Top Ten Worst Byzantine Emperors

[@georgios_5342]

Bro I knew it wasn't Romanos Diogenes' fault that Anatolia was lost. He was such a good leader in battle and for the empire, such a shame that he was betrayed.

[@michaelfisher7170]

Agreed. Byzantine history thrills and interests me but...good god they did love their civil wars and backstabbing one another.

[@georgios_5342]

@@michaelfisher7170 it's not that they loved it. But as you can imagine, becoming the strongest and largest empire in the world for centuries means that there's a considerable degree of overextension. The themata became necessary to defend from external threats, until they became so strong that the emperor had to create a personal army to defend from his own thematic army

[@Hugh_Morris]

Romanos was a good emperor for the short time he reigned. Said to be a brave and just man, just surrounded by enemies. Roman history in a nutshell; their biggest downfall were fights against each other.

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

So true. Romanos IV was a lad.

[@RomanumChristum]

@@georgios_5342 The joke was that they acted like they loved it because how common it was

[@rares1966]

In regards to Maurice's obsession with wintering North of the Danube, in his writings of the Strategikon, he discusses military tactics, concerning different types of enemies. While mentioning fighting people north of the Danube, he states that attacks against them were most effective in the winter, hence Maurice's persistence. There may be merit to his tactic as Maurice was a capable military commander, however circumstances would not allow him to pursue the tactics.

[@nazeem8680]

Maurice had no military education or experience before he took the throne. he served his whole life before the purple as a civilian administrator and bureaucrat. So i would doubt there was much merit to his decision.

[@bloke7127]

There's something sad about watching Emperors so incompetent manage to destroy what was once one of the most formidable empires in History. It is incredible that the Byzantine Empire really lasted as long as it did.

[@Chadius_Thundercock]

The sad thing is that the Roman Empire for the large majority of it’s existence was ruled by incompetent rulers

[@ragael1024]

just watched the new video by Kings and Generals regarding the birth of the Ottomans. how such incompetent emperors were ever allowed to sit on the throne is beyond me. nice video. cheers

[@rohansensei5708]

Funny how Ottomans got that Roman curse afterwards

[@mabeSc]

Kings and Generals sold out as of 2024 - be careful with their content as it is neither impartial nor unbiased.

[@tomasirianni9958]

Andronikos I was cruel and sadist, thats true, but he was also an A tier administrator. His economic policies were very succesfull in helping the common peasants against the corrupt tax colectors and greedy landowners. Due to his great administration, when he was deposed, the treasury was in a much better shape than it was before his ascension.

[@tylerellis9097]

But Dwarfed by him completely and permanently destroying the legitimacy of the Emperor. And those same peasants killed him for his brutality and failure to protect them from invasion All of Isaacs problems were dumped on him by Andronikos

[@tomasirianni9958]

@@tylerellis9097 It was not the peasants, but the constantinopolitan mob led by the aristocrats that despised andronikos. Most of Isaac's problems were not caused by his predecesor but by himself.

[@tylerellis9097]

@@tomasirianni9958 No, the mob was formed because after the Norman Sack of Thessaloniki, instead of riding out to meet the Normans, Andronikos sent men to arrest all the family members of David Komnenos and any person (innocent or not) who had ties with or were former rebels like Isaac Angelos. Isaac had maintained a clean slate ever since he had been pardoned in a treaty arranged with Andronikos in 1184. When the men were sent to arrest him, he fled to a church and plead his case. The Mob was sympathetic and had enough, so they revolted, crowning Isaac due to his blood and prior history of supporting the murdered child emperor Alexios II. Then, they tore apart Andronikos after he tried to flee the city and robbed the imperial treasury of 150,000 gold pieces independent of Isaac. Andronikos's death was his own bloodthirsty and paranoid fault. To quote Treadgold from a History of the Byzantine State and Society. "Breaking with the moderation and mercy of the earlier members of his family. Andronikos had unleashed savagery and popular violence that in the end were turned against him. Essentially an opportunist, he discredited and destroyed both himself and his dynasty. Worse still, by convincing foreigners that Byzantium was both treacherous and vulnerable, he practically invited invasions like that of the Normans."

[@theeternalanglo5629]

Two things I would like to say to that. Firstly while he did indeed try and curb the powers of the nobility this was not so much an attempt to uplift the peasants as a byproduct of his paranoid sadism. Maybe if he had lived longer and replaced the systems which he had destroyed it would be different but since he died so quickly all we can really say is he destroyed the legitimacy of the old system but didn't replace it with anything else. And secondly the empire was almost perpetually broke after his death so he clearly couldn't have stashed up that much money. Sure his successors weren't exactly frugal but the whole reason they felt the need to finance so many projects was to hold onto power because Andronicus destroyed the state's legitimacy.

[@Tommykey07]

the massacre of the Latins on his watch provided some of the justification for the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204.

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

Had Andronikos III lived longer, I'd still think that the Empire could have been saved.

[@Tommykey07]

If he lived another ten years, I think there was a good chance that all of Greece could have been recovered and the empire reconstituted as a contiguous European state. John V would then be 18 and if the civil war with Kantakouzenos is avoided, the Ottomans don't get into Greece in the 1350s.

[@RomanumChristum]

Heraclius is one of my favorite emperors, he came to power in wars with the Persians, then after the devistating losses of the war had to deal with the Arabs, really wasn’t his fault he lost the entire south.

[@H_Oyo]

gracias a Focas llego al poder

[@johnconnor8206]

He lost most of the territory all he did was fixing his own mess

[@H_Oyo]

@@johnconnor8206 si pero si el no hubiese Sido un desastroso gobernante y hubiera perdido un montón de territorio Heraclio no habría llegado al poder

[@johnconnor8206]

@@H_Oyo no hablo español

[@RomanumChristum]

@@johnconnor8206 He inherited the messes and because of previous emperors had no way to fix it.

[@BoldDuck]

Fellow Andronicus II hater🤝

[@Timurenjoyer1336]

We’re all andronikos II haters

[@dillonblair6491]

Why do people hate Andronikos II? Not saying its not valid, I just don't know. I thought he was the first to take the Turkish threat seriously

[@wahresrom8477]

i hate him more than any other emperor

[@lessssssgooooo]

@@wahresrom8477 then my friend you are lost

[@wahresrom8477]

@@lessssssgooooo Ok I hate irene and the hole Angelos dynasty as well ok

[@StoicHistorian]

Would have to agree with the majority of this list, great video man

[@tripletgalaxy]

Andronikos I cant be worse than Phocas and Andronikos II. A tyrant and despot, sure, but an effective bureaucrat - doesn't make him good, but the latter two emperors have almost nothing to their name

[@tylerellis9097]

Andronikos II didn’t harm the Empire as nearly as bad as Andronikos I did. Andronikos I’s reign completely destroyed the stability of the Byzantine government, going after the people who keep the Emperor in power while simultaneously pissing off the peasantry. He also dealed with none of the foreign threats that were attacking the empire and alienated its allies with his policy of legitimizing the massacre of non Romans. The man was a Tyrant who alienated the lower and Upper class, that’s quite the feat for a Byzantine Emperor. Andronikos I was bad but at least had some success against the Kingdom of Naples, Epirus and Greek crusader states while recuperating his losses against the merchant republics later in his reign, and understood the Church Union wasn’t feasible to maintain.

[@H_Oyo]

​@@tylerellis9097 In conclusion, Phocas was better than the two Andronikos.

[@Calintares]

Andronikos shattered the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty with his conduct, throwing the doors open for an almost endless number of would-be usurpers and civil wars that drained the treasury and weakened the empire so much that it couldn't even mount the necessary defense to beat the 4th crusade, which a less troubled realm would've easily stopped.

[@debater452]

Imagine if Constantine VIII had died in place of Basil II and Basil got 3 extra years of reign.

[@angusyang5917]

Would it have made a difference if he still didn't have any kids, and succeeded by his niece Zoe?

[@debater452]

@@angusyang5917 He could have had Zoe adopt someone

[@angusyang5917]

@@debater452 I mean, he could've also just adopted somebody himself too, if he was that shy around women.

[@TrajGreekFire]

Successful campaign in Sicily I guess

[@rickyyacine4818]

Then Sicily will be back again

[@tacocruiser4238]

Other honorable mentions would include Arcadius, Justin II, Leontius, Philippicus, Michael I Rangabe, Michael II The Amorian, Michael V Kalaphates, Michael VI Bringas, and Nikephoros III Botaneiates. In fact.....I would actually put Justin II near the top of the list. His strategic decisions were catastrophic for the empire. He realized how much damage he had caused and went insane as a result.

[@HolyknightVader999]

At this point, "Constantine" is just the "Aegon" for Byzantium. So many rulers were named Constantine, with them trying to recapture the magic of the first........and failing.

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

The only good ones Constantine I (No shit lol) Constantine IV Constantine V Constantine VII Constantine XI

[@michaelfisher7170]

Interesting fact about Alexander, the Macedonian emperor...he is still depicted in a surviving portrait in Hagia Sophia. So you can be a miserable failure as a ruler and still be immortalized in one of the greatest works of architecture on earth. Weird world.

[@karimmezghiche9921]

Alexander is a victim of the propaganda of his successor Constantine VII, he really wasn't a bad Emperor he was average.

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

​@@karimmezghiche9921Propaganda? Nah, he was just shit. Tormented his nephew & almost had him castrated. He unnecessarily brought on an unwanted war with Bulgaria. He also (in the eyes of others) acted like a Pagan more than a Christian. All of these are negative. "Wasn't a bad Emperor" 😂

[@GrayStar1453]

Isaac II Angelos was certainly incompetent, but in some ways he had no choice at that point, and his brother and son were worse, so he still looks better.

[@REALsnstruthers]

hence why he isnt in the top 10 worst

[@diamondinthesky4771]

Constantine VIII was basically only there to be the one who secured succession and he couldn't even do that right smh.

[@jay2159]

Well in his defense-he can’t control that can he? Basil is also to blame for not marrying his nieces of when they were young and still in their child bearing years

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

​@@jay2159 Basil actually married Zoe to the Emperor Otto in the West but he died of malaria so no reunited empirr

[@jay2159]

@@AureliusLaurentius1099 yeah Ik just that nothing came of it and afterwards he didn’t try to marry her off

[@diamondinthesky4771]

@@jay2159 Fair point. Constantine got screwed over by bad RNG on that front, and Basil II was too busy expanding and reforming the empire to plan out what would happen after this reign (though I suspect concern that their husbands might try to seize the throne from Basil/Constantine was also thought about and perhaps part of why they waited so long to be married off)

[@ciaotiziocaius4899]

Great video! One point I think should be mentioned about Phocas is that he's the reason the Pantheon (which was an imperial property in Rome) still exists today! In fact he granted that property to the pope who turned into the church of Mary of the Martyrs, and guaranteed its preservation

[@Hannibalian]

To be fair to Constantine VIII, he suffered from severe gout during his sole reign and, was oftentimes described as highly competent whilst serving as co-emperor under his brother Basil II.

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

Basiliscus: Why do i always feel neglected?

[@jaydenburgher2651]

Well he messed up before becoming emperor, saving him from this list. Tho I'm surprised he'd show himself in public after the disaster in North Africa

[@jaydenburgher2651]

Like he reminds me of Liz Truss, still thinking they have a political career after such a failure

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

​@@jaydenburgher2651He was exiled by Emperor Leo following the disaster. But it was his wife Verina (Basiliscus' sister) who managed to calm Leo down enough to where her brother could return Leo (as I've heard) initially wanted to have Basiliscus executed for the disaster

[@angusyang5917]

If a Byzantine emperor was called Andronikos he was probably very bad.

[@karimmezghiche9921]

Andronikos III was a pretty good ruler, he tried to reverse the Empire's decline but unfortunately it was too late and he died too early.

[@adamw9021]

@@karimmezghiche9921 true, I just don't understand why great roman emperors had unfair and unpredictable deaths like Aurelian, Majorian, Nikephoros II, and etc

[@Sodom_and_Gomorrah]

​@@adamw9021because monarchy is a horribly unstable system that practically begs people to betray their leaders. Plus, it was a much more violent time, especially pre-Christianity.

[@REALsnstruthers]

@@karimmezghiche9921 andronikos iii was pretty much the only competent andronikos

[@HistoriaeGraecae]

Nice video my friend 🙂🙂

[@perest4438]

Oh boy another history channel take my sub ❤

[@DavidWillisSLS]

Justinian next to PHOCAS in the thumbnail?! HO BOY you certainly got me to click the video alright… not because I agree with that decision though, but excellent strategy to get people to click!

[@Serapeum]

;)

[@georgeiv6925]

As i know enough of byzantine economic histry the fact that the hyperpyron lost its content in gold wasnt only because the empire needed gold to pay their mercenary army administration etc but it is also a way to circulate more money in a world where commerce and medieval globalization was at its peak. More and more people participating ment more and more transactions which a big denomination coin wouldnt help your avarage joe to buy stuff or to sell stuff to pay his taxes etc. So the dollar of the Mediterranean hadn't lost its shine in the 12 century but it was a way for money transactions to penetrate more and more the economy of the byzantine empire. Off course there were really bad times that eradicated the value of the currency (especially the 2ond AD economic crisis) , but as soon as commerce was in byzantine hands economy was thriving.

[@rickyyacine4818]

Why the hell isacc komnenos use costantine the 10 as successor he should have used one of his family like brother alexios father or his oldest son manual I get he wanted a civil aristocrat ruler but still .... the disaster could have been avoided

[@rickyyacine4818]

@@user-sk1fk5jl3s true true

[@jaydenburgher2651]

Don't know how much Isaac can be blamed for creating the Komenenian aristocracy. But letting too many families taste the purple was a bad idea, basil II knew that well so he rly shoulda gave the throne to his brother, then Alexios wouldn't have had to make this aristocracy to appease the doukai and diogenes

[@REALsnstruthers]

iirc alexios was a newborn when isaac komnenos took power, so that would have been a very much ill-advised decision

[@rickyyacine4818]

@@REALsnstruthers Isaac brother was still alive at that point plus Manuel Isaac brother he was at least 15 back then in 1059 ad

[@Flammenhagel]

constantine vi wasnt that bad tbh, probably the least harmful one on the list

[@hunterterrat9105]

He waaas an iconoclast. Still not terrible though

[@julianfischer6404]

Constantine VI was only an embaressement to himself. The Empire was controlled by mostly others (similar to the situation with Justin II). I would also rank him before his mother. I am suprised that he is on the list at all as Michael Rangabe, John VI and Philipikos could have been all on the list for being worse rulers in more threatening situations.

[@karimmezghiche9921]

Yeah I don't understand why he is on this list, he didn't really do anything bad he was just a victim of his mother. Eirene on the other hand should be in the list, it was because of her after all that the Empire's legitimacy was destroyed in western Europe and the Pope crowned Charlemagne.

[@jaydenburgher2651]

​@@karimmezghiche9921I mean I don't love Irene but I don't think she coulda been expected to know that if she became sole empress the pope would be so bold as to crown a random German dude emperor

[@karimmezghiche9921]

@@jaydenburgher2651 You're right she certainly did not know, but it was still a consequence of her actions. Plus you have to be an extremely evil person to blind your own child and then leave him to die on some island just because you want to usurp his position.

[@danskrr]

10:11 During this time of supreme crisis x2

[@Serapeum]

Should be fixed soon

[@danskrr]

@@Serapeum 👍

[@causantinthescot]

I think Alexios IV was the worst. If I had included the Western and Unified Romans, I would say Petronius Maximus.

[@TheFnafHouse83]

Photos led the biggest extent but the emlire inside was a mess

[@nm7358]

To be honest the Latin crusaders were *very* patient with Alexios IV given the circumstances. They lost their patience when he was murdered, and his usurper stiffed them and decided to boot them out instead.

[@Adrian7070-h4g]

Wasn't there a guy called Michael in the early ninth century? He was pretty incompetent if I am not mistaken

[@REALsnstruthers]

yes, but he wasn't top 10 worst levels of incompetent tho

[@lessssssgooooo]

The angelos dynasty was the worst

[@weilandiv8310]

Sleep lightly if that Irene is nearby

[@MyDreamside]

Finally someone who doesnt pick Phocas as the worst , Alexios should own the 1st place. Most people dont really study Byzantine history after Basil II

[@haverofgoodopinions]

It's just all downhill from there :(

[@tylerellis9097]

After Basil II? They don’t even study past Heraclius lol. Then they come back for a minute to look at Alexios and then call it a day

[@Jg-jg6jb]

Nah most stop after 1204 unfortunately. Though, for a byzantophile it is always depressing to read about the ups and downs of the Eastern Roman Empire 😔

[@theshahunshah5408]

No Justinian II

[@rickyyacine4818]

His first reign was good actually secound was meh

[@SDArgo_FoC]

He really had potential to be great.He was really young and his campaigns were generally competent.But, he got insane

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

From 685-692 (7 out 10 years of his original reign) was actually very good. But he pushed the Empire too far. He was running the Empire as if it hadn't just survived 50 years of continuous Muslim invasions & raids Justinian did well in reconquering Armenia & Iberia (in the Caucasus). But when he tried to go for the Levant in 692 during one of the Caliphate's Civil War's. He pushed his luck too far Last 3 years of his reign were nothing His second reign He showed signs of maturity But he was too angry & vengeful against his enemies for the humiliation of losing his nose that he allowed his hatred to cloud his judgment

[@DIXIE-DEAN]

This better not contain my 🐐🐐 Phocas 👀👀

[@H_Oyo]

The best emperor was undoubtedly Phocas

[@JonathanBresnihan77]

How is Phocas not the WORST?!?

[@mountainman679]

Top ten best Byzantine emperors?

[@mabeSc]

do a top 10 best

[@Serapeum]

I have

[@mabeSc]

@@Serapeum my bad, I will finish watching the rest of your videos later today

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

I don’t know much about ER history, this is fascinating! but ngl Michael VII’s reign is just the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen, what a mess of a ruler 💀💀💀

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

How about Nikephorians?

[@wankawanka3053]

Nikephorus phocas was the goat

[@mism847]

@@wankawanka3053 Meeeehh

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

Nikephoros I - Decent Nikephoros II - Good Nikephoros III - Very bad

[@GoogleUserOne]

Not fair to compare const8 to baz2

[@Giooseb]

A bit surprised that later Justinians aren't here

[@tylerellis9097]

There was only 1 Justinian after Justinian I but ngl Justinian II should be 10 imo.

[@HolyknightVader999]

The biggest problem with Byzantium is that damn near anyone with enough influence can become Emperor. Which led to plots, coups, and political bullshit that other medieval states managed to avoid. Electoral monarchies kept Venice, the Papacy, and the Holy Roman Empire stable, for the most part, while dynastic monarchy kept England and France stable. Meanwhile, Byzantium's constant civil wars and coups weakened the Empire at a time when real strength was needed to rebuild it.

[@theeternalanglo5629]

You have a point but remember many of the best emperor's rose to power through usurpations.

[@HolyknightVader999]

@@theeternalanglo5629 Some of the best emperors also died from usurpations.

[@theeternalanglo5629]

@@HolyknightVader999 Yeah I don't disagree with that. All systems come with positives and negatives. Remember though the Roman political system lasted far longer than all the others you mentioned (except the papacy) so to say the other ones were better at providing stability is questionable.

[@HolyknightVader999]

@@theeternalanglo5629 The Papal system was adapted by most European states, which became electoral monarchies until the dawn of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Not to mention that medieval states were not as volatile as Byzantium.

[@poukaa7047]

All Doukas Emperor

[@adamw9021]

Isaac I giving the title to Constantine X: "Make me proud my brother, do whatever it takes to keep the empire alive" Doukid dynasty's disastrous events: Battle of Manzikert Constant Roman usurpers rising up Corruption Roman war of succession 1071-72 Persecution of the Armenian church Loss territories to the Normans, Turks and the Hungarians Disband the great Native Roman Army and increase the number of useless mercenaries that provides no benefit Support Alexios Komnenos against Nikephoros III

[@averytameburrito3101]

When in rome do as the romans do.... *stabs brother in back

[@EnclaveEmily]

"the eastern roman empire lasted twice as long as the west" bro what

[@Serapeum]

1,058 (395 AD - 1453 AD)/422 (27 BC - 395 AD) = 2.51

[@EnclaveEmily]

@@Serapeum oh right, i was counting the republic in my mind for some reason. mb!

[@Serapeum]

lol, np

[@funfff]

I cannot believe Justinian II is not on this list. He could easily beat No 1. He was bad and failed in every sector plus he was mean and evil.

[@justinianthegreat1444]

You could just say ten worst Roman Emperors

[@suzythecreator]

VERY surprised that Phocas and Alexios IV were not in the top 3 tbh.

[@H_Oyo]

hail Phocas

[@julianfischer6404]

I kinda agree with Phocas placement on the list. While he is with no doubt one of the worst 10 Emperors, much of his perception is also caused by the propaganda of Heraclius. But I wouldn't put him at the worst position. He caused a mess, was callous and cruel but Maurice, despite being a good emperor, messed up in the end of his reign with some of his choices. Phocas had many issues. But Heraclius wasn't the cleanest. Khosrow II and him could have ended their useless war years earlier. But still he was one of the reasons this war was started. I would give him 50 percent of the fault and Heraclius and Maurice 25 percent each from Byzantine side.

[@stepanpytlik4021]

I disagree with a lot, but it's a good video anyways.

[@m.streicher8286]

"Died from exhaustion after playing polo" yeah totally, not suspicious at all.

[@Sodom_and_Gomorrah]

True, but it was probably just a medieval way of saying a heart attack.

[@leomartinez603]

10. Justinian ii 9. Micheal viii 8. Constantine vi 7. John V 6. Micheal vii 5. Andronikos I 4. Alexios iv 3. Photos 2. Andronikos ii 1. Alexios " I'm a power hungry bitch with no governing skills" I

[@mr99official28]

Andronikos I was based aa hell... change my mind.

[@jaydenburgher2651]

If Andronicus was successful with all his reforms and wiping out the Komenenian aristocracy maybe, but he was not. All he did was destroy imperial legitimacy and relations with the west, and damned Thessaloniki for good measure

[@suzythecreator]

I do wonder if this list was extended to a Top 20, if Arcadius, Basiliscus, Irene of Athens, Alexios V, and Isaac II Angelos would be on the list because those 5 could easily be in the Top 20 worst Byzantine Emperors.

[@julianfischer6404]

Also would add Michael Rangabe, John VI and Philipikos on that list. They all were foolish emperors that got or ursurped the throne in the wrong time and left the empire in worse situations when they left the throne. People like Staurakios and Artabasdos could never show how they would end up as a Byzantine Ruler in a longer or meaningful term.

[@romanempire4495]

@@julianfischer6404 Philippikos wasn’t bad enough to make it to a top 20 worst emperors list. Philippikos just didn’t do poorly enough to justify his placement over Irene, Alexios V, Andronikos IV, John IV, Isaac II, etc.

[@julianfischer6404]

@@romanempire4495 I would rank him still in the top 20. Not in the first positions as these are for the afformentioned ones. But I would still rank him between 18-20 position. Not as bad as Michael I and John VI but still bad enough to because many of the "I did some bad stuff but also some good" (Justinian II, Anastasius II and Leo V) and the "Nearly no feasible reign" (Constantine III, Herakleon and Staurakios) would make it on such a list.

[@user-jv9qz2bu1r]

Joe Biden

[@TomSeliman99]

They were Romans

[@giehlemanns]

worst one: basil II - too long, got boring after a while 2/10

[@aball9899]

Frrrr

[@sneedsfeedandseed5295]

disappointed that Justinian wasn't on this list.