Worst Byzantine Empeor

Worst Byzantine Emperor

  • Justinian I

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Justin II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tiberius II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Phocas

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Heraclius

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constans II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Justinian II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philippicus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Theodosius III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leo III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine V

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine VI

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Irene

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Nicephorus I

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Leo V

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Basil I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Basil II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine VIII

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Romanus III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael IV

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael V

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine IX

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael VI

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Isaac I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine X

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Michael VII

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nicephorus III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Manuel I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Andronikos I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Isaac II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexius III

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Alexius IV

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Michael VIII

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Andronikos II

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Michael IX

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John V

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other tell me cause I forgot

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Jun 2013
157
Ha Noi
#3
All Alexios dynasty emperor is the worst with Byzantine

If Alexios dynasty not exsited, Byzantine could still exsited until now
 
Jun 2013
1,175
Canada
#4
In describing Phocas, Norwich writes at length about his incredibly hideous and frightful visage, then goes on to say, "but he was not as pleasant as he looked"!
 

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,487
Blachernai
#5
In describing Phocas, Norwich writes at length about his incredibly hideous and frightful visage, then goes on to say, "but he was not as pleasant as he looked"!
In true Norwichian style, he falls hook, line, and sinker for what the sources say on the surface and never looks at why they say that. Phokas seems at best a mediocre emperor. His image was changed when Herakleios demonized him and elevated Maurice to justify his coup. While Phokas was unsucessful, there's no saying that he wasn't as competent as Herakleios, since the latter's first decade on the throne was a disaster and it's a near miracle that he didn't lose his throne and likely his head along with it. Virtually everything we have on Phokas (Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Nikephoros, Simocatta, George of Pisidia) is hostile, but three of these sources are replete with Herakleian propaganda, and two are heavily influenced by it. Given the time he had on the throne, Phokas was no less successful than Herakleios.
 

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,487
Blachernai
#7
While I generally dislike these polls as anything other than a way to get a conversation going, I'm going to try to do just that and pick a candidate who is not on the list, and one who's generally well-regarded just to cause some controversy: Leo VI the Wise (r. 886-912). Why was Leo such a failure?

1. He lost Sicily.
2. Under his reign, the second city of the empire, Thessalonika, was sacked by pirates.
3. He failed spectacularly in handling the situation with the Bulgars, and their successes spurred them on. Symeon's success led to the establishment of a Bulgarian Empire in the Balkans that was a rival to Byzantium until finally crushed a century later by Basil II.
4. While ultimately his foreign policy in the east was a success, it was less so than that of his father. The Abbasids and the breakaway states were weak, but Leo was too busy putting out fires from his other disasters to capitalize on that weakness.
5. The expedition against Crete was an expensive failure.
6. He was forced to pay off the Rus who attacked Constantinople, as he was unable to inflict a serious defeat.
7. He divided the church over his un-canonical marriage to his mistress, Zoe Karbounopsina ("she of the coal-black eyes") in the name of dynastic power. The relative weakness of the son from this marriage set a dangerous precedent for later generals of the Macedonian house, as it became acceptable to rule over Macedonians who were only ruling in name, as Romanos Lekapenos did. The eventual result of this was a decade-long civil war near the end of the tenth century, eventually leading to the rise of Basil II.
 
May 2013
620
New Zealand
#9
While I generally dislike these polls as anything other than a way to get a conversation going, I'm going to try to do just that and pick a candidate who is not on the list, and one who's generally well-regarded just to cause some controversy: Leo VI the Wise (r. 886-912). Why was Leo such a failure?

1. He lost Sicily.
2. Under his reign, the second city of the empire, Thessalonika, was sacked by pirates.
3. He failed spectacularly in handling the situation with the Bulgars, and their successes spurred them on. Symeon's success led to the establishment of a Bulgarian Empire in the Balkans that was a rival to Byzantium until finally crushed a century later by Basil II.
4. While ultimately his foreign policy in the east was a success, it was less so than that of his father. The Abbasids and the breakaway states were weak, but Leo was too busy putting out fires from his other disasters to capitalize on that weakness.
5. The expedition against Crete was an expensive failure.
6. He was forced to pay off the Rus who attacked Constantinople, as he was unable to inflict a serious defeat.
7. He divided the church over his un-canonical marriage to his mistress, Zoe Karbounopsina ("she of the coal-black eyes") in the name of dynastic power. The relative weakness of the son from this marriage set a dangerous precedent for later generals of the Macedonian house, as it became acceptable to rule over Macedonians who were only ruling in name, as Romanos Lekapenos did. The eventual result of this was a decade-long civil war near the end of the tenth century, eventually leading to the rise of Basil II.
really I thought it was Basil I who lost Sicily to the Muslims. Leo VI's reign was not much of a disaster he managed to secure the succession before he died. Other than dividing the church his reign did not have a lot of long term disasters. Although Romanus I usurped the throne his son eventually became emperor again. If he hadn't reigned than John I and Nicephorus II and Basil II wouldn't have become emperors and expanded the empire. How was he the worst emperor?
 
May 2013
620
New Zealand
#10
In true Norwichian style, he falls hook, line, and sinker for what the sources say on the surface and never looks at why they say that. Phokas seems at best a mediocre emperor. His image was changed when Herakleios demonized him and elevated Maurice to justify his coup. While Phokas was unsucessful, there's no saying that he wasn't as competent as Herakleios, since the latter's first decade on the throne was a disaster and it's a near miracle that he didn't lose his throne and likely his head along with it. Virtually everything we have on Phokas (Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Nikephoros, Simocatta, George of Pisidia) is hostile, but three of these sources are replete with Herakleian propaganda, and two are heavily influenced by it. Given the time he had on the throne, Phokas was no less successful than Herakleios.
I see what you are saying although I admire Heraclius for saving the empire from the Persians he did in fact cause the Persians to overran Mesopotamia and much of the Roman East by rebelling against Phocas who had to deal with the usurper and he used up lots of the empire's resources to defeat what he started. This led up to the Arab conquest of the Roman Near East and the loss of land that would never be regained by the empire
 

Similar History Discussions