Episode 300 - The 10 Greatest Byzantine Emperors

Hi, who here loves when their nails are perfectly done?

Me, I'm Sarah Gibson Tuttle, and I started Olive in June because let's be real, we all deserve to have gorgeous nails, but who wants to spend a fortune or half their day at the salon?

And that's why I created the Manny system so you can have that salon perfect manicure right at home.

And guess what?

The best part?

Each Manny only costs $2.

Yup, you heard me, $2.

No more $30, $40, $50 salon trips that eat up your day.

Now you can paint your nails whenever you want, wherever you want.

And trust me, you're going to be obsessed with your nails, and everyone is going to ask you, where did you get your nails done?

And here's a little something extra: head over to olivinjune.com and get 20% off your first Manny system with code perfectmanny20 at olive and june.com/slash perfectmanny20.

That's code perfectmanny20 for 20% off at olive and june.com/slash perfectmanny20.

You're all set for a nail glow-up.

Let's get those nails looking fabulous, shall we?

Oh, I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work.

And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day.

We're big fans.

And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com.

With intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with.

Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

It's It's that time of year again, back to school season.

And Instacart knows that the only thing harder than getting back into the swing of things is getting all the back-to-school supplies, snacks, and essentials you need.

So here's your reminder to make your life a little easier this season.

Shop favorites from Staples, Best Buy, and Costco all delivered through Instacart so that you can get some time back and do whatever it is that you need to get your life back on track.

Instacart, we're here.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the History of Byzantium, Episode 300, The Ten Greatest Byzantine Emperors.

When I realized episode 300 would fall outside of the narrative, I decided to do something special.

And as you can imagine, listening to Antony Caldellis rank emperors for four 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 postamble.

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 am forever grateful.

At number 10 is Nicephorus Phokas, 963-969.

Phokas 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 Cilicia, 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 Zimiskis, who was able to rule largely unopposed straight afterwards.

When the people who had rallied to acclaim you six years earlier gladly side with the man who killed you, it's not a great sign.

Number nine is John Zimiskis, 969-976.

I am not a fan of people who murder emperors.

I understand that civil wars and political impases sometimes require the overthrow of a regime, but Zimiskis was just out 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 Phokas' regime.

Zimiskiz was then able to fill Phokas' 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 Rus out of the Balkans.

The Rus had moved from Kiev to the Danube and taken over the Bulgarian state.

Had they stayed, they would have been a major thorn in the Roman side.

But Zimiskis 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 Capinos, 919-944.

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 marrying off his granddaughter to the new Tsar, an important concession.

He then trusted the Eastern Front to the general John Corkuas, who smashed the Arab Emirates along the border and eventually captured Melatine.

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 forced out by his sons, who were then thrown out themselves.

But Le Capinos' 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, five eighty-two to six oh two.

Maurice inherited 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 Avars 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 steppe nomads, invading the future Hungarian plain 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 Vasilefs of this podcast is Constantine V,

743-775.

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 Valens, while holding triumphs to entertain the people.

Had things played out differently, his iconoclast theology might have become established within the Empire.

He died peacefully and passed the Empire to his son.

At number five is

Heraclius, six hundred ten to six hundred forty one

Heraclius 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 high wire 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 launched was designed to cripple Phocas' 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,

717-741.

Seventy years on from Heraclius, 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 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 defences, 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 ten eighties.

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 rout, a tumble from his horse, and Alexius's death might have seen Robert Giscard or Bohemond sack Thessaloniki or Constantinople itself.

Instead, Komninos endured and fought off Pechenegs 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 Aegean.

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 in complex times, did his 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

976-1025

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, Anastasius was a palace official, a bureaucrat, chosen by the emperor to rule because he was wise, sensible, and old.

He was all of those, but he actually ruled for twenty seven 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 successors 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 Chalcedon, and he faced a Balkan 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 ten 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 an unknown to bow down to.

That generals with twenty thousand 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 the equation.

Is Anastasius Anastasius a better emperor than Basil II?

Who can say?

I loved that Antony Caldellis'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'd 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 postamble.

What was my criteria?

Why did I choose to do this now?

And what about Justinian?

Antony Caldellis said that his criteria was largely based on job performance rather than personality or or reputation, but he also favoured those who created lasting change while not criticising 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 Heraclius 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.

Zimiskies is lucky to be on that list.

Unlike Anthony Caldellis, I do consider succession planning to to be a major part of the job.

I have had messages from listeners in the past about Anastasius' 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, 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 manoeuvre, and distant lands they couldn't reach but had to defend for the sake of Roman honour.

I would rank him below John Comninos, who is probably number 11 on this list, and then he'd be fighting it out with Basil I 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 Theodosius on this list.

Which is good, I think, because how can you judge someone who founded Constantinople against men born into its secure secure embrace?

My list has the virtue of cutting out anyone who had to govern part of the Western Empire, or consider its defence 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 end point, and that end point is 1204 AD.

So if you were thinking, hey, what about John Vitats?

Then this is your answer.

Long ago, when I was taking these top ten 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 four seventy six to six forty, six forty to Manzikert, and then Manzikert to twelve oh four then each Vasyleft 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 XI is kind of ridiculous.

The power disparity between the two is so vast as to make comparison pointless.

And so, as I've waded through the post-1204 world, it is my opinion that John Vitats 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 centre of the entire region.

Vitats' realm was only a hundred and forty miles 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.

Vitats 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 successors, 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 ten be and who would be your number one?

Popsicles, sprinklers, a cool breeze.

Talk about refreshing.

You know what else is refreshing this summer?

A brand new phone with Verizon.

Yep, get a new phone on any plan with Select Phone Trade In MyPlan.

And lock down a low price for three years on any plan with MyPlan.

This is a deal for everyone, whether you're a new or existing customer.

Swing by Verizon today for our best phone deals.

Three-year price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate only.

Additional terms and conditions apply for all offers.

Hey, I'm Paige DeSorbo, and I'm always thinking about underwear.

I'm Hannah Berner, and I'm also thinking about underwear, but I prefer full coverage.

I like to call them my granny panties.

Actually, I never think about underwear.

That's the magic of Tommy John.

Same, they're so light and so comfy, and if it's not comfortable, I'm not wearing it.

And the bras, soft, supportive, and actually breathable.

Yes, Lord knows the girls need to breathe.

Also, I need my PJs to breathe and be buttery soft and stretchy enough for my dramatic tossing and turning at night.

That's why I live in my Tommy John pajamas.

Plus, they're so cute because they fit perfectly.

Put yourself on to Tommy John.

Upgrade your drawer with Tommy John.

Save 25% for a limited time at tommyjohn.com/slash comfort.

See site for details.