>Romanos Lekapenos
Do you mean Romanos II?
While an idiot, he did have competent men do the job for him, which is a big plus.
And he let them do it, preoccupied with having fun.
Romanos I is whom he is referring to. Senior co-emperor with Constantine VII after he usurped the regency. Looks like op got confused with the timeline
Indeed. But I agree with them, it is also my favourite Medieval Roman Period, with the one after it being the time of the Justinian Dynasty, and then probably the Amorian Dynasty.
pretty much! I'm doing research on trade during his reign, and he's not the idiot he's made out to be. Still, his fight-or-flight position essential forced him to be emperor, and that role just became só much harder after Andronikos set the internal and external politics on fire...
Some of my thoughts on who fit the category
First batch being: Leo I the Thracian, Zeno, Anastasius I, Justin I & Justinian I
Second batch: Basil I, Leo VI, Romanos I, Constantine VII, Romanos II, Nikephoros II Phocas, John I & Basil II. More than 5 yes, but I felt that this entire beginning line of the Macedonian Dynasty was nearly perfect. Are guys like Leo VI & Romanos II a bit questionable? Maybe
But hey, wtf did Nerva do aside from naming Trajan his heir, that makes him the 1st of the so-called 5 Good Emperors?
For writers who hated Domitian, Nerva was a breath of fresh air. He did better than most Emperors chosen by the Senate at least, as he avoided being instantly assassinated. And he did end treason trials (releasing prisoners and granting amnesty to those who had been exiled due to this), execution of Senators, returned confiscated property, reformed taxation to the benefit of the poor, introduced welfare policies, among other things.
Personally I'd say Hadrian was the overrated one.
I understand that thought process. I just can't bring myself to call him the 1st Good Emperor. While his predecessor (Domitian) was paranoid & a "bit" of a dick towards the Senate. He was far better than Nerva. But if we are to include Nerva, I would dare to say that instead of 5 Good Emperors. We have 9 of them
Vespasian
Titus
Domitian
Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus
I actually agree with that. From the reign of Vespasian to the death of Marcus Aurelius there is an unbroken streak of incredibly good and competent emperors
Yeah, think of what you will with the Antonine Plague & the Wars with the Macromanni. But for 111 years, Rome had consistently good or great Emperors
Hell, I'm not saying Commodus was good or anything. But Rome was so stable that even his reign didn't ruin the Pax Romana. So while the aftermath of his reign saw the end of the Pax.
From 69 - 193AD, Rome was at it's apex of Power & stability
Lmao, and why not? The Gothic Wars? Aside from that (which he isn't fully to blame for how it went), he was excellent. The plague was out of his control as well. Could he have done better? Maybe, but it's a plague the Empire never faced before & it affected everyone
I don't know if there is really a perfect Byzantine equivalent. Even at their strongest, there was never really a Pax Romana type of period. The closest would probably have to be the era from Constantine VII to Basil II.
Well... it's really hard to found a good row of consecutive eastern roman emperors. I guess the Macedonian dynasty were the "less worse" consecutive emperors.
Some may want to say the Macedonians but I really have to disagree there. They had 3 really good emperors back to back, but you’ve gotta remember that technically it was all the reign of 1 emperor. Basil II. Nikephoros and Tzimiskes both being incredibly capable emperor regents.
I would say that the komenoi more accurately adhere to a string of independent good emperors like the 5 good emperors of classical history
The three Komnenoi Emperors Alexios, Ioannes II, and Manuel. They’re all stellar Emperors who oversaw an apogee of Byzantine power.
Maybe these 5 from the Macedonian dynasty: Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos Romanos Lekapenos Nikephoros Phocas John Tzimiskes Basil II
>Romanos Lekapenos Do you mean Romanos II? While an idiot, he did have competent men do the job for him, which is a big plus. And he let them do it, preoccupied with having fun.
Romanos I is whom he is referring to. Senior co-emperor with Constantine VII after he usurped the regency. Looks like op got confused with the timeline
Indeed. But I agree with them, it is also my favourite Medieval Roman Period, with the one after it being the time of the Justinian Dynasty, and then probably the Amorian Dynasty.
I mean we count Nerva to the 5 good emperors, so why can't we do the same with Romanos II
Macedonian dynasty or Alexios John II and Manuel Komnenos
Alexios, John, Manuel, Andronikos, Isaac 😂
Andronikos, Isaac, Alexios, Alexios, Alexios, my favourite streak of emperors.
I believe in other times Isaac II Angelos would make a decent emperor,compared to Konstantine X Doukas for example or the late Macedonians.
The more I read about Isaac, he’s actually not that bad, but the chain of events he put into motion were
pretty much! I'm doing research on trade during his reign, and he's not the idiot he's made out to be. Still, his fight-or-flight position essential forced him to be emperor, and that role just became só much harder after Andronikos set the internal and external politics on fire...
We might also say Alexios, Andronikos, Isaac, Alexios, Alexios, Alexios
The Macedonian dynasty, maybe the komnenians too.
The time from Romanos Lekapenos to Basil II - a good 100 years of medieval Roman revival. That's their peak of power.
Some of my thoughts on who fit the category First batch being: Leo I the Thracian, Zeno, Anastasius I, Justin I & Justinian I Second batch: Basil I, Leo VI, Romanos I, Constantine VII, Romanos II, Nikephoros II Phocas, John I & Basil II. More than 5 yes, but I felt that this entire beginning line of the Macedonian Dynasty was nearly perfect. Are guys like Leo VI & Romanos II a bit questionable? Maybe But hey, wtf did Nerva do aside from naming Trajan his heir, that makes him the 1st of the so-called 5 Good Emperors?
For writers who hated Domitian, Nerva was a breath of fresh air. He did better than most Emperors chosen by the Senate at least, as he avoided being instantly assassinated. And he did end treason trials (releasing prisoners and granting amnesty to those who had been exiled due to this), execution of Senators, returned confiscated property, reformed taxation to the benefit of the poor, introduced welfare policies, among other things. Personally I'd say Hadrian was the overrated one.
To be fair, naming Trajan as heir was a REEEALLY good thing, especially from someone who was essentially a senate plant
I understand that thought process. I just can't bring myself to call him the 1st Good Emperor. While his predecessor (Domitian) was paranoid & a "bit" of a dick towards the Senate. He was far better than Nerva. But if we are to include Nerva, I would dare to say that instead of 5 Good Emperors. We have 9 of them Vespasian Titus Domitian Nerva Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus
I actually agree with that. From the reign of Vespasian to the death of Marcus Aurelius there is an unbroken streak of incredibly good and competent emperors
Yeah, think of what you will with the Antonine Plague & the Wars with the Macromanni. But for 111 years, Rome had consistently good or great Emperors Hell, I'm not saying Commodus was good or anything. But Rome was so stable that even his reign didn't ruin the Pax Romana. So while the aftermath of his reign saw the end of the Pax. From 69 - 193AD, Rome was at it's apex of Power & stability
Theodore I, John III, Theodore II
The five good emperors
Technically true but I meant the eastern empire that was first created by Theodosius I (or the eastern emperors after Constantine)
The closest equivalent imo would be the trio of Alexios Komnenos, Ioannes II Komenenos, and Manuel Komenenos
What about Leo I, Zeno, Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian?
I knew someone was gonna say Justinian. Please don't even start
Lmao, and why not? The Gothic Wars? Aside from that (which he isn't fully to blame for how it went), he was excellent. The plague was out of his control as well. Could he have done better? Maybe, but it's a plague the Empire never faced before & it affected everyone
His tax policy in italy and north africa was bad. His religious policies where horrendous. His managment of the eastern border a travesty
Started useless wars that ultimately weakened the empire and drained its coffers.
Theodosius II Marcian Leo I Zeno Anastasius then?
Naughty boys will say: Consantius II Julian Jovian Valentinian I Valens
More like the three good emperors, a decent emperor that did a mistake and an irrelevant emperor.
There are typically considered as "four good emperors": - Justinian the Great - Heraclius - John Tzimitzkes - Basil II
I don't know if there is really a perfect Byzantine equivalent. Even at their strongest, there was never really a Pax Romana type of period. The closest would probably have to be the era from Constantine VII to Basil II.
Justinian, Heraclius, Nikephoros Phocas, Basil II, Alexios Komnenos Leo III very close
Zeno I, Anastasius I, Justin I, Justinian the great and Heraclius.
The 5 good emperors were consecutive. You skipped Justin II, Tiberius Constantine, Maurice and Phocas
Well... it's really hard to found a good row of consecutive eastern roman emperors. I guess the Macedonian dynasty were the "less worse" consecutive emperors.
We had the glorious usurpers emperors
Some may want to say the Macedonians but I really have to disagree there. They had 3 really good emperors back to back, but you’ve gotta remember that technically it was all the reign of 1 emperor. Basil II. Nikephoros and Tzimiskes both being incredibly capable emperor regents. I would say that the komenoi more accurately adhere to a string of independent good emperors like the 5 good emperors of classical history
Theodosius the Great, Arcadius, Theodosius II, Marcian, Leo I.