So we all understand that Justianian with his attempts of reunification

File: Basil_II.jpg (82KB, 572x694px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 572x694px

Basil II, the 'Bulgar-Slayer'
John II 'the Beautiful' Komnenos

And by the way, Justinian was a pretty shit-tier Emperor:
>wastes time in a pipe dream instead of consolidating the territory he already had, ensuring the Muslims absolutely destroy the Empire in 50 years
>spreads the Empire's armies way too thinly, which contributes to the Empire's losses against the Muslims some decades later
>incurs massive amounts of debt
>wastes tons of money building shitty churches

And all of his conquests were the work of Belisarius and Narses, not Justinian. Worst Emperor ever.

The Byzantines had plenty of Emperors after Justinian that were arguably better because they didn't sink the empires finances, but if I had to choose I would pick Basil II.

> Expanded the empires territory into Syria

> kicked the crap out of the bulgars

> Massive budget surplus at the end of his reign

> Excellent General in his own right.

>>1825231

John II was a honest to god miracle worker, did so much to bring back the emperor and shows that the empire had plenty of fight left after the civil wars and resulting Turkish migration.

His successors proceeded to destroy all the gains he had managed to make during his reign.

>>1825231
>>1825236
Don't forget the concessions he gave the Bulgarians.
>kick the shit out of their armies
>conquer them totally
>immediately give their subjects concessions so they'll remain loyal citizens and stop trying to sack Greece
It worked all the way up until later emperors undid them and started putting the squeeze on them again.

>>1825204
The problem with these so-called based emperors was that they were flash in the pan leaders who, while overseeing all the things that makes Byzaboos cream their pants, just end up setting up the empire for a major setback that ultimately harmed the state more than their rule benefited it. The best ones therefore are the emperors who didn't attempt massive reconquests or unstable reforms, but who kept their noses in their books to keep things running quietly and efficiently.

Alexios I Komnenos and John II Komnenos did rather well too, and Michael VIII Palaiologos rebuilt a lot after the catastrophe of the 4th crusade.

Justinians reign was more dramatic and his accomplishments would be gigantic - if they could have been kept at the level of maybe 10 years before his death.

>>1825266
There were uprisings from 1040 up to the end of the 12th century. The success of the Peter and Asen uprising was, I believe, mainly due to crisis the empire was having. And was it really worth it?

File: these eyes have never seen another one like youuu.jpg (45KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x450px

>>1825231
Fucking manlet, took him 40 years of wars to conquer Bulgaria.

File: cannot unsee.jpg (137KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x500px

>>1825381