constans II-10:03 Constantine IV-12:02 Justinian II-7:20 Leontios-6:29 Tiberius III-6:59 Philippikos-6:17 Anastasios II-6:43 Theodosius III-7:11 Leo III-7:30 Artabasdos-8:00 Constantine V-13:12 Leo IV-8:45 Constantine VI-5:57 Irene of Athens-2:07 Nikephoros I-10:29 Staurakios-9:15 Michael I-9:54 Leo V-4:07 Michael II-10:15 Teophilos-not found Michael III-8:08 Basil I-15:29 Leo VI-4:44 Alexander-6:03 Constantine VII-17:34 Romanos I-16:12 Romanos II-15:18 Nikephoros II-15:01 John I-13:29 Basil II-20:15 Constantine VIII-4:28 Zoe-11:33 Romanos III-11:07 Michael IV-11:54 Michael V-8:24 Theodora-10:58 Constantine IX-4:57 Michael VI-8:29 Isaac I-11:25 Constantine X-3:42 Romanos IV-2:27 Michael VII-2:53 Nikephoros III-8:55 Alexios I-17:12 John II-15:56 Manuel I-12:55 Alexios II-8:38 Andronikos I-4:17 Isaac II-2:41 Alexios III-1:50 Alexios IV-1:36 Alexios V-3:05 Theodore I-13:55 John III-14:14 Theodore II-13:20 John IV-9:03 Michael VIII-14:26 Andronikos II-3:57 Andronikos III-11:44 John V-7:46 John VI-3:23 Andronikos IV-9:29 John VII-9:47 Manuel II-14:38 John VIII-11:16 Constantine XI-13:38
I think Constantinos Palaiologos should rank higher due to the sole reason that he mounted a last stand that he didn't need to do, but by doing so, he paved the way for Greeks to awaken their national conciousness and preserve their traditions. By doing so, he became a real ethnarch. To me, top 3.
Palaiologos in general were worse than Komnenos, but by the point they got to power, Byzantines were pretty much in vegetative state so I think it's somewhat unfair to bash some of them over and over.
@@masterexploder9668 Ι am not talking from military or administrative point of view. I am talking about the whole historical impact. Greek warlords in 1821 revolution claimed that their king is Konstantinos Palaiologos and they fight for him. Just imagine the impact.
He was also one of the only emperors in history (to my knowledge) that the people PASSIONATELY loved, and still do. The average Roman couldn't give a literal SHIT about the emperor, with maybe a handful of mild exceptions, and likewise with medieval peasants and their kings. After he died they even created the whole Marble Emperor story. They believed him to be saved by God and frozen solid in marble, and placed beneath the gates of Constantinople where he awaits a call from God to awake. He shall be given a holy greatsword with which to march on Constantinople to defeat the Turkish, and proclaim the re-establishment of the Roman Empire. A low likelihood, yes, but still an excellent story that serves to show how much of a legacy he has left.
when you display the name of the Emperor, please, please, please display the years they reigned! It's interesting to know when they reigned on the timeline
In my opinion the best, in overall score emperor is John II Komnenos. He was a great military commander, great diplomat, great in domestic affaires and he practicaly abolished the death penaltry. During his reign no capital punishments were recorder and we are talking about the Middle Ages. Trully loved by the people they were calling him "kalo-yannis" John the Good. I loved the video by the way. Very good script.
@@spectrum1140 absolute Chad Based response. There is no Roman emperor other than the ones who ruled over the Roman Empire and then the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Leo III is one of the greatest military rulers Byzantium ever knew. Iconoclasm saved the empire, it united authority under the emperor and state rather than anarchic monastic rule. He deserves way better than the 50s
Agreed, repelling the Arabs at their zenith in 717 didn’t just save the Empire, it also stopped Eastern Europe being Islamised. Histories say he had a large role in the defence, for that alone he should be way way higher
I agree that he was good as far as military exploits go, but Iconoclasm was decidedly a bad idea and ruined so much eastern Roman art and frescoes. Not to mention, it served to cut the little control they had over Rome and the Pope. It's not like Leo would have been less effective if he hadn't been an Iconoclast.
@@lewisthorpe9818 Not just Eastern Europe, but possibly ALL of Europe (which would've de facto resulted in Western civilization becoming an Islamic civilization).
@@martinusv7433 thats exageration, taking over Constantinople wouldve already brought any army down through sheer attrition and then they would have to best Francia who, while not as powerfull as the Byzantines were still one hell of a menace militarily in their own region, but saving Eastern Europe is already one hell of a feat
Man I love your videos. I'm not even much of a history nerd but the way you present your content is so satisfying and you have such a pleasant voice, too. Thank you. You made my day. Lots of days actually.
The Angelos dynasty for Eastern Rome were basically the equivalent of Pope Innocent the III, meaning he was anything but innocent. The Angelos dynasty, which in both Medieval and Modern Greek is also the word for well... angels were anything but angels or angelic.
John II is the best, his reign is literally almost complete perfection. Revived and improved everything Alexios fixed. His sole setback is the intrigue with Venice. John I is also a fucking based chad. In fact, the first three Johns are all amazing. Putting Romanos and Zeno over them is honestly a crime lmao. Heraclius is overrated, his latter reign is a disaster. I feel bad for him, but both the Sassanids and the Romans flopped real bad there lol.
I dont understand how nikephoros is above john tzimiskes while the first was incredibly disliked by the populace for shitty domestic policies like high taxes. Not to mention some pointless military conflicts on multiple fronts like the war against bulgaria and rus, the destruction of his fleet at sicily and some war with the germans. It was also his brother leo phocas who held off the muslims in anatolia and destroyed their much larger army, after which nikephoros conquered their now undefended lands. Antioch however wasnt even conquered by him but by michael bourtzes. John on the other hand was a beloved emperor, not just a brilliant tactician like his uncle but also a great statesman. He ended the pointless war with the holy roman empire, defeated the rus, then negotiated their departure, lowered his uncle’s taxes, ended persecution against the syrian church, personally monitored distribution of grain during a famine and donated to charity and the church. He reconquered eastern bulgaria following his victory over the rus, ended the magyar invasion, placed aleppo under vassalage, invaded the abbasid caliphate and expanded into syria to the euphrates, then in his second campaign reconquered the levantine coast from modern turkey to caesarea in israel, no other roman emperor ever came this close to recapture jerusalem. The mayor of the city even wanted to open his gates to john but john realized he was overextended and returned home
Usually it's 1. emperor who promised to be competent, but got unlucky (mostly by assasination) or 2. he would be really bad too, but at least he had enough dignity to die quickly.
I do not agree on Romanos IV. He led several victorious campaigns : - November 1068 : He takes Hierapolis (Manbij, Syria) and beats an army near this city ; - Spring 1069 : He gives off the Turks of Cappadocia. He crushes a revolt of the Norman mercenary Roger Crispin. Then, repels, again, the Turks that walked on Iconium. In addition, the defeat of Mantzikert was not so catastrophic. Indeed, out of 40,000 men, there were less than 10,000 dead. It's a lot, certainly, but not decisive. The Romans lost more men in battles against Arabs and Bulgarians, for example. What has really allowed the invasion of Anatolia by the Turks is not the defeat of Mantzikert, but the civil wars and struggles for power after Romanos IV was dethrone by his enemies. Indeed, the borders were neglected. By the way, some rebels even allied to the Turks. Clearly, Romanos IV was objectively a good Basileus.
Also Basil ii is the reason that the eastern Europe was orthodox Christians by arranging a marriage for his daughter to the Rurikid's kings in Russia thus claiming to be the successors of the Romans after Constantinople fell
Personal Opinion: would’ve put Leontios in high 40’s, low 30’s. He had a solid reign but was cucked in history for fucking up the invasion of Northern Africa. He actually tried but held on to Carthage for a few weeks. John the Patrician was killed by Tiberius Apsimar, later Tiberius III. Not even Leontios’ fault tbh, just got deposed because his soldiers were too paranoid.
I would say Justinian was great in bringing about his vision, but I don't think his policies were great for the long-term health of the Roman state and people.
Also he antagonized the sassanid empire while his most elite troops and giga brained general belisarius was conquering Italy. Justinian was ambitious but I feel he often bit off more than he can chew I mean imagine time his as empire if belisarius didn't exist. The Roman's should have failed to take North Africa they should have failed in Italy but a mixture of luck and a one in a million general saved. These campaigns Were under manned under supplied over seas nightmare
@@legiohysterius4624 you've also got to remember that after the death of Theodoric, the Goths were in absolute disarray. It was an absolute mess in Italy.
The biggest problem was his succession and the plague that left the empire with a lower population than it started, even after the conquests. The plague was out of his control and the Sassanid relations were bad, but could have been a hell of a lot worse(Khosrow II, who literally perfectly set up the collapse of the Sassanids and crippled the Byzantines, paving way for the Arabs to take over the South). Some of his policies weren't great but he was undeniably a good ruler that set a vision for restoration that was only matched by those such as Basil II.
@@andyying1770 I didn't say Justinian was bad he was a good leader but that vision Justinian had of a united rome was overly ambitious Justinian was like Alexander the great he did cool stuff but what did it amount too North Africa and Italy was lost the empire was in financial Ruin leaving a weak successor. And yes the plague was very bad for Justinians people but that same plague decimated Khosro's army and forced a halt that the byzantine army needed to regroup. As for khosro I agree with you but I'm talking about Justinian and the eastern Roman empire. I only mentioned him because Justinian antagonized ⁸a large foreign empire while fighting a war all the way in Italy. Justinian was an Alexander when rome needed a trajan.
Putting Justinian on 2nd was fine but the justification was just.. Weird. He didn't totally empty the treasury but instead placed it back after conquering places by knocking out the Ostrogoths in Italy, kicked the Vassal Kingdom into oblivion across the Northern African plains with Belisarius and then with Liberius, went on to conquer 1/4th of the Iberian coast which became the state of Spania, furthered by kicking the doors into the Balkans by subduing the Tzani people and with that all said, he instead grew the treasury per year to up to one million coins... EVERY YEAR! Of course, he had to spend it on rebuilding life for the people and total decay of infrastructure and agriculture after the plague hits the empire but still, prior to the spending to get life back to normal, one million coins per year ain't bad and mind you... That's just in earnings from taxes alone and that's seriously fucking impressive. Also, can we also say that he is seriously the luckiest bastard on the list ever and I bet even both the Basils ain't that actually "based" when it comes down to survivability. This god damn chad survives a whole damn Nikka Revolt AND the plague. Everyone knows no one survives the plague and yet, he did. Also, unlike most other emperors who had mistresses and what-not, he was loyal to Theodora till death (Which seriously became a problem due to being childless for succession and Theodora died before they could make or even plan to have a child but still...) and when Theodora died, he never remarried, staying loyal till his dead. Lucky, smart AND loyal. Utter, chad.
Nice video but you forgot Theophilos the successor of Micheal II. Also, I personally think that Leo V should have been higher, yes he did revive iconoclasm but he did manage to rule competently for five years and defeated the Bulgars in battle twice.
I can talk for hours about this since it is my favorite subject. But instead I will recommend the 3 volumes of "Byzantium" by the author John Julius Norwich if you enjoy the Byzantine Empire
World is already a mess. Let the Turks keep it. They will not waste the City. Then, everything's change in time, maybe one day it will return to us. Maybe not. Who knows? The most important thing is keeping peace, get along, be cool.
It never will because it was prophecized a long time ago. If you read the signs of the end times by our Prophet, not a single one is false. some are still yet to come. So it will always remain with Muslims. Nostradamus is nothing compared to Prophets predictions of end times.
@@danielefabbro822 They already are wasting it though, especially agia Sophia. As much I hate Mustafa kemal for his actions in Anatolia,he didn't make hagia Sophia a mosque and didn't try to hide the Christian side of the hagia Sofia. Hagia Sofia is the greatest and most important orthodox church of all time,the actions of the current turkish current president are absurd and disgusting.
19:19 archaeology student here, there are doubts as to who is represented on this ivory piece ("Barberini Ivory" at the Louvre in Paris) but now the consensus is it's most likely Justinian after the Perpetual Peace of 532 with the Sassanids. I don't know if it was just to illustrate or if it was meant to represent Anastasius, but it's probably Justinian
I TOTALY agree with Basil II being number one. He also lunched a "crusade against the rich" that made the higher classes more loyal to the Empire and more kind with the lower classes, creating a lot of social cohesion.
Eh Kantakouzenos was a doubtlessly able emperor but he just had a combination of being too soft and the supremely shitty luck of ruling in the Black Death. His administration was far more competent than the regency in any case.
Great video, pal. However, like in video video about Roman Emperors where you forgot Vespasian, i fear to inform you commited the same mistake here again: You forgot Theophilos! ☹️
I think you forgot what I call "the early history of Rōmānīa orientālis". This is the period between 286-324 AD, when Diocletianvs became Avgvstvs of Rōmānīa Orientālis in 286 AD, and Constantine the Great became the sole Roman Emperor in 324 AD. I attribute this history to the Romanians, after all the Proto-Romanian ethnogenesis started from the Latin Romans of the Balkans of whom all Emperor's of Rōmānīa Orientālis were of Balkan-Roman (Latin) descend such as Diocletianvs (Dalmatia), Gaivs Galerivs Valerivs Maximianvs (Timacum), Maximianvs Daia (Timacum), Licinivs (Timacum), Constantine the Great (Timacum). All of those Emperor's were born in Roman balkans, the last three in the Timoc region in Serbia and Bulgaria, which is inhabited by the "Timoc-Romanians" which is the reason we still have the name "Timocu" in Romanian inherited from latin Timacum, from the Roman fortress of Timacum Minus from the river "Timacus".🇷🇴🤝🏻🇬🇷
82. Phocas: Hahaha, Phocas, a 1,500 year old joke of a man. 81. Alexios IV: Fuck this man. Fuck everything about him. Also, the love for the Palaiologos is strong with Spectrum.
Been playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance, been thinking watching this video that Warhorse Studios should do a similar game as an everyday person in Eastern Roman Empire during the time of another incompetent Emperor like Wensesclaus IV in KCD Maybe Andronicus I or Arcadius Lots of interesting choices
Vaclav IV (Wenceslaus) wasnt really incompetent. He was an average ruler during some very hard times... we had some waay worse rulers :D ...it could also be argued that Vaclav IV was put into a really bad position by his father the greatest czech king Karel IV - Karel fueled his glorious rule as an emperor by giving huge ammount of power to the clergy... which weakened latter king Vaclavs position in Bohemia... also Karel split his king titles between his sons which created conflict and also weakened Vaclavs position as a king of Bohemia. Plus Karel picked an ideal time to die so he didnt have to bother with invasions from the east.
Yo siempre pensé que Basilio II era más grande que Justiniano I por el hecho de que Justiniano murió con un Imperio Romano de Oriente al borde del colapso económico, pero Basilio dejo al Imperio con las arcas del Estado llenas. El error de Basilio fue no haber buscado un heredero de su talla.
Romanos the IV wasn't terrible, in fact he was quite capable when compared to the rest of his dynasty that preceded him. He was winning the battle of Manzikert at first, but was then betrayed by his court back in Constantinopole, which lead to him losing like half of his army and the Asian lands being forfeited on purpose, because the court thought this was the best way for Constantinople to regain total control over all of Byzantium.
What you said "I'm not as familiar with Byzantine history as I am with Roman history." What I heard: "I'm not as familiar with Roman history as I am with Roman history." Me: What this foo jibber-jabberin?
I’m at Constantine IX in going to guess the top five maybe I may get it 5-Anastasius nothing extraordinary but helped stabilize the currency and get a budget surplus 4- Zeno there’s much to be said about holding on while the west fell and it was uncertain what the future held. Had it gone a little differently Byzantium could’ve been another casualty on late antiquity 3-heraclius don’t know too much about him but he deposed phocas and stabilized Byzantium while fighting the Sassanids 2- basil II- you don’t gain the epithet “bulgar slayer” for nothing 1- Justinian there’s too much to say about him briefly, but the principles of his reign would shape Byzantine law and militaries for centuries. The messy succession after him eventually led to phocas coming to power though.
Heraclius, the Tragic Hero. The man who began the Hellenic era of the Roman Empire (made *basileus* the title for Emperors). Defeated the Persians in an epic conclusion. Sadly, the Muslim Arabs came in and he lost it all over again. Not to mention the loss of the majority of Roman territory in the Balkans to Slavs and Bulgars, and the rest of Spania to the Visigoths.
If Andronikos III lived another ten years, there is a good chance the empire recovers all of Greece and a devastating civil war is avoided and maybe the Ottomans don't get a foothold in Europe.
If I recall, John the 8th had such a nice picture of himself because he toured around Rome and had his portrait taking their. The last Roman Emperor to have ever stepped foot in Rome.
Would have had Leo III higher, his defence of Constantinople in 717 literally change the course of history. Plus would have had Maurice lower. He should have noticed the problems that his parsimony was creating.
Is the (total) count of that many emperors itself, the worst or the best for the 2nd empire (byzanz) ? nice vids - i feel every time i see kind of that a little bit mor free (bad english sorry)^^
@@causantinthescot he was actually a really good emperor. His reign gets boiled down to his marriages, a few insignificant defeats in Bulgaria and the failed Cretan expedition. Meanwhile, he secured the legitimacy of the Macedonian dynasty by making the people of Constantinople love them (if it wasn't because of this, Romanos I would have disposed of Constantine VII. Or Phokas/Tzimiskes would have killed Basil II and Constantine), made great progress in Armenia and finished his father's legal work. He was so succesful and secure in his position as emperor that he was the first emperor since Maurice to never lead an army in the field.
@@causantinthescot Yeah, and Romanos IV and Leo III are also way too low. I like Spectrum, but some of his rankings baffle me. On his Roman emperors vid, he put my namesake all the way up the list at 18, yet all but blamed him for the fall of the West, I mean wtf?
In fairness to Phocas (number 82), he was not actually a blood thirsty tyrant. He actually refused to engage in a bloody purge initially, only killing the former Emperor and his immediate family. Which he would've been a fool not to. Look to how Alexander Severus gained the throne for proof of that. His purges only came about after conspiracies to overthrow him came to light. The worst of Phocas's reign, the Persian breakthrough in the East only happened as a result of Heraclius's uprising and happened after Phocas's fall. A lot of the worst stuff Phocas did was likely exaggeration or even made up entirely whole cloth. Not to say Heraclius was a bad emperor, far from it, but it's important to understand his reign in the proper context. The situation in the East against the Persians prior to Heraclius's uprising (and taking of Egypt) was not that much worse than the worst situations faced by the Romans in previous wars with the Persians. It's entirely possible that without Heraclius's uprising, Phocas would've turned the situation around and enforced at least a temporary peace on the Persians. If you wish to hear more on Phocas and Eastern Roman history in general, check out the History of Byzantium Podcast by Robin Pierson. It comes highly recommended from me. He's currently in the Komnenian Period in the 1150s. I would actually recommend listening to the History of Rome podcast first, though, for background.
The ONLY reason why the Persians attacked the Empire once again (when they did) was the fact that Phocas had slayed Maurikios and his family. The ONLY reason why the Arabs managed to defeat Persia that easily was the fact that Phocas had slayed Maurikios and his family, and had therefore reignited the war, which had exhausted Persia. The ONLY reason why the Arabs were able to make major gains against the Empire and to ultimately almost send it to oblivion was the fact that they had gained control over Persia that had been drained by the war and that Byzantium itself had been seriously weakened by the war, which had been caused by the fact that Phocas had slayed Maurikios and his family. In other words, the NO. 1 (non-Arab) reason why Islam ever became an international force in the first place was the fact that Phocas had slayed Maurikios and his family. So perhaps you got the point now?
19:36 I actually wasnt wondering that, because you hadn't mentioned Basil the second yet. As great as Justinian was, it was Belisarius that did all the conquering, not Justinian. I think I would have personally ranked Alexios I much higher, possibly even higher than Jusyinian. The Empire that he gained control of was incredibly weak, and he was under constant invasion while at the same time dodging assassination attempts. What he was able to achieve under those circumstances was incredible.
