There's something sad about watching Emperors so incompetent manage to destroy what was once one of the most formidable empires in History. It is incredible that the Byzantine Empire really lasted as long as it did.
In regards to Maurice's obsession with wintering North of the Danube, in his writings of the Strategikon, he discusses military tactics, concerning different types of enemies. While mentioning fighting people north of the Danube, he states that attacks against them were most effective in the winter, hence Maurice's persistence. There may be merit to his tactic as Maurice was a capable military commander, however circumstances would not allow him to pursue the tactics.
Maurice had no military education or experience before he took the throne. he served his whole life before the purple as a civilian administrator and bureaucrat. So i would doubt there was much merit to his decision.
Bro I knew it wasn't Romanos Diogenes' fault that Anatolia was lost. He was such a good leader in battle and for the empire, such a shame that he was betrayed.
@@michaelfisher7170 it's not that they loved it. But as you can imagine, becoming the strongest and largest empire in the world for centuries means that there's a considerable degree of overextension. The themata became necessary to defend from external threats, until they became so strong that the emperor had to create a personal army to defend from his own thematic army
Romanos was a good emperor for the short time he reigned. Said to be a brave and just man, just surrounded by enemies. Roman history in a nutshell; their biggest downfall were fights against each other.
If he lived another ten years, I think there was a good chance that all of Greece could have been recovered and the empire reconstituted as a contiguous European state. John V would then be 18 and if the civil war with Kantakouzenos is avoided, the Ottomans don't get into Greece in the 1350s.
Andronikos I was cruel and sadist, thats true, but he was also an A tier administrator. His economic policies were very succesfull in helping the common peasants against the corrupt tax colectors and greedy landowners. Due to his great administration, when he was deposed, the treasury was in a much better shape than it was before his ascension.
But Dwarfed by him completely and permanently destroying the legitimacy of the Emperor. And those same peasants killed him for his brutality and failure to protect them from invasion All of Isaacs problems were dumped on him by Andronikos
@@tylerellis9097 It was not the peasants, but the constantinopolitan mob led by the aristocrats that despised andronikos. Most of Isaac's problems were not caused by his predecesor but by himself.
@@tomasirianni9958 No, the mob was formed because after the Norman Sack of Thessaloniki, instead of riding out to meet the Normans, Andronikos sent men to arrest all the family members of David Komnenos and any person (innocent or not) who had ties with or were former rebels like Isaac Angelos. Isaac had maintained a clean slate ever since he had been pardoned in a treaty arranged with Andronikos in 1184. When the men were sent to arrest him, he fled to a church and plead his case. The Mob was sympathetic and had enough, so they revolted, crowning Isaac due to his blood and prior history of supporting the murdered child emperor Alexios II. Then, they tore apart Andronikos after he tried to flee the city and robbed the imperial treasury of 150,000 gold pieces independent of Isaac. Andronikos's death was his own bloodthirsty and paranoid fault. To quote Treadgold from a History of the Byzantine State and Society. "Breaking with the moderation and mercy of the earlier members of his family. Andronikos had unleashed savagery and popular violence that in the end were turned against him. Essentially an opportunist, he discredited and destroyed both himself and his dynasty. Worse still, by convincing foreigners that Byzantium was both treacherous and vulnerable, he practically invited invasions like that of the Normans."
Two things I would like to say to that. Firstly while he did indeed try and curb the powers of the nobility this was not so much an attempt to uplift the peasants as a byproduct of his paranoid sadism. Maybe if he had lived longer and replaced the systems which he had destroyed it would be different but since he died so quickly all we can really say is he destroyed the legitimacy of the old system but didn't replace it with anything else. And secondly the empire was almost perpetually broke after his death so he clearly couldn't have stashed up that much money. Sure his successors weren't exactly frugal but the whole reason they felt the need to finance so many projects was to hold onto power because Andronicus destroyed the state's legitimacy.
Heraclius is one of my favorite emperors, he came to power in wars with the Persians, then after the devistating losses of the war had to deal with the Arabs, really wasn’t his fault he lost the entire south.
just watched the new video by Kings and Generals regarding the birth of the Ottomans. how such incompetent emperors were ever allowed to sit on the throne is beyond me. nice video. cheers
Well in his defense-he can’t control that can he? Basil is also to blame for not marrying his nieces of when they were young and still in their child bearing years
Isaac II Angelos was certainly incompetent, but in some ways he had no choice at that point, and his brother and son were worse, so he still looks better.
@@karimmezghiche9921 true, I just don't understand why great roman emperors had unfair and unpredictable deaths like Aurelian, Majorian, Nikephoros II, and etc
@@adamw9021because monarchy is a horribly unstable system that practically begs people to betray their leaders. Plus, it was a much more violent time, especially pre-Christianity.
To be fair to Constantine VIII, he suffered from severe gout during his sole reign and, was oftentimes described as highly competent whilst serving as co-emperor under his brother Basil II.
@@jaydenburgher2651He was exiled by Emperor Leo following the disaster. But it was his wife Verina (Basiliscus' sister) who managed to calm Leo down enough to where her brother could return Leo (as I've heard) initially wanted to have Basiliscus executed for the disaster
Great video! One point I think should be mentioned about Phocas is that he's the reason the Pantheon (which was an imperial property in Rome) still exists today! In fact he granted that property to the pope who turned into the church of Mary of the Martyrs, and guaranteed its preservation
Justinian next to PHOCAS in the thumbnail?! HO BOY you certainly got me to click the video alright… not because I agree with that decision though, but excellent strategy to get people to click!
Nah most stop after 1204 unfortunately. Though, for a byzantophile it is always depressing to read about the ups and downs of the Eastern Roman Empire 😔
From 685-692 (7 out 10 years of his original reign) was actually very good. But he pushed the Empire too far. He was running the Empire as if it hadn't just survived 50 years of continuous Muslim invasions & raids Justinian did well in reconquering Armenia & Iberia (in the Caucasus). But when he tried to go for the Levant in 692 during one of the Caliphate's Civil War's. He pushed his luck too far Last 3 years of his reign were nothing His second reign He showed signs of maturity But he was too angry & vengeful against his enemies for the humiliation of losing his nose that he allowed his hatred to cloud his judgment
I kinda agree with Phocas placement on the list. While he is with no doubt one of the worst 10 Emperors, much of his perception is also caused by the propaganda of Heraclius. But I wouldn't put him at the worst position. He caused a mess, was callous and cruel but Maurice, despite being a good emperor, messed up in the end of his reign with some of his choices. Phocas had many issues. But Heraclius wasn't the cleanest. Khosrow II and him could have ended their useless war years earlier. But still he was one of the reasons this war was started. I would give him 50 percent of the fault and Heraclius and Maurice 25 percent each from Byzantine side.
10. Justinian ii 9. Micheal viii 8. Constantine vi 7. John V 6. Micheal vii 5. Andronikos I 4. Alexios iv 3. Photos 2. Andronikos ii 1. Alexios " I'm a power hungry bitch with no governing skills" I
If Andronicus was successful with all his reforms and wiping out the Komenenian aristocracy maybe, but he was not. All he did was destroy imperial legitimacy and relations with the west, and damned Thessaloniki for good measure
Andronikos I cant be worse than Phocas and Andronikos II. A tyrant and despot, sure, but an effective bureaucrat - doesn't make him good, but the latter two emperors have almost nothing to their name
Andronikos II didn’t harm the Empire as nearly as bad as Andronikos I did. Andronikos I’s reign completely destroyed the stability of the Byzantine government, going after the people who keep the Emperor in power while simultaneously pissing off the peasantry. He also dealed with none of the foreign threats that were attacking the empire and alienated its allies with his policy of legitimizing the massacre of non Romans. The man was a Tyrant who alienated the lower and Upper class, that’s quite the feat for a Byzantine Emperor. Andronikos I was bad but at least had some success against the Kingdom of Naples, Epirus and Greek crusader states while recuperating his losses against the merchant republics later in his reign, and understood the Church Union wasn’t feasible to maintain.
Andronikos shattered the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty with his conduct, throwing the doors open for an almost endless number of would-be usurpers and civil wars that drained the treasury and weakened the empire so much that it couldn't even mount the necessary defense to beat the 4th crusade, which a less troubled realm would've easily stopped.
At this point, "Constantine" is just the "Aegon" for Byzantium. So many rulers were named Constantine, with them trying to recapture the magic of the first........and failing.
Other honorable mentions would include Arcadius, Justin II, Leontius, Philippicus, Michael I Rangabe, Michael II The Amorian, Michael V Kalaphates, Michael VI Bringas, and Nikephoros III Botaneiates. In fact.....I would actually put Justin II near the top of the list. His strategic decisions were catastrophic for the empire. He realized how much damage he had caused and went insane as a result.
Interesting fact about Alexander, the Macedonian emperor...he is still depicted in a surviving portrait in Hagia Sophia. So you can be a miserable failure as a ruler and still be immortalized in one of the greatest works of architecture on earth. Weird world.
@@karimmezghiche9921Propaganda? Nah, he was just shit. Tormented his nephew & almost had him castrated. He unnecessarily brought on an unwanted war with Bulgaria. He also (in the eyes of others) acted like a Pagan more than a Christian. All of these are negative. "Wasn't a bad Emperor" 😂
Constantine VI was only an embaressement to himself. The Empire was controlled by mostly others (similar to the situation with Justin II). I would also rank him before his mother. I am suprised that he is on the list at all as Michael Rangabe, John VI and Philipikos could have been all on the list for being worse rulers in more threatening situations.
Yeah I don't understand why he is on this list, he didn't really do anything bad he was just a victim of his mother. Eirene on the other hand should be in the list, it was because of her after all that the Empire's legitimacy was destroyed in western Europe and the Pope crowned Charlemagne.
@@karimmezghiche9921I mean I don't love Irene but I don't think she coulda been expected to know that if she became sole empress the pope would be so bold as to crown a random German dude emperor
@@jaydenburgher2651 You're right she certainly did not know, but it was still a consequence of her actions. Plus you have to be an extremely evil person to blind your own child and then leave him to die on some island just because you want to usurp his position.
Why the hell isacc komnenos use costantine the 10 as successor he should have used one of his family like brother alexios father or his oldest son manual I get he wanted a civil aristocrat ruler but still .... the disaster could have been avoided
Don't know how much Isaac can be blamed for creating the Komenenian aristocracy. But letting too many families taste the purple was a bad idea, basil II knew that well so he rly shoulda gave the throne to his brother, then Alexios wouldn't have had to make this aristocracy to appease the doukai and diogenes
As i know enough of byzantine economic histry the fact that the hyperpyron lost its content in gold wasnt only because the empire needed gold to pay their mercenary army administration etc but it is also a way to circulate more money in a world where commerce and medieval globalization was at its peak. More and more people participating ment more and more transactions which a big denomination coin wouldnt help your avarage joe to buy stuff or to sell stuff to pay his taxes etc. So the dollar of the Mediterranean hadn't lost its shine in the 12 century but it was a way for money transactions to penetrate more and more the economy of the byzantine empire. Off course there were really bad times that eradicated the value of the currency (especially the 2ond AD economic crisis) , but as soon as commerce was in byzantine hands economy was thriving.
Isaac I giving the title to Constantine X: "Make me proud my brother, do whatever it takes to keep the empire alive" Doukid dynasty's disastrous events: Battle of Manzikert Constant Roman usurpers rising up Corruption Roman war of succession 1071-72 Persecution of the Armenian church Loss territories to the Normans, Turks and the Hungarians Disband the great Native Roman Army and increase the number of useless mercenaries that provides no benefit Support Alexios Komnenos against Nikephoros III
The biggest problem with Byzantium is that damn near anyone with enough influence can become Emperor. Which led to plots, coups, and political bullshit that other medieval states managed to avoid. Electoral monarchies kept Venice, the Papacy, and the Holy Roman Empire stable, for the most part, while dynastic monarchy kept England and France stable. Meanwhile, Byzantium's constant civil wars and coups weakened the Empire at a time when real strength was needed to rebuild it.
@@HolyknightVader999 Yeah I don't disagree with that. All systems come with positives and negatives. Remember though the Roman political system lasted far longer than all the others you mentioned (except the papacy) so to say the other ones were better at providing stability is questionable.
@@theeternalanglo5629 The Papal system was adapted by most European states, which became electoral monarchies until the dawn of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Not to mention that medieval states were not as volatile as Byzantium.
I do wonder if this list was extended to a Top 20, if Arcadius, Basiliscus, Irene of Athens, Alexios V, and Isaac II Angelos would be on the list because those 5 could easily be in the Top 20 worst Byzantine Emperors.
Also would add Michael Rangabe, John VI and Philipikos on that list. They all were foolish emperors that got or ursurped the throne in the wrong time and left the empire in worse situations when they left the throne. People like Staurakios and Artabasdos could never show how they would end up as a Byzantine Ruler in a longer or meaningful term.
@@julianfischer6404 Philippikos wasn’t bad enough to make it to a top 20 worst emperors list. Philippikos just didn’t do poorly enough to justify his placement over Irene, Alexios V, Andronikos IV, John IV, Isaac II, etc.
@@romanempire4495 I would rank him still in the top 20. Not in the first positions as these are for the afformentioned ones. But I would still rank him between 18-20 position. Not as bad as Michael I and John VI but still bad enough to because many of the "I did some bad stuff but also some good" (Justinian II, Anastasius II and Leo V) and the "Nearly no feasible reign" (Constantine III, Herakleon and Staurakios) would make it on such a list.
