[Music] hello everyone and welcome to the history of Byzantium episode 300 the 10 greatest bantine Empress when I realized episode 300 would fall outside of the narrative I decided to do something special and as you can imagine listening to Anthony celis rank Emperors for 4 hours got me itching to deliver my own verdict why am I doing this now why not after 1453 what are my criteria why am I not interviewing Dan Carlin instead I realized when thinking about this episode that the Preamble would take quite a while if I tried to explain why I am giving you this list now and you know who wants that I think most of you just want to know who number one is so you can start disagreeing with me so why don't we cut straight to the content and if you want the Preamble it'll now be a post amble all I will say for now is thank you thank you so much for supporting the show to get to episode 300 I really appreciate all the kind emails comments and reviews and to those of you who reached into your wallet as well you have changed my life forever and I I am forever grateful at number 10 is nphis focus 963 to 969 focus is the best General that I've covered on the podcast meticulous tough disciplined a master of strategy as well as tactics but he only became emperor halfway through his career of conquering while Emperor he captured cissa Cyprus and Antioch as well as pushing the Roman border into Armenia he was a terrifying figure to his enemies and he was an efficient and effective military ruler unfortunately he was not a Charming Man and not a great politician his Wars drained the treasury and led to significant unpopularity in Constantinople this culminated in his murder by his nephew and comrade John zisis who was able to rule largely unopposed straight afterwards when the people who had rallied to Acclaim you 6 years earlier gladly side with the man who killed you it's not a great sign number nine is John zisk 969 to 976 I am not a fan of people who murder Emperors I understand that Civil Wars and political impasses sometimes require the overthrow of a regime but zimis was just out for himself however he clearly was a very smooth politician able to wash away the blood on his hands quickly by appeasing all those who'd been dissatisfied with focus's regime zimis was then able to fill Focus his shoes as a general pretty well settling the new conquests down with a sweeping Eastern campaign followed by one of the great victories in Byzantine history driving the Russ out out of the Balkans the Russ had moved from Kiev to the danu and taken over the Bulgarian state had they stayed they would have been a major thorn in the Roman side but zisis drove North defeated them repeatedly shoving them out of their strongholds and reabsorbing the whole region into the Empire the eighth greatest Byzantine emperor is Romanos Le capos 919 to 944 this completes the triumvirate of military men who stepped in to govern on behalf of the children of the Macedonian Dynasty it actually says something about Byzantium that one of its most productive periods saw dynastic Emperors stay at home to keep the crowds happy while experienced generals took charge of the Affairs of State Romanos stepped in when the bulgarians were on the Rampage and he brought Peace by by marrying off his granddaughter to the new Zar an important concession he then trusted the Eastern front to the General John coras who smashed the Arab Emirates along the border and eventually captured meltin another example of how Roman government works best when Authority is delegated Romanos ruled for a long time providing stability and legislating to help the poor in times of famine he was never fully in control of the succession process eventually he was forced out by his sons who were then thrown out themselves but leino's wider family would go on influencing the Empire long after his death his daughter would bear the next generation of macedonians and his illegitimate son basil would govern on their behalf at number seven is the Emperor Maurice 582 to 602 Maurice inherit Ed a mess worked incredibly hard to turn things around before being murdered leaving the Empire to collapse back into a mess Justinian had foolishly expanded the Empire to the point where it was a struggle to defend at one stage Maurice had to deal with Wars on seven fronts simultaneously the economy was struggling and plague was still raging despite these challenges Maurice prioritized well paying off the avar and fighting hard with the Persians to secure peace when luck went his way and the Persians collapsed into Civil War Maurice intervened to shut down that front then transferred troops to the Balkans where he was able to take the fight to the step Nomads invading the future Hungarian plane to attack their home base but fighting so many wars on a tight budget did the emperor in the soldiers rebelled when he pushed them too far and the collapse which followed is a testament to what an impressive job he'd done to hold back the tide the sixth greatest vasil of this podcast is Constantine I 743 to 775 the son of Leo III built on his father's good work providing stability after a century in which the Empire had been brutally assaulted by the new caliphate with the Arabs falling into Civil War Constantine reformed the Army and attacked their outposts then he turned on the bulgars keeping them in check he repopulated Constantinople and restarted the aqueduct of veilance while holding triumphs to entertain the people had things played out differently his Icona class theology might have become established within the Empire he died peacefully and passed the Empire to his son at number five is hercus 610 to 641 hercus took on the toughest task in the history of the Roman Empire and sort of pulled off a miracle by restoring the Eastern provinces it was a Highwire Act of immense courage and skill but he was a part of why the empire was in such a terrible position in the first place the Civil War he l launched was designed to focus's regime and it succeeded draining strength from the Empire which contributed to the utter collapse both in the East and in the Balkans though the rise of the Arabs was beyond his ability to control their desire to unite and Conquer was predicated on the collapse of authority in the Roman World which he was partly responsible for our fourth greatest Emperor is Leo III 717 to 741 70 years on from hercus the Arabs closed in on Constantinople itself one mistake and the Empire would have been extinguished then and there the Romans were going through a prolonged succession crisis and desperately vulnerable Leo did not shrink from The Challenge he forced his way onto the throne in in order to defend the state properly his masterful defense of the capital was followed by over 20 years of sensible rule restoring stability to an Empire that had been on the verge of another collapse he rebuilt its defenses issued a new law code and left the throne to a capable son at number three is Alexius comninos 1081 to 1118 I think people forget how close to collapse the empire was in the 1080s Anatolia was lost and the Normans invaded the Balkans this was the first time the Romans had had to face a Western European Army on home soil a route a Tumble from his horse and Alexius his death might have seen Robert gizard or boont sack Thessaloniki or Constantinople itself instead commos endured and fought off pachin eggs and assassination attempts to secure his position on the throne he then invited the first crusade in to restore Western Anatolia and the islands of the aan Alexius made Byzantium into a significant power again and it would remain one for the next Century He restored the currency and created a new court system that kept the elites together I don't think he should be blamed for things which happened long after his death he lived lived in complex times did his best to cope with immense change and left the Empire to a competent son the second greatest emperor of our podcast era is wait for it basil II 976 to 1025 basil should be first on this list he was the ultimate emperor utterly dedicated to the state patient competent firm basil outlasted his Rivals he didn't need to make daring Cavalry Charges he simply stewarded the state decade after decade until his enemies collapsed from exhaustion he expanded the Empire with little risk and made those who betrayed him pay dearly having spent his childhood at the mercy of the adults around him it's not a huge surprise that he jealously hoarded power once it was his to command but his refusal to groom any kind of successor was a selfish decision and I am punishing him for it which leaves only number one the greatest emperor of Byzantium according to this podcast is anastasius 491 to 518 for those who've forgotten an anastasius was a palace official a bureaucrat chosen by the empress to rule because he was wise sensible and old he was all of those but he actually ruled for 27 years he successfully chased the last barbarians out of the military making sure that the Eastern Roman Empire would not go the way of the West he reformed the coinage reduced taxes and yet left his successes a huge Surplus he dealt firmly and swiftly with the Persians and even tamed the rioting Chariot racing fan clubs he didn't manage to untie the gordian knot of religious dispute over the Council of chaldon and he faced a Bulan Rebellion towards the end of his Reign nor did he nominate a clear successor so why on Earth is anastasius number one one way of explaining my choice is to say that it's because these top 10 lists are so subjective the word greatest is often used for them exactly because it doesn't have a meaning that can be Quantified it allows you to choose who you prefer as opposed to having to prove your case with some kind of weighted measurement I choose anastasius because of what he represents the Triumph of Civilian government of modesty of unflashy competence of a particularly Roman kind of leader in a world where most civilizations insisted that blood mattered or military prowess was essential the Byzantine Court chose a bureaucrat who looked the part and gave him the chance to be their Lord and Master what a statement of faith in your institutions that you would trust someone with no breeding or experience to do the top job it's a statement about the legitimacy of Roman government that the people would accept an unknown to bow down to that generals with 20,000 men at their back would follow orders defeat their enemies and then just quietly disband their army and await further instructions in a medieval world of such chaos and violence Byzantine government shines like a beacon at times and Anastasia stands as one of the great exemplars of the virtues of this system in making this list I was struck by the impossibility of it how do you judge who performed best in this role each lived in such different times each was faced by such different challenges how do you compare an emperor thrust into a live or die crisis with one who faced nothing but warm Summers and happy harvests we are so dependent on the few sources we have that our interpretations and tastes always drift deeply into into the equation is anastasius a better Emperor than Basel II who can say I love that anony cis's list was so different to the ones you find on the internet and he seemed to me to be the most qualified candidate to provide a definitive ranking given he' just written the book on the Empire but actually his list struck me as completely subjective even defining your criteria leaves you open to charges of hypocrisy how can I say anastasius who nominated no successor did better than basil who left the Empire to his reasonably competent brother I would argue that anastasius ruled in an era when succession was less important Leo Zeno anastasius Justin and Justinian were all relative nobodies who all reigned pretty well the state was well set up for such regime change whereas basil was the Scion of a noble family whose continued existence was important to the stability of the state but you may well disagree and dismiss me as a fool which is what made the decision easier for me it's my choice who the greatest is and you are welcome to choose differently so to the post amble what was my criteria why did I choose to do this now and what about Justinian Anthony celis said that his criteria was largely based on job performance rather than personality or reputation but he also favored those who created lasting change while not criticizing them for how they took the throne in the first place I too believe I am judging primarily on job performance and I see that job as the stewardship of the state the ideal would be that the Roman Empire was at peace its people prosperous and that Justice was available to as many as possible I did not consider long-lasting change a priority so I'm happy to give hercus credit for what he achieved despite it all falling apart same goes for Maurice whose final few months in office were an utter disaster I don't feel one man should be held responsible for Gigantic geopolitical forces which are beyond their control and I do hold it against people if they murder their way to the top zimus is lucky to be on that list unlike celis I do consider succession planning to be a major part of the job I have had messages from listeners in the past about Anastasia's lack of such a plan but again I think that reflects both his modesty and the strength of the state he lived in there were a dozen fine candidates to replace him all living within a mile of the palace the Empire's armies had happily followed orders for a century now it was less essential then than it was for Basil II who whose armies followed him physically into battle as for Justinian by my estimation he did more harm than good to the Roman state if it ain't broke don't fix it is not a saying Justinian admired he believed that he could remake the world and he was wrong he sent armies to Spain and Italy when it was pretty clear that the Balkans needed attending to and Persia was restive when even Bubonic plague didn't make him reconsider his plans I felt there was no way I could call him a great emperor Justinian was an immensely capable leader and it is possible that eliminating the Goths and vandals had long-term benefits for the Empire but he left his successors with no room for maneuver and distant lands they couldn't reach but had to defend for the sake of Roman honor I would rank him below John coms who is probably number 11 on this list and then he'd be fighting it out with Basel the first and others and it all becomes quite complicated and arbitrary beyond that point my list will of course look different to almost any other out there because of the scope of this podcast by beginning in 476 ad. rather than 330 there is no room for Constantine or theodocious on this list which is good I think because how can you judge someone who founded Constantinople against men born into its secure embrace my list has the virtue of cutting out anyone who had to govern part of the Western Empire or consider its defense to be their responsibility which I think helps a little with points of comparison and this is where the big reveal comes in my list also has an endpoint and that end point is 1204 ad so if you were thinking hey what about John vatsis then this is your answer long ago when I was taking these top 10 lists quite seriously it occurred to me that really it wasn't fair to judge Maurice against Constantine V because Maurice had to govern from the Adriatic to Egypt whereas Constantine V only had to think about Greece and Anatolia it would actually be fairer I thought to judge the Emperors based on era so 476 to 640 640 to manaker and then manaker 124 then each vasil would only compete with those who'd had a similar Geographic scope to govern of course had I actually gone through with that it would have led to three very dull and predictable lists but it would have hit on a basic truth which is to compare Constantine I to Constantine the 11th is kind of ridiculous the power disparity between the two is so vast as to make comparison pointless and so as I've wed through the post 124 world it is my opinion that John vatsis should not be on this list though he ruled very well for a very long time he did not face the same challenges as those who had to rule from Constantinople when Constantinople was the center of the entire region vti's realm was only 140 Mi wide when he took the throne and though he governed it well and expanded it impressively I don't think that can compare to the weight of the queen of cities itself vat faced so much less external noise and pressure he had so many fewer constituencies to please and I believe the same to be true of his successes even once they retake the city the intrusion of Latin and Turk into the Roman World removes many of these decisions from their plate I think when we get to 1453 we can talk about the best Emperors of that 250-year period but I felt now was the time to rank those who ruled the Eastern Roman Empire During the period of constantinople's regional hegemony the question now is what do you think what would your top 10 be and who would be your number one [Music]