Who is the best Byzantine Emperor and why it is Anastasius?

>>1237782
Ferdinand II of Aragon

>>1237782
I'm pretty sure you mean Roman Emperor, OP
there is no such title as "Emperor of Byzantium"

>>1237797
There is no "Emperor" either you pretentious prick. No one called himself Imperator.

I hope all Basileus's fuck you in your pretentious arrogant ass like a true greek pederast.

>>1237782
Mehmed the second

>>1237786
>>1237806
not pretenders please

>>1237801
It's not pretentious to not make arbitrary distinctions between two periods of the same civilization, friendo
Gaius Octavian and Constantine XI Paiologos held the same office

>>1237844
No they did not you faggot.
Augustus never called himself basileus-emperor etc he was Princeps

See I can play the pretentious game too.

>>1237848
He also had the title imperator
Emperor derives from imperator in English
It matters not, as all of these titles are intended to display the imperial dignity of their holders.

Augustus actually did take Imperator as a personal name. After his alliance with Antony at Brundisium, he changed his name from Gaius Julius Caesar Divi Filius to Imperator Caesar Divi Filius (after Actium, he added the Augustus). But it's definitely wrong to say that "imperator" was his title or position. For that matter, it's wrong to say that "princeps" was his position either -- that just means he was the first citizen of the state, it doesn't denote any office or really anything at all beyond "this guy is the most powerful".

Augustus' actual office, which empowered him to rule the whole empire, varied over the years and included spells as annual consul in Rome, proconsular imperium in the provinces, the authority and inviolability under the law of a plebeian tribune, and eventually unchallenged and permanent imperium within the city of Rome. His successors didn't all or even mostly bother to accrue these constitutional powers and shit became increasingly ad hoc as time went by. the office of basileus as it was employed in Byzantium had a lot more to do with the post-Diocletianic Roman dominate, where the ruler was viewed as master and the subjects as slaves, than with Augustus' collection of legal powers to enforce his will upon his fellow citizens.

>>1237892
Are you saying it is wrong to consider Gaius Octavian the first Roman Emperor?

>>1237949
I think he's saying it's wrong to think of Rome as a neat constitutional government and that it's better to think of it as one giant hodgepodge that resembles a very large gang or mafioso organization instead of, say, the governments of China, the US, the UK, Japan, etc.

>>1237842
Ferdinand wasn't a pretender
He was granted the title legitimately, by the last Byzantine emperor

>>1237801
>Noone called himself Imperator

What are you talking about? Yes they did. Latin was still the language of court and officialdom up until Heraclius in the 7th century. It was only then that imperator became baseileos.

>>1237782
>that headdress
metro bordering on homo

>>1238769
Wut lol last emperor died in Constantinople

File: edgar[1].jpg (31KB, 309x298px)

31KB, 309x298px

Think you'll find the best Basileus is Edgar the Peaceable.

Anglo-Saxons will rule now and forever

>>1239732
How does that stop him from making Ferdinand his heir?

>>1237782
Justinian

>>1237848
Name calling does not help your flimsy argument, pal

>>1237782
Basil II and it's not even close