Best Byzantine Leader? - Page 5 - Historum

Eumenes · November 5th, 2011, 01:56 PM

John II handily in my book. He tends to get overshadowed by his father, but he was one of the better emperors the Byzantines had. He finished the process Alexios had started and left the empire in the best position it had been in for centuries.

Picard · November 6th, 2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirialax

The thematic system was in utter shambles when Alexios took the throne. He seems to have brought an end to the entire system through his land legislation. I'm not too familiar with the exact legal status of the soldiers during the Komnenian period, nor am I familiar with all of the recent scholarship. The older assumption was that the pronioa, a sort of feudal land grant took over as the main means of providing troops for the government. As I understand it, it is now believed that the pronoia existed much longer than previous believed, but was not as pervasive. I am not aware of any detailed study of army recruitment under the Komnenoi - Paul Magdalino touches on it in his book on Manuel and one of his articles, and I haven't read Bartusis' arguments on the late Byzantine army in any depth. I have not yet read all of Birkenmeier's book, so I can't comment on that, either.

I can't say that I'm expert on topic myself, but from what I can see, theme' system's decline started in 10th century, when emperors of Macedonian dynasty (especially Basil II, or particularly him) went back on offensive. From then on, importance of imperial tagmata, which formed core of Byzantine offensives, in relation to frontier themata, steadily increased, and latter was basically left to rot. Had it not been that way, Manzikert wouldn't mean much beacouse themes would be able to hold off Turks on their own.

As for Komneni, they reformed the Empire and brought in feudalism, and ended themata system - althought Angeloi are probably main destructors of the Empire.

It is important to understand differences in structure of Empire. Most emperors of Macedonian dynasty were not particularly good generals. However, themata system meant that system of defense and governance functioned almost as well without any emperor as it functioned with capable one. There was danger of theme or two rebelling, but that's what tagmata was for. System established by Komneni, on the other hand, was more centralized and thus more prone to crapping up when emperor was less than competent - however, that reform was also started by Basil II, who was himself extremely capable general and administrator - but in the long run, average emperor might have done better. Angeli crapped up the empire and theme system to the end, and Komneni established and cemented centralized feudal system, bringing in a serious structural weakness. And regardless of (in)competence leaders, in the end, it's always a system to blame.

Basil II was extremely competent leader, but I think I'll have to change my preference to either Heraclius or Constans II, depending on which one of them created thematic system.

Swedgen · November 7th, 2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brisieis

Which Byzantine leader do you find the most interesting and why?

Greetings all, new to this forum.

I'd vote for Basil II, purely because the empire reached his pinnacle under his reign. It is remarkable that he never bothered to sire heirs as his vision seemed so complete in other facets.

There are plenty of excellent monarchs from the 8th century onwards to choose from, it's sad that this era is somewhat forgotten to most people as the rulers were fascinating.

**Kirialax** · November 8th, 2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picard

I can't say that I'm expert on topic myself, but from what I can see, theme' system's decline started in 10th century, when emperors of Macedonian dynasty (especially Basil II, or particularly him) went back on offensive. From then on, importance of imperial tagmata, which formed core of Byzantine offensives, in relation to frontier themata, steadily increased, and latter was basically left to rot. Had it not been that way, Manzikert wouldn't mean much beacouse themes would be able to hold off Turks on their own.

As for Komneni, they reformed the Empire and brought in feudalism, and ended themata system - althought Angeloi are probably main destructors of the Empire.

It is important to understand differences in structure of Empire. Most emperors of Macedonian dynasty were not particularly good generals. However, themata system meant that system of defense and governance functioned almost as well without any emperor as it functioned with capable one. There was danger of theme or two rebelling, but that's what tagmata was for. System established by Komneni, on the other hand, was more centralized and thus more prone to crapping up when emperor was less than competent - however, that reform was also started by Basil II, who was himself extremely capable general and administrator - but in the long run, average emperor might have done better. Angeli crapped up the empire and theme system to the end, and Komneni established and cemented centralized feudal system, bringing in a serious structural weakness. And regardless of (in)competence leaders, in the end, it's always a system to blame.

I generally agree. The "feudal" nature of the Komnenian regime is much-disputed, although. It is clear that the thematic system was essentially dead with Alexios I Komnenos' defeat at Dyrrakhion. See Treadgold (1995), Byzantium and Its Army, pp. 41-42.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picard

Basil II was extremely competent leader, but I think I'll have to change my preference to either Heraclius or Constans II, depending on which one of them created thematic system.

Neither. The latest verdict is that the thematic system in its legal form was created by Nikephoros I. See Haldon and Brubaker (2011), Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, pp. 720-721