ITT: Byzantine Emperors

>>2973342
Justinian, maybe.

100% Justinian. Poor sod came so close to reuniting Rome.

>>2974040
>>2974071
>Memestinian

Had potential but completely fucked up the Gothic Wars, squandered the full treasury of Anastasius and Justin, overextended by trying to conquer Hispania.

>>2973342

Bullshit this isn't arguable. Basil II fucked the Byzantine empire just as much as he ever helped it.

Motherfucker set the place up to fail by purging away any other competent general during the civil uprising leaving the empire with a dearth of capability after his death military wise (and that's before we get to the obvious detraction, which is can Basil get over his crippling issues with women to take up a wife and just spawn a freaking heir already).

How else did he maintain power? By stripping away power from the magnates? Why is this always seen universally as a good move? Just because we think "hehe, stupid faggy nobles, trying to take power away from our god basileus!" This isn't a Louis the 14th style move, where he consolidated a bunch of inept rich nobles, he was taking power away from an established set of intermarried and loyal (to each other) families who had been living in eastern Anatolia for close to centuries at this point. This was bad for the empire. 1) It weakened the base of interest that anyone had in the region, leaving less people to give a shit if for some reason a hundred years later a bunch of turks decide to start moving in. and 2) the magnates, while not entirely scrupulous, were increasingly the means by which the empire/Constantinople was attached to the population base of Anatolia. Basil's reforms would eventually give the local population more independence in a sense, but also allow the base of authority to be supplanted (see post Manzikert).

Finally, and again, no one that we would ever label "the best" has the myopia entailed to just think "fuck it, the empire will be fine after I'm dead," I mean, what the fuck was he thinking? Did he not see his brother for the indecisive and timid (and male-heirless) man that he was?

Basil II killed a LOT of Bulgars, and I'm sure byzzieboos like to gank it to maps of Byzantium reaching the Danube again, but he was faaar from a great emperor

>>2974083
dude did too much too fast. honestly, if he just stopped at north africa, which was a smart move, he'd be viewed much more favorably

>>2973342

I'd say Nikephoros I. He made a glorious drinking cup. But I can't call what is black - white, and as a Bulgarian I can say Basil was pretty bad ass.

>>2974270
>Tatars worshiping Byzantines confirmed

>>2974289
Negroid I'm just fucking proud we butted head with the strongest most culturally advanced empire the world has ever seen and we still managed to retain national identity and we are still on the fucking map on the same place we were back then. So shut the fuck up, history sometimes is admitting your own defeats. Basil fucked us up, Basil made the Bulgarian Empire into the Bulgarian Theme and kudos to him for that. I see no shame in it.

>>2974289
t.T*rk

>>2974217

wtf I hate Basil II now

>>2974217
In fact after Basil II fucked up his empire he realized that if the Bulgars were to unite and rebel his ass will be handed to him, so he turned beta and went completly "Look at me I'm generous God" towards them. The theme of Bulgaria was ruled by a Bulgar stategos, the taxes and their collection didn't change, the nobility kept their positions, the Bulgar church remained autonomous, and troops protecting the theme were mainly recruited from the local population. Paradoxically those things might have been the smartest ones he ever did. As his fear was well founded, after his death the ruling of the theme was "brought up to byzantine standards" and 10 years later the rebellions started.

>>2974315
Based post right here

I'm a Turk and I've always respected Constantine Dragazes for deciding to go out with a blaze rather than pussying out and living the rest of his life as a vassal king and/or getting executed soon afterwards.

Then again, that also made him responsible for the pillage that occurred after the siege.

>>2975215
There would have been a pillage anyway, it's a thing with Turks. As mighty as their army was, they always had trouble keeping it in check after the battle. Also apart from Serbia everyone on the Balkans went out In a blaze

>>2975233
Mehmed II could have actually stopped the pillage had there been no siege - he wanted the city intact, some accounts say that he actually cried upon seeing it ransacked.

Also the pillage-rape thing comes from the 'Sword's Decree', an Ottoman-Islamic thing, the soldiers have a legal right to pillage for three days if the city goes down with a fight, even the Sultan is powerless to stop it (butting heads with your army *and* the clergy is a bad thing). If the city just bends the knee, you don't have looters in the streets, no doubt bad shit would still happen, but not to the extent that happens with the Sword's Decree.

>>2974083
Justinian would have gone down as one of the greatest rulers of all time had his empire not been struck down by the pestilence just as he was on the verge of total victory.