Alexios III should have been thrown over the Tiber for his crimes against the state. Since Rome is not within the empire they should have thrown him into the sea and issued a damnatio memoriae like the how the Romans of old did it.
@leomartinez603
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for putting Alexios iii as the worst. I understand that figures like Phokas and Basiliscus are unpopular but that guy is far worst
@Apxov
5 жыл бұрын
I consider Phocas as one of the worst things that happened to the ERE Empire. After his tyranny the state lost its vigour, and was in constant defensive position until the Macedonian Dynasty. But from the other side I'm trying to understand his motivations - army of the late VI / VII centuries was in tragic condition, emperors often cut their paid, morale was really low. Anyway it still doesn't excuse his actions. Thanks for this channel Daniel, I really enjoy it.
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
I appreciate it Yuri. I agree. Phokas mucked things up just as they were starting to calm down following the death of Justinian the Great. He also killed Maurice who is one of my favourite emperors.
@user-so8kx7uj2x
4 жыл бұрын
@@EasternRomanHistory Indeed! Maurice was a great emperor, but for anyone who wanted to be the emperor these days would be a nightmare. The situation was terrible.
@EndietheEnderman
3 жыл бұрын
At least Phocas resulted in Heraclius, one of the best emperors. But it's not like Maurice was a bad emperor himself.
@SarudeDanstorm
2 жыл бұрын
@@EasternRomanHistory I would love to explore an alternate timeline where Maurice's sons inherited the exarchates of the Empire and he formed a lasting alliance with the Persians from Khosrow II.
@gm2407
2 жыл бұрын
Phocas was an opportunistic tub thumper who would rather be ruler of the ruins than servant in a thriving state. He took advantage of dissatisfaction of an army wintering accross the boarders to mutiny against Maurice. Since history does not care about the Roman dictators or Emperors who got there from mutiny if they were effective (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Vespasian, Aurellian (took part in mutiny that saw Claudius 2 Gothicus rise to power), Constantine I, Basil I, John I, Michael Paelologus) it is be considered that he is reviled as he did nothing to preserve or improve the state which coupled with his self serving rapacious greed makea him so reviled. The same can be said about the number 1 spot who also had the same problems.
@antiochusiiithegreat7721
5 жыл бұрын
Sweet a Byzantine channel. I have been looking for this.
@SkunkyBrew
5 жыл бұрын
Really enjoyed this series, great job! Something occurred to me as you were listing all the bad things these Emperors did to earn a spot on your list; even the "good" Emperors were just as guilty, if not worse, of some pretty nefarious things themselves! And yet, they are considered "good" or "effectual".
@sockshistorychanel7715
3 жыл бұрын
11:39 Alexios III takes the cake, the baccon and the cerry on top for the most vile, all in one mouthful. and he did not even usa a spoon
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
He make alexios 1 name bad 😢😢😡😡😠😠😠😠 alexios 3 is trash
@julianfischer6404
Жыл бұрын
So here would be my list of the worst Eastern Roman Emperors. Unhonorable Mentions: Michael Rangabe, Basiliskus, Philipikos, Constantine VI and Eirene of Athens. For me all 5 of them would be defenitely in a Top 20 worst Emperor list. But we only have a Top 10 and so choices had to be made. And unlike others most of them didn't have a very long reign to cause much more damages. But they were all a huge net negative for the empire. 10: Alexander: Angered the then powerful Bulgarians which threatened nearly the entire European Region of the ERE, schemed against his nephew, was debaucherous and a drunkard, nearly destroyed the legacy of Basil I and Leo VI and the Makedonian dynasty. Similar to the unhonorable mentions. If he ruled for longer he would be even more catastrophic and rank much higher in this list, but a game of Polo ended the Black Sheep of the Makedons. 09: Arcadius: Of the early rulers of the ERE he was one of the worst ones. The only things that were positives is that he didn't last as long as his brother Honorius and afterwards there were some pretty competent rulers and officials that salvaged a lot out of a bad situation. Also the overall stability of the East compared to the west helped a bit saving his problems. 08: Constantine X Doukas: If the Angelos are the worst Dynasty, the Doukas follow them in a close distance. Destroyed the standing military and invested in ineffectual mercenaries, insulted the outer themes, persecuted the Armenians and their Faith, while the Empire was tackled by all sides. He and his son were the starting point of a lot of issues that the later ERE had to deal with. 07: Phocas: While he defenitely deserves a placement in the Top 10, he wasn't one of the Worst 3. While he was a horrible, sadistic and paranoid ruler, he still held the Realm somewhat together. Maurice made many missteps in the end of his reign (while still being a rather good emperor overall) that alienated the military and the senate. Also while he lost some territories in the East he still were able to hold the Balkans (the loss of those where Heraclius fault with his hyperfocus on the Persians). But him and the military around him were still a major player in the problems that would occur in the 7th century AD (but also Heraclius and Khorsow II had some faults with it. Both had options to end the war earlier and they didn't do it) and so the ERE was weakend when the Rise of Islam came around. Half of his bad reputation was the Character Assassination of him but yeah, through his other actions he deserves to be in the Top 10. 06: Andronikos II + Michael IX: As they ruled together for a long time they deserve to be together on the same spot. Andronikos took the theats that came serious, but he still was incompetent and often took the wrong decisions and should have cared more about the military than other issues. The 40 years he reigned could have been used for better. As for Michael IX. He lead the most important battles against the enemies and didn't win a single important battle. Wasted 40 years where better rulers could have changed the fate of the empire or prolonged the existence of it for at least a few decades. 05: Andronikos I: I still put him before Isaac II. He was a cruel and vicious man that, while a great steward, shouldn't have reigned the empire. In this short amount that he reigned he caused a lot of the issues that would lead to a even bigger schism with the west (that even John VIII couldn't fix), was even more debaucherous and was a Tyrant through and through. While I said before that a bad long-term ruler is worse than horrible short-term ruler his actions overshadowed the ERE for a long time and he still deserved this spot through his actions. 04: Michael VII: Oh god, while many point to Romanos IV for the blunder at the Battle of Manzikert, he caused the main problems with tearing a rather favourable peace treaty apart and losing most of the territory in Anatolia. Also he barely ruled at all, broke the currency and caused civil unrest in most of the realm. He caused a lot of damage to the ERE that would never be recovered. 03: Alexios IV: While it was typical for a ruler to search for aide in the West he made to many promises and caused the Latins to invade Constantinople with the 4th crusade. Yeah, he overpromised a lot and didn't realize that the coffers were already empty because of the Andronikos I, Isaac II and Alexios III. His actions caused the ERE and everything around it to go from a bad situation to a worse one. The main reason he deserves to be in the Top 10 is the 4th Crusade. 02: John VI: For me he was the final nail in the coffin for the ERE. While the ERE could have still be saved before him, he really wanted the throne and took it. With the help of the Ottomans and a Civil War he rose to power and that was the final draw. He weakened an already damaged empire and sold christian greeks and others to the Ottomans and even gave them a chance to their first foothold in Europe. Every other Emperor had an uphill battle afterwards. Only the Hill would have been a Skyscraper. 01: Alexios III: Emptied the treasuries, Ursurped his yet still horrible relative and made the situation worse and was an extremely horrible and awful ruler. Corruption ran rampant, the Empire was threatened at all sides by Bulgarians, Seljuks and Hungarians and even some regions became independent. But even after the loss of his throne he was a horrible man. He blinded Alexios V who was trying to rally against the Latins, then tried to scheme and overthrow Theodore I Laskaris of the Nicean Empire because he wasn't handing the power over with the Seljuks. After that he was finally put in a monestary and died. He really deserves the Number 1 spot. No not Phocas, John VI, Alexios IV or Michael VII can top that.
@ioshffikry3461
5 жыл бұрын
I am really enjoying your content and your narration
@MoveInSilence23
5 жыл бұрын
Worst ERE Emperors 10. Basiliscus 9. Constantine VI 8. Justinian II 7. Andronicus 6. Arcadius 5. Theodosius II 4. Isaac III Angelos 3. Irene of Athens 2. John Palaigoueus (sp) 1. Phokas
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
Interesting list. I agree with Basiliscus, crap emperor. Same for Constantine VI. Justinian II did have lots of failures but his first 7 years as emperor were fairly successful. Which Andronikos? Arcadius definately, I am interested to hear why you put Theodosius II on here. Alexios III? Irene of Athens I can understand but also she did have a number of successes especially as regent for Constantine VI which though she was not emperor she was responsible for and her reign was okay. John V I presume. Phokas, yeh no explaination needed.
@sanaddaoud6541
3 жыл бұрын
Andronikos I ruled from 1183-1185, not 1083-1085
@EasternRomanHistory
3 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately a slip during recording that wasn't noticed until after publication.
@tacocruiser4238
2 жыл бұрын
A few more honorable mentions: Justin II, Philippicus, Michael I Rangabe, and Alexander (easily the worst emperor of the Macedonian Dynasty).
@v4facade
10 ай бұрын
7:01 "Phocas' focus was thus focused...."
@EasternRomanHistory
10 ай бұрын
Joke nicely spotted.
@AdSd100
5 жыл бұрын
@ 0:40 " ruling from 1083 to... " You you made similar mistakes in both videos a number of times.
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
Thank you for pointing this out. Unfortunately, I believe for that one I wrote it down as 1083-1085 rather than 1185 and so thats what I recorded it as. Fortunately something like that is very easily rectified.
@grandmastercrusader8724
5 жыл бұрын
Issac II Angelos and Phokas are the worst Byzantine emperors.
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
Can't argue with that.
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
@@EasternRomanHistory Isaac the 2nd is like sultan byzid the 2nd but worst
@ioshffikry3461
5 жыл бұрын
Will you make a video on the legal system in the eastern roman empire,i am especially interested in the farmer's law
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
Its funny that you mention the farmer's law, here is my video on it.kzitem.info/news/bejne/pGqLtaNqhJ-Lg4o
@benjaminmorrison6355
3 жыл бұрын
No emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos, or Phillopikos Bardanes? I'm surprised, I would have found them far worse than some here like Contantine VI and Arcadius My top ten: 10. Anastasius II 9. Phillopikos Bardanes 8. Constantine X Doukas 7. John V Palaiologos 6. Isaac II Angelos 5. Michael VII Doukas 4. Alexios IV Angelos 3. Alexios III Angelos 2. Phokas 1. Andronikos II Palaiologos
@askindo5466
2 жыл бұрын
great video i know this was made a while ago but how comes no Justinian ii and Justin ii not disagreeing with your list just curious
@EasternRomanHistory
2 жыл бұрын
No problem, because I think Justinian II was quite a good emperor and Justin II, though unsuccessful was not, for me, worse than some of the people on this list. Here is my video on Justinian II: kzitem.info/news/bejne/mIR9y62eh3ejjIY
@arte0021
Жыл бұрын
They sure liked blinding everybody
@barrymoore4470
4 ай бұрын
They felt antipathy towards capital punishment, so mutilation (usually blinding) was the next worst thing.
@iDeathMaximuMII
2 ай бұрын
I'm shocked Alexios III wasn't blinded as punishment for blinding TWO Emperor's How the hell do you marry your daughter to your successor, only to blind him immediately after? Alexios V was stupid to even accept the marriage
@John-el.
3 жыл бұрын
if you ever wonder how hell looks like ask Alexios III
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
What a trash make alexios name look bad 😡😡😡 alexios 3 th
@alexey6288
5 жыл бұрын
Did you exclude latin emperors of Constantinople from consideration, or did none of them made the worst ten?
@EasternRomanHistory
5 жыл бұрын
They were excluded because I don't consider them Byzantine Emperors.
@dobstrich
3 жыл бұрын
Sorry for commenting on a 2 year old video but the auto caption labelled porphryrogennotos as poor free janitor and I found it rather funny
@yowut8075
3 жыл бұрын
Alexios voted down already
@theoldcavalier7451
4 жыл бұрын
Iam surprised Ivstan II isn’t on here
@EasternRomanHistory
4 жыл бұрын
I don't consider Justin II to be one of the worst. He is certainly more in the middle for me.
@theoldcavalier7451
4 жыл бұрын
Maybe... But you know it’s sad when an emperor who bites people is better than the angleids
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
Phocas 😒😒😒😒😡😡😡😡or alexios 3rd 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 really hard to tell 😕
@Yrkr785
3 жыл бұрын
I think Constantine IX was the worst, he deliberately attacked Christian Armenia, lost, instead of trying to help Armenia beat the Seljuks and push them out of Anatolia and stop the migration that would lead to the end of Rome
@omaraboal-azm8705
6 ай бұрын
It's very interesting that every Alexios after Alexios I komnenos were very terrible emperors not mediocre or average they were all terrible ironic because how great was Alexios I
@hewillneverleaveme.4564
3 жыл бұрын
Alexander III should have been there also, and I think Andronikos I is the worst Byzantine emperor of all Byzantine emperors, because of his tyranny,wickedness
@EasternRomanHistory
3 жыл бұрын
I don't think Alexander quite deserves his bad name, he reigned for a year and although not the best emperor, was certainly not one of the worst.
@jh5596
3 жыл бұрын
Alexander best emperor just for dying of tiredness from *polo*
@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded
10 ай бұрын
The worst emperor by far is phokas, at least in my opinion
@nathanieljones7981
2 жыл бұрын
Hear me out...Heraclius. he had some major, major flaws that no one likes to point out, and only through shear luck on the incompetence of persians was he able to beat them back, only to lose to the Arabs, and underestimating them.
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
Actually in 637 he was old couldn't fight like he used to also his brother Theodore was cocky after 627 ad they would have won if they allied with presia and one men was big problem kaled ibn waled tbh 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😠
@nathanieljones7981
2 жыл бұрын
@@rickyyacine4818 true. But it still was shear luck, and he definitely could fight. He did fight as an old man. However he should've used someone else.
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
@@nathanieljones7981 kaled ibn waled was far more dangerous then u think his like balasirce of Byzantine empire the reason why Mohammed wanted to recruit him because he nearly killed him in battle of ohod in 622 ad before he was Muslims he doesn't engage the enemy he wait until the enemy strike I agree they should have bribe the presian to attack from the back and held from front they would have won 🤔🤔🤔 if they were defeated in 637 the arab would be just a local power in 650 they would have started arab civil war keeping the Arab in check and making sure that presia and Byzantine are in piece that would buy time for Heracles to start the strategicam in levant and armenia how ever the east province must be at high alert any retarded emperor after Heracles would be the end of Byzantine empire and presia 😐 Byzantine need at least 30 years of good piece to restore it former self also they had to build many walles in forters in the levant
@nathanieljones7981
2 жыл бұрын
@@rickyyacine4818 he wasn't that formidable. None of the Arabs were. Given a strong ERE they would've lost. May have been back and forth but they qouldve lost. Only won by the weakening of both empires
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
@@nathanieljones7981 I know that already that why kaled was dangerous the right men in wrong place can make all the deference theador was to cocky if presia and Byzantine untied before it to late they would have destroy arabs also one thing about arab they were normadic people meaning they were be dangerous if someone unti them just like the Mongols with ability to travel in the desert better then presian and roman they were dangerous before Islam they weren't united and u could easily fooled them if u bribe them and make other arab tribes attack them
@GianDaEastRoman
2 жыл бұрын
MAURICE WAS A 2ND JUSTINIAN
@GianDaEastRoman
2 жыл бұрын
Phocaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas
@bobbyokeefe4285
3 жыл бұрын
Irene,Zoe,Theodora?...what's the matter afraid to criticize wah-men,pfff.
@EasternRomanHistory
3 жыл бұрын
No, I think Irene and Theodora were competant rulers and Zoe did nothing heinous and left the business of governing to her husbands.
@bobbyokeefe4285
3 жыл бұрын
@@EasternRomanHistory Well,what Irene did to her son is pretty heinous besides John V is on the list and you admit he did nothing heinous,Zoe and Theodora almost ran the empire to the ground with their shenanigans,if that's not incompetence I don't know what is.
@rickyyacine4818
2 жыл бұрын
@@bobbyokeefe4285 Irene was bad ruler but it better then her son I still wonder if she married Charlemagne 😯😯😯😯 giga rome
@bobbyokeefe4285
2 жыл бұрын
@@rickyyacine4818 How do you know that?He barely had any time to rule.
Пікірлер: 76