Also whoever would succeed him to reign during the arab invasions would be labeled as the horrible emperor who threw all of heraclius' hard work in the trash
My guy was mentally incapable at the time and couldnt lead his forces in person. The persians failed to cooperate with his yarmouk expedition and general vahan also prematurely confronted the arabs rather than awaiting his orders
Imagine that? The Hopeful Reconquest of All Anatolia was lost because the guy leading the charge accidentally cut himself with a poison arrow. Must've felt like some of the dumbest bad luck anyone ever got
It was a real shame, especially since John's son Manuel spent his 37 years on the throne chasing his tail in the west; if Manuel had concentrated all his efforts on Anatolia as John had done, then I think it's very likely that all the damage of Manzikert could have been undone
@@Serapeum Yeah. The Romans had gone through worse, the fact they were even able to recapture what they did is a testimony that Anatolia was not lost. Even with the Turkification of the region, the Romans could've easily reversed it all had they finished the conquest & resettled Greeks in their old lands or did what they had done in Crete, force conversion back to Christianity. I do admire Manuel's ambitions to reconquer lands in the West, but yeah. It wasn't the smartest move when your Borders are literally stretching themselves out from one corner to the other
@@iDeathMaximuMII let's see. Manuel vassalized the serbs, croats, essentially having the whole Balkans. then subdued the Kingdom of Hungary and attempted to unify the 2 states, or hoped they will be in the future. at it's peak, the empire was back being the number 1 super power of the Middle Ages, even without Anatolia. however... he kicked the bucket and all went down the drain.
@@ragael1024Those western conquests were very superficial. On paper it's impressive. And yes, his vassalization of the Serbs & Croats was very good. But he focused too much on the West. When the East needed work to be done. Manuel should've tried to have a son much earlier than he did. Or at the very least, keep Béla III of Hungary on side by not alienating him after Alexios II is born. That way the Empire would be more stable & not have the sudden & horrific collapse that it did in the 1180's
I think emperor Maurice should had been included in the top 10.He defeated the Persians, stabilized the Danube frontiers, held Italy and tried his best to save money.If he had reigned 10 more years, he could had recovered the Byzantine empire from the crisis.
Though there is a good case to be made that he caused his usurpation by not properly paying the troops that would revolt against him Like Hieraclius, he was a good emperor who made some unfortunate mistakes that proclude me from considering him anong the best
Imagine winning the largest roman-byzantine war ever, in an heroic series of campaignes, only to see your generals lose to somes nomadic raiders by the name of khalid-ibn-al-walid.
@@wankawanka3053 Pity excuse From 622 year no serious losses were suffered by the byzantines, so they would had more than 10 years to recover from the war with the persians Not to mention the reason byzantines won from the start is because Khosrow II was assassinated by his own son who literally gave up all the lands that the persians gained from the war, and here is were Heraclius legend ends … None the less the byzantines had already managed to gain every possible advantage against the rising rashidun caliphate Including more numbers, superior equipments, allying with the Sassanids, defensive status, experienced generals and trained troops … All against some poorly equipped nomads who just came from the deserts … In Yarmouk the Arabs equipped with leather armors and light cavalry at the least would be 4 times outnumbered by the byzantines who were equipped with heavy equipments, Cataphracts, Etc … Just to imagine how would a simple light cavalry units would manage to overcome the mighty byzantine Cataphracts.
@@iDeathMaximuMII Pity excuse From 622 year no serious losses were suffered by the byzantines, so they would had more than 10 years to recover from the war with the persians Not to mention the reason byzantines won from the start is because Khosrow II was assassinated by his own son who literally gave up all the lands that the persians gained from the war, and here is were Heraclius legend ends … None the less the byzantines had already managed to gain every possible advantage against the rising rashidun caliphate Including more numbers, superior equipments, allying with the Sassanids, defensive status, experienced generals and trained troops … All against some poorly equipped nomads who just came from the deserts … In Yarmouk the Arabs equipped with leather armors and light cavalry at the least would be 4 times outnumbered by the byzantines who were equipped with heavy equipments, Cataphracts, Etc … Just to imagine how would a simple light cavalry units would manage to overcome the mighty byzantine Cataphracts.
@@3mk510 Allying with sassanids? 2 weakend states? If they start preparing and allying at least 10 years earlier it can be winnable for both of them. Don't say YOUR pity excuses about Allah's will.
It’s a Roman legend. Heraclius was the emperor of the Romans, so powerful and so wise that he could use the power of persuasion and guerrilla tactics to influence the military to win battles. He had such a knowledge of the Startegikon. He could even keep the empire from dying.
Justinians successes are at the work of Belisarius. Justinian was a jealous monarch and even though all of this existed Belisarius continued to remain loyal to not just him, but to the people of Eastern Rome making him one of the greatest generals in history.
Without Justinians internal policy Belisarius could have never conquered The western provinces. Also we don't say that Augustus was bad because Acrippa did the military work
@@debater452 we would say that if he undercut his general at every chance he got. Justinian routinely undercut Belisarius and still Belisarius prospered.
@@TitansQuarterback16 You can't fault Justinian for being paranoid though. By then, a successful and popular general rebelling against his emperor was a tale as old as time.
Basil II never had to kill 30,000 people during a revolt in Constantinople as Justinian had to do. Justinian was about to flee the city when Theodora refused to do so exclaiming that should would rather die as an Empress. Justinian called in Belisarius who slaughtered the rebels. It shows that Basil II kept the people of Constantinople content. That is always a mark of a great ruler.
I am surprised you didn't include Romanos I Lekapenos. I believe he was responsible for the Roman Empire's recovery and expansionism. He was responsible for securing a peace treaty with the Bulgarians that lasted for 40 years, which allowed him to send the bulk of the Empire's army to fight the Arabs in the East under the command of John Kourkouas.
Henry of Flanders. He actually stabilized the Latin Empire despite being outnumbered on all fronts. The Latins didn't really fall apart until after he died.
Basil II was by FAR the greatest Eastern Roman emperor. His only fault (and it was a major one) was the one you mentioned, his total failure to think about the succession. If only his foolish brother had a son or Basil adopted some competent general like the Early Roman empire.
when does the Byzantine Empire actually begins? when Constantine founds Constantinople? when it loses the western provinces? when the west falls? after Justinian's death? after Heraclius?
There's no real start date because the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire, but historians generally pick the founding of Constantinople (330) or the permanent division of Rome into east and west (395).
A number of Roman/Byzantine emperors of the 2nd-9th century (193 - 867) were of Thracian ethnic descent: 1. Septimius Severus Thracian (193 - 211) 2. Geta Thracian (February 211 - December 211) 3. Caracalla Thracian (211 - 217) 4. Maximinus Thrax (235-238), 5. Aureolus Thracian (268), 6. Aurelian Thracian (270 - 275) 7. Constantius I Thracian Chlorus (305-306) 8. Galerius Thracian (305-311) 9. Konstantin I Thracian the Great (306-337) 10. Licinius Thracian (308 - 324) 11. Maximin Daza Thracian (308/310-313) 12. Constantius II Thracian (337-361) 13. Julian Thracian (361-363) 14. Jovian Thracian (363-364) 15. Marcian Thracian (450-457) 16. Leo I Thracian (457-474) 17. Leo II Thracian (474) 18. Justin I Thracian (518-527) 19. Justinian I Thracian the Great (527-565) 20. Justin II Thracian (565-578) 21. Tiberius II Constantine Thracian (578-582) 22. Michael II Thracian* (820 - 829); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia 23. Theophil Thracian* (829 - 842); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia 24. Michael III Thracian* (842 - 867); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia --------------------- 330 AD: Konstantin I Thracian the Great - founder of the 1st Native (Thracian) Imperial dynasty of Byzantium * Maurice the Greek - THE FIRST EMPEROR "FROM THE RACE OF THE GREEKS". Reign: 14 August 582 - 27 November 602
Basil I wasn't pesant, he was a slace, who escaped from Bulgaria. Moreover, probably he wasn't even from greek cultury, but slav. It's not for sure, but ther is probability.
No Anastasian is absolutely criminal! Justinian is top 5 but not number 2! Basil the second is top 2 but not one, he destroyed his own dynasty ! Anastasian was the most economically sound, reasonable and popular emperor. He is the biggest reason the east rebounded to live on. Justinian and Basil laid the ground work for ruin past their reigns, Anastasian set Justin and Justinian up for succès
@@Chadius_Thundercock during the time of Basil II, Bulgarians could not simply be recognized as Slavs. They were a people of Hun origin, just like the Turks
I think that while Manuel Komnenos was definitely a skilled general and emperor, he was also far too ambitious in his projects, so a lot of them came to nothing. I guess he was a bit like Pyrrhus of Epirus in that regard. Thanks for the shout out btw, means a lot. :)
@@harperdearing5681 have you seen the empire that maurice led and the one inherited by john iii? One owned almost the entire mediterranean, the other not even the sea of marmara
Basil the Bulgar slayer deserves number 1. I think the whole never marrying thing was just because he was too busy. I got to blame his brother Constantine for some of that they were his daughters and with Basil II always on campaign Constantine should’ve found them husbands in their younger years. So they could produce a heir for the Macedonians.
Basil II and the Romans can be thankful his father's cousin wasn't Andronikus I. The fact that Nikephoris II and John I learned from the depositions of Nikephoris I and his sons allowed Basil to reach his age of majority to have the chance to rule. Also excellent list. Shame Anistasius I did not get an honourable mention.
Personally I think Anastasius should be number one and I’m quite surprised he isn’t on this list. Personally I’d take out Basil I for Anastasius and I’d swap Leo III for his son Constantine V who I’d say is a near equal to his namesake Constantine the Great. Maybe I’d swap Nikephoros II for Maurice as well but I’m unsure.
@@Serapeum hmm its a grammar thing about two simmilar but not the same words about καλός and κάλλος , let me explain :so "κάλλος" means beauty and its used with the pronoun "it" and with emphasis on ά but when you say the word and "καλός" it is used for the pronoun "he/him" and wih emphasis on ό.
If not for Heraclius, the Sassanids could still be around today and may have survived the Arab conquests, probably loosing Egypt and The Levant but keeping Persia, Mesopotamia, The Balkans, and Anatolia!
@@Serapeum It does not honour you that you only root for the Romans, especially since Iran was considered much greater (Iran had a shining empire when Rome was a city state).
You have no Idea how glad I am to see Heraclius on this list, way more seing him in the top 3. Extremely underrated, sadly his old age wasn't destined to be a Basil like... And no, Justinian did nothing wrong. He didn't just face a HORRENDOUS plague, but also a heavy famine and still he and Belisarius managed to do the reconquests they did.
John III Vatatzes is the epitomy of a good king. Every time he didnt have any affairs he would plow and take care of his estate. Out of his own estate egg sales he managed to buy a diadem full of pearls, which shows how frugal and open-minded was with economics and how to not put all pressure onto his aristocrats and average Joe. Its not coinsidense that they named him a Saint in asia minor. Anastasios was the emperor who managed to create huge surpluses for Justinian to start his reconquista. Basil II was a very firm fist ruler. He managed to destroy or put into Tribute a lot of his enemies but he also put a huge nail in the aristocracy which at the ned backfired and made way for more constant rivalry against big families. One of those were the komnenians from kastamoni in asia minor that at the end make it and stabilised the empire but they gave away a lot of that central power for the capital to the regional aristocrats. They also changed the army from a regional semiproffessional to mercenary army, allienating more and more the periphery. You cant hold firm ground when your power diminishes and when you capital sucks out wealth from the periphery and not the opposite. After the crusaders conquering Constantinople this bond of strong organised central fist ruling turned to fractured empire that also lost its trade income from the Italian city states of Genoa and venice and then it was a matter of time for the eastern roman empire to fall.
I can't understand why Justinian I is not on the first list, though every period has it own unique problem but omg looks back during Justinian I, Persian, Barbarian, riot, plague, worst year to live and earthquake , Justinian had overcome it all and made it the most memorable until these days, the biggest church in the world, the law (Justinian code) and the western territories for the Byzantine. Most of the listing barely got more territories, to reconquer them was truly the enduring venture.
Justinian is way to overrated. He oversaw great triomphe and he was a great administrator and his ambition was unmatched, but he bankrupt the empire, with the spanish conquest and at the end of his reign, the empire had already began to crumble. He was also a very unpopular ruler, compared for example with his uncle Justin. Also many of his achievements were made by others. The conquest under his reign were done by his generals like Belisarius and Narses, and his law code was made by Trebonian, and without Anastasius gold, we would have never been able to anything. Nevertheless, he was like Trajan, he could assemble the best i guess. Of course he is one of the greatest and interesting emperors but Basil reign was just way more successful .
Great list but there ain't no Byzantine Empire without the founder of Constantinople (Byzantion) and its greatest Emperor ;-) 1. Constantine I 2. Justinian I 3. Basil II 4. Heraclius 5. Alexios I 6. Leo III 7. John II 8. John I 9. Constantine V 10. Nikephoros II
For me the top 10 Eastern Roman Emperors are: 1/Herakleios I 2/Basileios II 3/Alexios I Komnenos 4/John I Tzimiskes 5/John II Komnenos 6/John III Doukas Vatatzes 7/Justinian I 8/Basileios I 9/Nikephoros I Phokas 10/Manuel I Komnenos
If Basil had lived on another five years, he might have recovered Sicily. While he does bear blame for not having a competent successor lined up, the Seljuk threat to Anatolia had not emerged yet. At the time the Muslim world was divided. In the absence of the appearance of the Turks, the Byzantines of the 11th century would have had more resources to deal with the other threats .
Thank you . This video is very good I wish Heraclius would have crushed the wild Arabs, but in general, in my view, Jocentine 482-565 is the most powerful Byzantine emperor in my view: 1 Jocentine 565-482. 2 Heraclius 641-575 3 basil II 958-1025 4 Alexios 1118-1048
Justinian's wars damaged Italy, Rome wasn't a ruin before him, only a decaying city ruled by former barbarians. I do not like him. Basil's fault of dynasty management kinda caused the chaos that followed his rule. Still, he is the Number one.
he said at the very start of the video that he only considered emperors "from 395 to 1453"; i.e. the period after the death of theodosius i & subsequent splitting of the empire
@@thewitheredstriker The religion ones and some problems with the nobles as he was a Miaphysite But he still a decent emperor but not a top 10 one even though his Administrative abilities was one of the best in the empire history
There was NEVER a Byzantine Empire, therefore no Byzantine EMPERORS. There was the ROMAN EMPIRE in the West and in the East, there were Roman Co-Emperors located in the East like Constantinople. Your video lacks Theodosius the Great, clearly one of the greatest Co-Emperors in the East and also Sole Emperor. The other problem with the thesis is that Roman Emperors at Constantinople without a Roman Emperor in the West, were usually SOLE Emperors. Just giving my two cents. Someone asked about Constantine the Great, but he was Emperor throughout the West and then sole Emperor. Also
I mean, "Byzantine" is still an accepted historiographical term, so I don't really see your point. As for the ranking, I think that Theodosius is an overrated emperor; he was good and certainly very competent, but I'm not sure he deserves his title of "the Great". I think he has been largely over-hyped due to his role in making Christianity the state religion of Rome. He also falls just outside the timeframe for this list, which is 395 to 1453.
Here is a documentary called "Theodosius the Great - Late Roman Empire" by Ancient Sight - this highlights many of his victories and gains for the Empire: ua-cam.com/video/QH3EZsKHU3w/v-deo.html #TheodosiusTheGreat #RomanEmpire #History
The list is reasonable enough but there are some significant omissions, the most important being Anastasius I, who was a much wiser and efficient ruler than the vast majority of his predecessors and successors. He should be no. 2 or 3. Another strong candidate for the top 3 is Constantine V, a well-rounded ruler that excelled in all aspects of government. Honorable mentions should go to Maurice, who defeated the Persians and stabilized the Danube frontier, Manuel I, who kept the empire on top in a geopolitical multipolar environment in which Romània was no longer as dominant as it had been in the 940-1071 period, and Romanos I, an excellent ruler who made a long-lasting and favorable peace with the Bulgars, defeated the Rus' and overall administered the empire very effectively. Finally, Constantine I isn't considered an Eastern Roman emperor, I suppose?
Alexios or John II should be first. If Justinian from all Emperors (the most overrated ruler in history along with Saladin) was to face what Alexios faced, he'd be usurped within a year. Man never fought a battle in his life and bankrupted his state for meaningless conquests in Spain and Italy which didn't last. Belisarius did all the work for him.
He performed a lot of other task such as dealing with some minor heresies construction projects and he was the mastermind behind Justins reign as well as issuing tax reforms and rebuilt a burnt down capitol
Justinian handled an empire with probably the most sever outbreak of plague ever, full stop. His capable administration and reform of the law secured the empires' stability for at least a generation, something very hard in these period. Furthermore, he faced the Nika Riots and despite all of this, he still managed to construct many new buildings throughout the empire. It's important that military history is not all history.
@@undeadalex4579 Tell me you know nothing about the Roman Empire without telling me. If Justinian had become emperor in 1081, he wouldn't last more than a year or 2.
@@tripletgalaxy If Belisarius didn't arrive on time, Justinian would have been usurped or killed. His domestic policies were good, but without Belisarius and Narses, he's just a 6th century Michael IV Paphlagonian.
I disagree. I think Justinian was greater than Basil 2. Sure Basil's rule may have been more stable but he didn't have as many problems as Justinian and he failed to further the success for further generations and especially didn't contribute as much to law as his predecessor. On top of all this Justinian controlled more territory, had a very capable empress, achieved more and Basil was a brutalist and imbecile in some areas. His ambition wasn't just conquest but complete destruction of the Bulgarians who helped the Byzantines on several occasions. Basil's feat of conquering Bulgaria wasn't just at all and he achieved it by brutally blinding 15 000 Bulgarians he caught and making their emperor have a heart attack earning him the title of Bulgarian slayer. Why exactly was he greater than Justinian? If Justinian had lived longer you think he wouldn't have staballized the empire more after his conquests?
Having the most controlled territory doesn't automatically make you the greatest We have Trajan who controlled the greatest extent yet there are people who perfer Octavian than him.
Bro your one of those people who exaggerated his title the Bulgar Slayer his Ironic title was given to him 160 years after he died when the Bulgars revolted his named was used as a propaganda also the moment he conquered Bulgaria he was actually very chill with them dint persucuted or genocided them if it's not even enough to changed your mind the remaining Royal family of Samuel was treated well and were given the status of patricians.
I would argue that Justinian the Great should be #1, unless Constantine the Great was included and then he should be #1. Justinian actually reconquered parts of the Western Roman Empire ( Italy, Spain, Africa ), something none of the other Byzantine Emperors after 476 AD were able to do. Constantine the Great is one of the most important leaders in history.
The problem with Justinian however is that his conquests greatly bankrupted and overstretched the Empire, especially because of the Plague, quickly losing much of the west after his death. Also much of the praise for his conquests should come under his general Belasarius.
Those conquest was done by his general, Belisarius. Justinian was even intimidated by Belisarius. At the news of the ostrogoth crowning Belisarius as emperor of the roman West (part of Belisarius strategy) the weak emperor tries to imprison his general. Scumbag just like augustus caesar
Good list. Basil II was a relentless fighter but Justinian was THE GREATEST. If not for the plague, he was the BEST for 4 decades whose reconquests expanded the empire very nearly to its former glory
except those conquests were in no way worth in the cost of human suffering it inflicted, and it would take generations for the newly incorporated territories to be economically profitable. Perhaps the worst aspect of Justinian’s reign was that he set a precedent for future emperors to do big territorial expansions. this triggered a decades long conflict with the Sassanids that led to the collapse of both Byzantine and Sassanian influence and created a power vaccum for the rise of Islam. A very compelling argument can be made that Justinian severely weakened the Byzantine empire and led to its decline.
Those conquest was done by his general, Belisarius. Justinian was even intimidated by Belisarius. At the news of the ostrogoth crowning Belisarius as emperor of the roman West (part of Belisarius strategy) the weak emperor tries to imprison his general. Scumbag just like augustus caesar
@@romantsar8344 What you apparently fail to conclude and appreciate, or even ACKNOWLEDGE, is that Roman Byzantium was at its Paramount size and high-water mark under Justinian the Great. The main REASON for their subsequently heavy losses, beginning and ending with the population, were the events of 536 and most tragically and most notably the plague, through no fault of the Emperor. Justinian's own code of rules and laws established NUMEROUS precedents still in effect. His accomplishments with the great Belisarius would have RE-conquered reestablished the antiquities and dominance of the old Roman Empire. Only a half century after the fall of western Rome did he restore his empire to its greatest size lengths which is something spectacular- the likes of which NO other Byzantine Emperor ever came even close to duplicating.
@@jameshunk7211 Seriously dude? That evolutionary incident was nothing more OR less than a brilliantly concocted RUSE by Belisarius to trick the Gothic leaders InTo THINKING he was going to betray Justinian. In going through with it Belisarius was able to then freely enter the city and very briefly thereafter overrun and RETAKE the last major gothic stronghold in Italy and ALL the name of Justinian and the Roman Empire. Back in Constantinople, however, some misconstrued Belisarius' masterfully shrewd ruse of the enemy and were unaware of what had really happened and accused Belisarius falsly of treason and had him imprisoned and the most important fact of it all was that NONE of this transpired by the order or at the behest of Justinian himself
My personal favorite Emperors, from best to mediocre Justinian I Constantine I Constantine XI Basil II Leo III Basil I Michael II Theophilos Nikephoros II Michael III Justinian II
Heraculius just lived to long. If he would’ve died 6 years Earlier we’d be saying he was number 1 and he’d be the Aurelian of the East.
Also whoever would succeed him to reign during the arab invasions would be labeled as the horrible emperor who threw all of heraclius' hard work in the trash
He still sucked at religious problems and had bad reputation due to incest
@@danielchequer5842 easy come easy go
He is the Aurelian of the East.
My guy was mentally incapable at the time and couldnt lead his forces in person. The persians failed to cooperate with his yarmouk expedition and general vahan also prematurely confronted the arabs rather than awaiting his orders
Imagine that?
The Hopeful Reconquest of All Anatolia was lost because the guy leading the charge accidentally cut himself with a poison arrow.
Must've felt like some of the dumbest bad luck anyone ever got
It was a real shame, especially since John's son Manuel spent his 37 years on the throne chasing his tail in the west; if Manuel had concentrated all his efforts on Anatolia as John had done, then I think it's very likely that all the damage of Manzikert could have been undone
@@Serapeum Yeah. The Romans had gone through worse, the fact they were even able to recapture what they did is a testimony that Anatolia was not lost. Even with the Turkification of the region, the Romans could've easily reversed it all had they finished the conquest & resettled Greeks in their old lands or did what they had done in Crete, force conversion back to Christianity.
I do admire Manuel's ambitions to reconquer lands in the West, but yeah. It wasn't the smartest move when your Borders are literally stretching themselves out from one corner to the other
@@iDeathMaximuMII let's see. Manuel vassalized the serbs, croats, essentially having the whole Balkans. then subdued the Kingdom of Hungary and attempted to unify the 2 states, or hoped they will be in the future. at it's peak, the empire was back being the number 1 super power of the Middle Ages, even without Anatolia. however... he kicked the bucket and all went down the drain.
@@ragael1024Those western conquests were very superficial. On paper it's impressive. And yes, his vassalization of the Serbs & Croats was very good. But he focused too much on the West. When the East needed work to be done. Manuel should've tried to have a son much earlier than he did. Or at the very least, keep Béla III of Hungary on side by not alienating him after Alexios II is born. That way the Empire would be more stable & not have the sudden & horrific collapse that it did in the 1180's
I think emperor Maurice should had been included in the top 10.He defeated the Persians, stabilized the Danube frontiers, held Italy and tried his best to save money.If he had reigned 10 more years, he could had recovered the Byzantine empire from the crisis.
Though there is a good case to be made that he caused his usurpation by not properly paying the troops that would revolt against him
Like Hieraclius, he was a good emperor who made some unfortunate mistakes that proclude me from considering him anong the best
Imagine winning the largest roman-byzantine war ever, in an heroic series of campaignes, only to see your generals lose to somes nomadic raiders by the name of khalid-ibn-al-walid.
Well the Byzantines were in no shape for more fighting
@@wankawanka3053 If they had at least 15 years to recover, maybe it could've been different
@@wankawanka3053 Pity excuse
From 622 year no serious losses were suffered by the byzantines, so they would had more than 10 years to recover from the war with the persians
Not to mention the reason byzantines won from the start is because Khosrow II was assassinated by his own son who literally gave up all the lands that the persians gained from the war, and here is were Heraclius legend ends …
None the less the byzantines had already managed to gain every possible advantage against the rising rashidun caliphate
Including more numbers, superior equipments, allying with the Sassanids, defensive status, experienced generals and trained troops …
All against some poorly equipped nomads who just came from the deserts …
In Yarmouk the Arabs equipped with leather armors and light cavalry at the least would be 4 times outnumbered by the byzantines who were equipped with heavy equipments, Cataphracts, Etc …
Just to imagine how would a simple light cavalry units would manage to overcome the mighty byzantine Cataphracts.
@@iDeathMaximuMII Pity excuse
From 622 year no serious losses were suffered by the byzantines, so they would had more than 10 years to recover from the war with the persians
Not to mention the reason byzantines won from the start is because Khosrow II was assassinated by his own son who literally gave up all the lands that the persians gained from the war, and here is were Heraclius legend ends …
None the less the byzantines had already managed to gain every possible advantage against the rising rashidun caliphate
Including more numbers, superior equipments, allying with the Sassanids, defensive status, experienced generals and trained troops …
All against some poorly equipped nomads who just came from the deserts …
In Yarmouk the Arabs equipped with leather armors and light cavalry at the least would be 4 times outnumbered by the byzantines who were equipped with heavy equipments, Cataphracts, Etc …
Just to imagine how would a simple light cavalry units would manage to overcome the mighty byzantine Cataphracts.
@@3mk510 Allying with sassanids? 2 weakend states? If they start preparing and allying at least 10 years earlier it can be winnable for both of them. Don't say YOUR pity excuses about Allah's will.
*Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Emperor Heraclius the Wise?*
No
*I thought not. It's not a story the senate would teach nowadays.*@@Omarrah3214
It’s a Roman legend. Heraclius was the emperor of the Romans, so powerful and so wise that he could use the power of persuasion and guerrilla tactics to influence the military to win battles.
He had such a knowledge of the Startegikon. He could even keep the empire from dying.
He could actually save the empire from death?
The art of strategy and cunning is a pathway to many victories, some considered to be impossible.
Justinians successes are at the work of Belisarius. Justinian was a jealous monarch and even though all of this existed Belisarius continued to remain loyal to not just him, but to the people of Eastern Rome making him one of the greatest generals in history.
Without Justinians internal policy Belisarius could have never conquered The western provinces. Also we don't say that Augustus was bad because Acrippa did the military work
@@debater452 we would say that if he undercut his general at every chance he got. Justinian routinely undercut Belisarius and still Belisarius prospered.
@@TitansQuarterback16 Like when
@@TitansQuarterback16 You can't fault Justinian for being paranoid though. By then, a successful and popular general rebelling against his emperor was a tale as old as time.
Belisarius wasn't the Emperor, Justinian was.
Basil II never had to kill 30,000 people during a revolt in Constantinople as Justinian had to do. Justinian was about to flee the city when Theodora refused to do so exclaiming that should would rather die as an Empress. Justinian called in Belisarius who slaughtered the rebels. It shows that Basil II kept the people of Constantinople content. That is always a mark of a great ruler.
I am surprised you didn't include Romanos I Lekapenos. I believe he was responsible for the Roman Empire's recovery and expansionism. He was responsible for securing a peace treaty with the Bulgarians that lasted for 40 years, which allowed him to send the bulk of the Empire's army to fight the Arabs in the East under the command of John Kourkouas.
no Anastasius I , Maurice?
Incredible video! I’m very grateful for finding this channel, excellent content!
I pretty much agree with everything but I would include Anastasius and Constantine v
Henry of Flanders. He actually stabilized the Latin Empire despite being outnumbered on all fronts. The Latins didn't really fall apart until after he died.
Omg this man really deserve 1 million views and million subs!
This is high content !!
Keep it up!
Where the heck is maurice . He should’ve been at least a 6
Basil II was by FAR the greatest Eastern Roman emperor. His only fault (and it was a major one) was the one you mentioned, his total failure to think about the succession. If only his foolish brother had a son or Basil adopted some competent general like the Early Roman empire.
Not John I
But
John Tzimiskes
Another top 10 byzantine emperor list, another time I have to suffer not seeing Justinian II and Manuel Komnenos in their rightful place
Where would you place those two? I'm intrigued
@@Serapeum Manuel as number one clearly, justinian II at 3
@@andreascovano7742 Manuel was average. Not great, not terrible. His failure to keep the succession stable kind of ruins him just like Basil II.
Justinian the II? No way lmao. His first half of his reign wasn't good
@@TonyFontaine1988 Yeah but he was cool
when does the Byzantine Empire actually begins? when Constantine founds Constantinople? when it loses the western provinces? when the west falls? after Justinian's death? after Heraclius?
There's no real start date because the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire, but historians generally pick the founding of Constantinople (330) or the permanent division of Rome into east and west (395).
Vecna Makedonia ❤️
A number of Roman/Byzantine emperors of the 2nd-9th century (193 - 867) were of Thracian ethnic descent:
1. Septimius Severus Thracian (193 - 211)
2. Geta Thracian (February 211 - December 211)
3. Caracalla Thracian (211 - 217)
4. Maximinus Thrax (235-238),
5. Aureolus Thracian (268),
6. Aurelian Thracian (270 - 275)
7. Constantius I Thracian Chlorus (305-306)
8. Galerius Thracian (305-311)
9. Konstantin I Thracian the Great (306-337)
10. Licinius Thracian (308 - 324)
11. Maximin Daza Thracian (308/310-313)
12. Constantius II Thracian (337-361)
13. Julian Thracian (361-363)
14. Jovian Thracian (363-364)
15. Marcian Thracian (450-457)
16. Leo I Thracian (457-474)
17. Leo II Thracian (474)
18. Justin I Thracian (518-527)
19. Justinian I Thracian the Great (527-565)
20. Justin II Thracian (565-578)
21. Tiberius II Constantine Thracian (578-582)
22. Michael II Thracian* (820 - 829); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia
23. Theophil Thracian* (829 - 842); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia
24. Michael III Thracian* (842 - 867); *Ethnic Thracian born in Thracian Phrygia
---------------------
330 AD: Konstantin I Thracian the Great - founder of the 1st Native (Thracian) Imperial dynasty of Byzantium
*
Maurice the Greek - THE FIRST EMPEROR "FROM THE RACE OF THE GREEKS". Reign: 14 August 582 - 27 November 602
This is totally false.
lSeverus and his family were from Leptis Magna in Libya. I guess the rest of the list is false too
Basil I wasn't pesant, he was a slace, who escaped from Bulgaria. Moreover, probably he wasn't even from greek cultury, but slav. It's not for sure, but ther is probability.
Not Byzantine is rong. Roman Empire. Nova Roma victor! Roma Eterna! Βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων ΒΒΒΒ
Alexios I was better than John II
No Anastasian is absolutely criminal! Justinian is top 5 but not number 2! Basil the second is top 2 but not one, he destroyed his own dynasty ! Anastasian was the most economically sound, reasonable and popular emperor. He is the biggest reason the east rebounded to live on. Justinian and Basil laid the ground work for ruin past their reigns, Anastasian set Justin and Justinian up for succès
Honorable mentions:
Constantine the Great
Constantine V
Constantine XI Palaiologos
Maurice
Anastasius
Manuel Komnenos
Don't forget Romanos I and Leo I
Constantine the Great wasn’t an eastern emperor though I’d say Constantine IV and VII deserve honourable mentions as well as Romanos I & II.
Mad respect for Constantine Dragases Palaiologos XI
@@henryvkingofenglandandfran7220 he literally founded Constantinople bruh
@@zippyparakeet1074 *renamed Byzantium to New Rome/Constantinople and he was emperor of a unified Roman Empire
I have massive respect for you for putting Basil II "the based" at number one.
Any enemies of the Slavs is a friend of mine
Basil II was great but Justinian was the GREATEST
@@Eazy-ERyder false
@@Chadius_Thundercock during the time of Basil II, Bulgarians could not simply be recognized as Slavs. They were a people of Hun origin, just like the Turks
@@owoc8260 Turks are worse than Slavs
Fantastic one! I only got surprised that I didn't see Konstantine V and Manuel Komnenos but oh well 10 places are only so much.
I think that while Manuel Komnenos was definitely a skilled general and emperor, he was also far too ambitious in his projects, so a lot of them came to nothing. I guess he was a bit like Pyrrhus of Epirus in that regard.
Thanks for the shout out btw, means a lot. :)
@@harperdearing5681 have you seen the empire that maurice led and the one inherited by john iii? One owned almost the entire mediterranean, the other not even the sea of marmara
@@apparentlyjeremy well it wasn't John the one Who Lost that
John II's death is literally just begging for alternate history writers to use it not happening as a POD.
king nebuchadnezzar dream make an alternate history unimportant ua-cam.com/video/IIvFfqIR24Q/v-deo.html
All three johns are
Great commentary, the way you present the emperor looks super clean and the the video is very educative, 10/10 would watch again 👌
Miss your edits dawg
Basil the Bulgar slayer deserves number 1. I think the whole never marrying thing was just because he was too busy. I got to blame his brother Constantine for some of that they were his daughters and with Basil II always on campaign Constantine should’ve found them husbands in their younger years. So they could produce a heir for the Macedonians.
Nah I'd say that goes to Justinian The Great
Heraclius was one of the best. I think his reign would make a great mini-series. You wouldn't even have to make stuff up or not even be unhistorical.
The biggest chad in Byzantine history, undone by his unwillingness to bone, like a true giga-chad would have.
Alexios > Justinian I
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't know that much about John the 2nd so he is a new ruler that I just found out through you. Thank you so much😊
No problem! Thank you for watching!
No problem man, sorry it took so long to reply. I didn't receive the reply until today. Which is a weird day to receive it.😅
Basil II and the Romans can be thankful his father's cousin wasn't Andronikus I. The fact that Nikephoris II and John I learned from the depositions of Nikephoris I and his sons allowed Basil to reach his age of majority to have the chance to rule.
Also excellent list. Shame Anistasius I did not get an honourable mention.
Héraclius 🔥🔥
One of the best roman emperor
@@pablovalientinio1218Was Heraclius of Roman origin..?
Personally I think Anastasius should be number one and I’m quite surprised he isn’t on this list. Personally I’d take out Basil I for Anastasius and I’d swap Leo III for his son Constantine V who I’d say is a near equal to his namesake Constantine the Great. Maybe I’d swap Nikephoros II for Maurice as well but I’m unsure.
Thanks for including Leo III, most people forget his achievements because he started iconoclasm.
Its not John "the beautiful" its John the Good ! he also was the best of komnenos
I've seen it translated both ways
@@Serapeum hmm its a grammar thing about two simmilar but not the same words about καλός and κάλλος , let me explain :so "κάλλος" means beauty and its used with the pronoun "it" and with emphasis on ά but when you say the word and "καλός" it is used for the pronoun "he/him" and wih emphasis on ό.
@@John-el. Finally.
Tough being an emperor! I would've ended as someone's cup!
If not for Heraclius, the Sassanids could still be around today and may have survived the Arab conquests, probably loosing Egypt and The Levant but keeping Persia, Mesopotamia, The Balkans, and Anatolia!
Indeed, they may have done; one man’s hero is another’s enemy, I suppose
@@Serapeum It does not honour you that you only root for the Romans, especially since Iran was considered much greater (Iran had a shining empire when Rome was a city state).
If only Persians mind their own business
@@Serapeum The 3 million remaining Zoroastrians probably hate Heraclius and the Byzantines.
Cope hhhhhhhhhhhhh
Basil and Alexius I are some of the best emperors of any empire!
You have no Idea how glad I am to see Heraclius on this list, way more seing him in the top 3. Extremely underrated, sadly his old age wasn't destined to be a Basil like...
And no, Justinian did nothing wrong. He didn't just face a HORRENDOUS plague, but also a heavy famine and still he and Belisarius managed to do the reconquests they did.
John III Vatatzes is the epitomy of a good king. Every time he didnt have any affairs he would plow and take care of his estate. Out of his own estate egg sales he managed to buy a diadem full of pearls, which shows how frugal and open-minded was with economics and how to not put all pressure onto his aristocrats and average Joe. Its not coinsidense that they named him a Saint in asia minor. Anastasios was the emperor who managed to create huge surpluses for Justinian to start his reconquista. Basil II was a very firm fist ruler. He managed to destroy or put into Tribute a lot of his enemies but he also put a huge nail in the aristocracy which at the ned backfired and made way for more constant rivalry against big families. One of those were the komnenians from kastamoni in asia minor that at the end make it and stabilised the empire but they gave away a lot of that central power for the capital to the regional aristocrats. They also changed the army from a regional semiproffessional to mercenary army, allienating more and more the periphery. You cant hold firm ground when your power diminishes and when you capital sucks out wealth from the periphery and not the opposite. After the crusaders conquering Constantinople this bond of strong organised central fist ruling turned to fractured empire that also lost its trade income from the Italian city states of Genoa and venice and then it was a matter of time for the eastern roman empire to fall.
Wait, wait, wait, wait! Justinian must have been number 1!
Justinian will be #1
Where is Anastasius I
He's certainly in the upper echelon of emperors, but I didn't think he was worthy of the top ten
Kaloïoannis Komnenos
Basil II is the best. Not that I am biased 😅
I can't understand why Justinian I is not on the first list, though every period has it own unique problem but omg looks back during Justinian I, Persian, Barbarian, riot, plague, worst year to live and earthquake , Justinian had overcome it all and made it the most memorable until these days, the biggest church in the world, the law (Justinian code) and the western territories for the Byzantine. Most of the listing barely got more territories, to reconquer them was truly the enduring venture.
Justinian is way to overrated. He oversaw great triomphe and he was a great administrator and his ambition was unmatched, but he bankrupt the empire, with the spanish conquest and at the end of his reign, the empire had already began to crumble. He was also a very unpopular ruler, compared for example with his uncle Justin. Also many of his achievements were made by others. The conquest under his reign were done by his generals like Belisarius and Narses, and his law code was made by Trebonian, and without Anastasius gold, we would have never been able to anything. Nevertheless, he was like Trajan, he could assemble the best i guess. Of course he is one of the greatest and interesting emperors but Basil reign was just way more successful
.
The average justinaboo get over it
@@theodlt5980dude he had a plague, huge volcanic euruption, and still managed to do what he did. Not liking him is just revisionists
Great list but there ain't no Byzantine Empire without the founder of Constantinople (Byzantion) and its greatest Emperor ;-)
1. Constantine I
2. Justinian I
3. Basil II
4. Heraclius
5. Alexios I
6. Leo III
7. John II
8. John I
9. Constantine V
10. Nikephoros II
Any list with Justinian I over Basil II is invalid. He also specifically said 395 to 1453.
For me the top 10 Eastern Roman Emperors are:
1/Herakleios I
2/Basileios II
3/Alexios I Komnenos
4/John I Tzimiskes
5/John II Komnenos
6/John III Doukas Vatatzes
7/Justinian I
8/Basileios I
9/Nikephoros I Phokas
10/Manuel I Komnenos
If Basil had lived on another five years, he might have recovered Sicily. While he does bear blame for not having a competent successor lined up, the Seljuk threat to Anatolia had not emerged yet. At the time the Muslim world was divided. In the absence of the appearance of the Turks, the Byzantines of the 11th century would have had more resources to deal with the other threats .
While regaining Carthage and Italy made sense, Justinian's campaigns in Morocco and Spain made little sense.
Thank you . This video is very good
I
wish Heraclius would have crushed the wild Arabs, but in general, in my view, Jocentine 482-565 is the most powerful Byzantine emperor in my view: 1 Jocentine 565-482. 2 Heraclius 641-575 3 basil II 958-1025 4 Alexios 1118-1048
Leo III was the best
He give the Byzantine empire 700 years +
Justinian's wars damaged Italy, Rome wasn't a ruin before him, only a decaying city ruled by former barbarians.
I do not like him.
Basil's fault of dynasty management kinda caused the chaos that followed his rule. Still, he is the Number one.
Looking forward to see a 'best generals of ERE' list
Manuel Palaiologos really deserved at least honorary mention. It's a shame you forgot about him
Why isn’t Constantine I on the list?
he said at the very start of the video that he only considered emperors "from 395 to 1453"; i.e. the period after the death of theodosius i & subsequent splitting of the empire
@@REALsnstruthers I skipped the intro 😂
Nice video!
Out of curiosity: any reason why you didn't include Anastasius I Dicorus?
He was a solid administrator but he made many problems
@@omaraboal-azm8705 Which ones?
@@thewitheredstriker
Anastasius I
@@omaraboal-azm8705 Yeah, but like, I ment to ask which problems you say he made.
@@thewitheredstriker
The religion ones and some problems with the nobles as he was a Miaphysite
But he still a decent emperor but not a top 10 one even though his Administrative abilities was one of the best in the empire history
Hands down greatest emperor BY FAR : John II Komnenos.
I think Maurice deserved a place in the top 10
NIJE VUZANRIJA TO JE IZMISLJEN NAZIV ZOVE SE ISTICNO ROMEJSKO CARSTVO
I,m Bulgarian .My top #1 Constantine the Great .maybe in top 3 Basil 2 Bulgarian Slayer.Est Roman Empere Byzantine big power for ruled Basil 2
First video of yours I've watched, love the writing and presentation. Keep it up!
Number 3 - All the Latin Emperors
Number 2- Mehmed II
Number 1 - Phocas
Based opinion.
I think Anastasius I should have been on this list.
very interesting, I like the formatting
bold move to put Heraclius 3rd. big like!
What about Constantine?
The first one :)
He was the first emporer and founder of the eastern Roman Empire and the founder of Greek orthodoxy as a church and state.
There was NEVER a Byzantine Empire, therefore no Byzantine EMPERORS. There was the ROMAN EMPIRE in the West and in the East, there were Roman Co-Emperors located in the East like Constantinople. Your video lacks Theodosius the Great, clearly one of the greatest Co-Emperors in the East and also Sole Emperor. The other problem with the thesis is that Roman Emperors at Constantinople without a Roman Emperor in the West, were usually SOLE Emperors. Just giving my two cents. Someone asked about Constantine the Great, but he was Emperor throughout the West and then sole Emperor. Also
I mean, "Byzantine" is still an accepted historiographical term, so I don't really see your point.
As for the ranking, I think that Theodosius is an overrated emperor; he was good and certainly very competent, but I'm not sure he deserves his title of "the Great". I think he has been largely over-hyped due to his role in making Christianity the state religion of Rome.
He also falls just outside the timeframe for this list, which is 395 to 1453.
Here is a documentary called "Theodosius the Great - Late Roman Empire" by Ancient Sight - this highlights many of his victories and gains for the Empire: ua-cam.com/video/QH3EZsKHU3w/v-deo.html #TheodosiusTheGreat #RomanEmpire #History
I mean, Byzantine *is* a pretty nifty way to label this era of Roman history.
@@cloudftw113 we can call the people Byzantines for sure, but we cannot forget the SPQR as the state, even if the Consulships got absorbed.
@@ScapularSaves term is dumb
I am gonna call Americans Washingtonians then
The list is reasonable enough but there are some significant omissions, the most important being Anastasius I, who was a much wiser and efficient ruler than the vast majority of his predecessors and successors. He should be no. 2 or 3.
Another strong candidate for the top 3 is Constantine V, a well-rounded ruler that excelled in all aspects of government.
Honorable mentions should go to
Maurice, who defeated the Persians and stabilized the Danube frontier,
Manuel I, who kept the empire on top in a geopolitical multipolar environment in which Romània was no longer as dominant as it had been in the 940-1071 period, and
Romanos I, an excellent ruler who made a long-lasting and favorable peace with the Bulgars, defeated the Rus' and overall administered the empire very effectively.
Finally, Constantine I isn't considered an Eastern Roman emperor, I suppose?
constantine i isnt on the list b/c he didnt reign "between 395 to 1453", as the very beginning of the video states
Design of video is so clear. Fantastic.
Great!
Alexios ❤
Where is anastasius?
Alexios or John II should be first. If Justinian from all Emperors (the most overrated ruler in history along with Saladin) was to face what Alexios faced, he'd be usurped within a year. Man never fought a battle in his life and bankrupted his state for meaningless conquests in Spain and Italy which didn't last. Belisarius did all the work for him.
tell me you got no idea what you talk about without telling me
He performed a lot of other task such as dealing with some minor heresies construction projects and he was the mastermind behind Justins reign as well as issuing tax reforms and rebuilt a burnt down capitol
Justinian handled an empire with probably the most sever outbreak of plague ever, full stop. His capable administration and reform of the law secured the empires' stability for at least a generation, something very hard in these period. Furthermore, he faced the Nika Riots and despite all of this, he still managed to construct many new buildings throughout the empire. It's important that military history is not all history.
@@undeadalex4579 Tell me you know nothing about the Roman Empire without telling me. If Justinian had become emperor in 1081, he wouldn't last more than a year or 2.
@@tripletgalaxy If Belisarius didn't arrive on time, Justinian would have been usurped or killed. His domestic policies were good, but without Belisarius and Narses, he's just a 6th century Michael IV Paphlagonian.
I disagree. I think Justinian was greater than Basil 2. Sure Basil's rule may have been more stable but he didn't have as many problems as Justinian and he failed to further the success for further generations and especially didn't contribute as much to law as his predecessor. On top of all this Justinian controlled more territory, had a very capable empress, achieved more and Basil was a brutalist and imbecile in some areas. His ambition wasn't just conquest but complete destruction of the Bulgarians who helped the Byzantines on several occasions. Basil's feat of conquering Bulgaria wasn't just at all and he achieved it by brutally blinding 15 000 Bulgarians he caught and making their emperor have a heart attack earning him the title of Bulgarian slayer. Why exactly was he greater than Justinian? If Justinian had lived longer you think he wouldn't have staballized the empire more after his conquests?
Justinian caused a lot of his problems by himself remember the nica riots
Yes Justinian is great but he is overrated
@@theodlt5980 have you forgotten Justinian also to have a terrible heir
Having the most controlled territory doesn't automatically make you the greatest We have Trajan who controlled the greatest extent yet there are people who perfer Octavian than him.
Bro your one of those people who exaggerated his title the Bulgar Slayer his Ironic title was given to him 160 years after he died when the Bulgars revolted his named was used as a propaganda also the moment he conquered Bulgaria he was actually very chill with them dint persucuted or genocided them if it's not even enough to changed your mind the remaining Royal family of Samuel was treated well and were given the status of patricians.
BYZANTINE , GREEK EAST ROMAN EMPIRE
I think Heraclius is overrated if you count what was lost during his reign
Cringe
He's a tragic character. Not overrated
@quantummeme7655 Constans II was pretty good. Heraclians were good overall.
Constantine IV was the only good Heraclian, and he still lost Moesia to the Bulgars
I would argue that Justinian the Great should be #1, unless Constantine the Great was included and then he should be #1. Justinian actually reconquered parts of the Western Roman Empire ( Italy, Spain, Africa ), something none of the other Byzantine Emperors after 476 AD were able to do. Constantine the Great is one of the most important leaders in history.
Tecnicly basil II did reconquest west roman teritorys of dalmatia and parts of italy do i agre justinian was grater
The problem with Justinian however is that his conquests greatly bankrupted and overstretched the Empire, especially because of the Plague, quickly losing much of the west after his death. Also much of the praise for his conquests should come under his general Belasarius.
@@wolfmaster7746 facts. Justinian did more bad than good for the Empire
If he only conquered Africa and some islands maybe.Italy was too expensive
Those conquest was done by his general, Belisarius. Justinian was even intimidated by Belisarius. At the news of the ostrogoth crowning Belisarius as emperor of the roman West (part of Belisarius strategy) the weak emperor tries to imprison his general. Scumbag just like augustus caesar
Noice vid bro 💪😁 🇺🇸
Good list. Basil II was a relentless fighter but Justinian was THE GREATEST. If not for the plague, he was the BEST for 4 decades whose reconquests expanded the empire very nearly to its former glory
except those conquests were in no way worth in the cost of human suffering it inflicted, and it would take generations for the newly incorporated territories to be economically profitable. Perhaps the worst aspect of Justinian’s reign was that he set a precedent for future emperors to do big territorial expansions. this triggered a decades long conflict with the Sassanids that led to the collapse of both Byzantine and Sassanian influence and created a power vaccum for the rise of Islam. A very compelling argument can be made that Justinian severely weakened the Byzantine empire and led to its decline.
Those conquest was done by his general, Belisarius. Justinian was even intimidated by Belisarius. At the news of the ostrogoth crowning Belisarius as emperor of the roman West (part of Belisarius strategy) the weak emperor tries to imprison his general. Scumbag just like augustus caesar
@@romantsar8344 What you apparently fail to conclude and appreciate, or even ACKNOWLEDGE, is that Roman Byzantium was at its Paramount size and high-water mark under Justinian the Great. The main REASON for their subsequently heavy losses, beginning and ending with the population, were the events of 536 and most tragically and most notably the plague, through no fault of the Emperor. Justinian's own code of rules and laws established NUMEROUS precedents still in effect. His accomplishments with the great Belisarius would have RE-conquered reestablished the antiquities and dominance of the old Roman Empire. Only a half century after the fall of western Rome did he restore his empire to its greatest size lengths which is something spectacular- the likes of which NO other Byzantine Emperor ever came even close to duplicating.
@@jameshunk7211 Seriously dude? That evolutionary incident was nothing more OR less than a brilliantly concocted RUSE by Belisarius to trick the Gothic leaders InTo THINKING he was going to betray Justinian. In going through with it Belisarius was able to then freely enter the city and very briefly thereafter overrun and RETAKE the last major gothic stronghold in Italy and ALL the name of Justinian and the Roman Empire. Back in Constantinople, however, some misconstrued Belisarius' masterfully shrewd ruse of the enemy and were unaware of what had really happened and accused Belisarius falsly of treason and had him imprisoned and the most important fact of it all was that NONE of this transpired by the order or at the behest of Justinian himself
@@romantsar8344what are you talking about? The emeperors never tried to conquer Persia after him
First 2 Macedonians 🇲🇰
Macedonia 🇬🇷
Get out of here Slav
@_UA-cam-User_ bot kill greeks its just Macedonians 🇲🇰
My personal favorite Emperors, from best to mediocre
Justinian I
Constantine I
Constantine XI
Basil II
Leo III
Basil I
Michael II
Theophilos
Nikephoros II
Michael III
Justinian II
Ah, Basil the Based. Greatest medieval Roman emperor.