+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? (/showthread.php?tid=12341)
Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - Ioannes_Ahenobarbus - 04-12-2008
Greetings all,
I recently posted a similar thread at another history forum, but did not receive too much feedback. So here I am hoping for a bit more discussion from my RAT homies (prove me right!) :wink:
Last week, I had a conversation with a respected scholar, who will remain anonymous, in the field of Byzantine studies. While digressing from our primary discussion, I mentioned favorite emperors of mine, Basil II among them. Immediately, he stated how Basil was an absolutely horrible leader who completely undermined the economy and more or less destroyed the empire through over expanding the borders.
The question is: Who of you Byzantine guys out there agrees with the above statement? Disagree?
Now in my opinion, the most irresponsible thing Basil did as an emperor was neglecting to leave an heir. Here I do not count his brother Constantine or his nieces Zoe and Theodora. But that has nothing to do with the economy, as far as this thread is concerned.
Basil certainly did expand the borders to a size not known in the empire for centuries, but with what result? There seems to be no correlation between his territorial expansion and bankruptcy; not to mention the armies he used were often rather small considering the army during this period; there are other things I could say here, but for the sake of brevity I will leave it at that for now.
I look forward to your posts.
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - egfroth - 04-13-2008
Hmm, I'll have to think about that, but I really can't accept that Basil II was the absolute worst Emperor - how about the execrable Angeloi, Isaac and Alexios III and IV? And the vile Michael V "The Caulker"?
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 04-13-2008
Quote:Hmm, I'll have to think about that, but I really can't accept that Basil II was the absolute worst Emperor - how about the execrable Angeloi, Isaac and Alexios III and IV? And the vile Michael V "The Caulker"?
As much as I hate to think of a potential link to my name, I have to admit from what little I have read about Byzantine history, Angeloi stuck out in my mind as well! :roll:
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - hoplite14gr - 04-13-2008
Vasilios worse ! What about Justinian?
If you check the Byzantine economical system you will see a circle:
Creation of a middle class farmers artisann for military service.
Protection of this class by forcing the expenses on landed gentry and sometimes the church.
Gradual erosion of this system when the emperor wanted to buy the favor of the "Dynatoi" aristokrats.
Militaty defeats because of the weakened army.
Then again restoration of the imperial protection to middle class to rase a new army.
After the victory the emeprosrs succesor would start this from the begining.
Vasileios protected the backbone of his army with legal measures.
The limitation of his time was that he understood the welafare of the empire NOT a national state. His opponents too were trying to grab the empire not create national states or liberate people.
He had the brains to apoint cabaple people in places of authority and the guts to trust them. (i.e Vioiaonnes who beat the s**t of the Normans at Cannae-yes there were more that one battle of Cannae)
If he is view in this context then he stabilized the economy, he reorganized the army, and beat the living hell out off the enemies of the empire.
What else someone can ask from an emperor?
The guy kicked a** in every sector!
60 years old and charging as cataphract!
Viv le Empereur :!: :!: :!: :!:
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 04-13-2008
That would make him a good emperor though Stefanos!
wink:
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - Robert Vermaat - 04-13-2008
Nah, Justinian did great is very bad times - without he reconquests, wwho knows what would have happened? BUT, I'm not saying he was good, either, just not 'the worst'.
Nose-less Phocas! Now he was baa-aad....
Re: Basil II - Worst Byzantine Emperor? - Ioannes_Ahenobarbus - 04-13-2008
Well it seems we are all of the same opinion. Long story short, Basil was a very bad man to his enemies, but a great emperor who built up a sizeable gold reserve, kept the army strong, and strengthened the prestige of the empire. But I am still looking forward to a nice, long informative article from egfroth!
As far as Justinian is concerned, he certainly does get a lot of bad press via the Anecdota and some of Procopios' remarks in his other books, but I think it "fair" (for lack of a better term) to re-evaluate his rule. Maybe this discussion of Justinian deserves another thread...
Also, Comerus Gallus Romus, where did you get that image of Basil? Me likey