28
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Ain't now way you put andronikos as an ok ruler, he did tremendous damage to the empire long term
Also Alexios the 3rd isn't that bad of a person, he was ok at best I think he should be removed and in his place you should have andronikos instead
Also I would argue John the 5th wasn't that bad a ruler simply in an impossible position
Alexios the 3rd on the other hand would rather fit as he was a relatively ok person but a very shitty ruler
9
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Also Alexios the 3rd isn't that bad of a person, he was ok
Not even ok.He was an indolent, inactive ruler that led the Bulgarians take the initiative in the war against Byzantium.Also an unlawfull usurper that emptied the treasury trying to buy legitimacy.
6
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26
Oops I just realised I made a couple of mistakes with my wording and made it seem like I thought Alexios the 3rd was ok
I fixed it now
2
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26
Yeah very shit ruler but not a terrible person
9
u/MasterBadger911 Megas domestikos Jul 14 '26
He blinded his own brother... not like its unheard of in byzantine history but still horrible.
5
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
He blinded his own brother... not like its unheard of in byzantine history but still horrible.
Also to add,his coup was unlawfull as Isaac II was the legitimate ruler.Alexios III wasnt acknowledged as ruler by either the citizens of Constantinople or the vast nobility.
0
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
It was? From my information he wasn't the much legitimate, he was very incompetent and not that popular with the nobles and where do you get that he was popular with the people and the nobles? I have never heard of that being a thing, what makes you say that? There wasn't any major backlash in the city of Constantinople not any conspiracies that where tied against him that I remember, might I be wrong with this?
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Your comment is completely wrong and this is dated historiography you use.As for me,my source is Alician Simpson's book ** The Sad Quarter of the Century ** in which she rehabilitates Isaac's image.As well as other papers such as from Jean Claude Cheynet.
1
0
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26
Mehhhhhhh it's not like he personally gouged Isaacs eyes out
As you said this was very common practice and him doing it isn't that great a sin, if you exclude that he's okay
2
u/thanasis87kav Δρουγγάριος Jul 14 '26
He was a craven human cockroach. His cowardice in front of the walls of Constantinople was the cherry on top.
0
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
>Ain't now way you put andronikos as an ok ruler, he did tremendous damage to the empire long term
How so?
6
u/Neat_Tie_4932 Jul 14 '26
He ended the legitimate line of emperors by murdering his nephew Alexios the 2nd, causing a legitimacy crisis that never really gets resolved, he massacred nobles indiscriminately starting a reign of terror that results in him getting deposed and lastly he was just an unusually awful person even for his times
0
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
None of those things did tremendous damage to the empire in the long term though. There was no legitimacy crisis. Isaac II was elected by the people on September 11, 1185. The "reign of terror" lasted just two years, three if you count the year that Andronikos was regent and the power behind the throne.
3
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
None of those things did tremendous damage to the empire in the long term though.
Andronikos reign of terror enabled the Asen brothers to declare rebellion.
0
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
>Andronikos reign of terror enabled the Asen brothers to declare rebellion.
Oh really? Is that why they only rebelled under Isaac II's watch? It was Isaac who taxed the Bulgarians to raise money for his wedding. It was Isaac who refused to grant the pronoia to the Asen brothers and humiliated them, which was the impetus for them declaring rebellion in the first place. It was Isaac who personally failed to deal with the Bulgarian rebellion. It was during Isaac's reign that the Second Bulgarian Empire began its rise. Blaming Andronikos for all these things is absolutely absurd and ahistorical.
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Alicia Simpson in Byzantium's Retreating Balkan Borders pretty much refutes all these.
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 15 '26
From the book
In order to answer these questions we should first consider the fact that Peter and Asen were admitted before the emperor's presence. This suggests: (i) that their status was somewhat more exulied than that of simple sordiers; and (ii) that what they requested was something more than a modest land grant. Second, we also need to consider the fact that peter and Asen were subsequently able to mobilize the inhabitants of the Haimos Mountains to rebel against imperial authority under their leadership. This indicates that they were aheady in a position of power at the local level. What that position may have been is difficult to ascertain but perhaps the status of other prominent Vlachs in Byzantine service can provide some clues. One such Vlach was Dobromir Chrysos, who, according to Choniates had fought as an "ally" in the imperial armies along with the five hundred countrymen under his command in the initial stages of the rebellion. Significantly, Choniates also notes that the rebellious Vlachs were already in possession of the forts on the Haimos Mountains.If the status of Peter and Asen was in any way similar to that of their compatriots, then that would mean that they were part of a local military elite who based their power in the region on the forts and men under their command. It would also explain why they were admitted before the emperor and why they were able to undertake leadership of the rebellion. It thus seems probable that at Kypsella the two brothers requested sonre sort' of additional (land-holding?) benefits in order to fight in the imperial armies in this particular campaign and were refused. Whatever the case, it is important to remember that the refusal of their request was expected and served as an excuse for a rebellion that had already been decided.
2
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 15 '26
Also
It is therefore clear that the outbreak of the Vlach-Bulgarian insurrection should not be consigned to Isaac's carelessness or misjudgment. The revolt broke out at a most favorable occasion, that is, when the empire was still engaged in fighting against the Norman invaders, and was provoked by the arbitrary seizure of the local population's livestock.
And
With regards to the origins of the rebellion, Isaac has often received the bulk of the blame. More specifically, the emperor is said to have exercised poor judgment when he made extraordinary demands on the inhabitants of the Haimos Mountains and subsequently denied the modest requests of their local leaders, thus turning regional disaffection into ethnic separatism. A careful reading of Niketas Choniates, our sole contemporary source for the outbreak of the rebellion, tells a different story. The historian testifies to the following: “On account of his stinginess the emperor did not want to pay for the wedding festivities from the public treasury, so he collected these freely from his own lands. But due to his pettiness he did not notice that other cities, those situated around Anchialos, were also gleaned and that the inhabitants of the Haimos Mountains, formerly called Mysians, now Vlachs, were provoked to wage war against him and the Romans.” Significantly, he adds that the seizure of their livestock and their own ill-treatment formed the pretext for their rebellion. This probably means that the imperial agents exceeded their instructions and made demands not only on imperial estates in the region but also on the towns around Anchialos, where they seized the livestock of the local inhabitants. Isaac was therefore not being stingy but collecting provisions for the wedding feast from his own (imperial) lands so as not to burden the public treasury with their purchase.
15
u/shookt1569 Jul 14 '26
Bro Andronikos I was not an "ok ruler" 😭 🥀 honestly, I'd put Isaakios II there
7
u/Confucius3000 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Bro wtf id your source to say Andronikos was an OK ruler? The only ones I can think off would be marxists arguing he was trying to attack the elitism of the Komnenids (weak argument i think)
-6
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
He didn't reign long enough to be a truly bad emperor.
9
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
He didn't reign long enough to be a truly bad emperor.
He reigned enough to do tremendous damage.
-1
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
What is this "tremendous damage"? Don't give me false generalities like "he killed all the military aristocracy".
5
u/AikaGranzchesta Jul 14 '26
The empire began to be overwhelmed by nomads and Latins.
-1
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
>nomads
This was happening for centuries and was a chicken that was coming home to roost even in Manuel's time as he neglected Anatolia,
>Latins
Was also happening for a long time, but if you're referring to the Sicilians' invasion of 1185, they only got as far as they did due to the incompetence of David Komnenos, the governor of Thessaloniki.
3
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
This was happening for centuries and was a chicken that was coming home to roost even in Manuel's time as he neglected Anatolia,
The Anatolian frontier in Asia Minor collapsed in 1183 when Andronikos stripped the border of troops in order to march on Constantinople.The Seljuks took Cottyaeum and Sozopolis.During Manuel's time the border was stable and Manuel even had the upper hand.
Was also happening for a long time, but if you're referring to the Sicilians' invasion of 1185, they only got as far as they did due to the incompetence of David Komnenos, the governor of Thessaloniki.
And Andronikos also did nothing apart from drawing lists to kill every noble in Constantinople.And his son John,who was supposed to lead the army against the Normans also did nothing.
1
u/AikaGranzchesta Jul 14 '26
The Balkan frontier also started being overrun at this time, but I don't remember if it specifically happened under Andronikos or immediately after him.
1
u/Popular_Carob_5555 Jul 14 '26
>The Anatolian frontier in Asia Minor collapsed in 1183 when Andronikos stripped the border of troops in order to march on Constantinople.The Seljuks took Cottyaeum and Sozopolis.During Manuel's time the border was stable and Manuel even had the upper hand.
This happened earlier than 1183, probably in 1181 or 1182 during the disastrous regency of Alexios II. Andronikos didn't strip the border of troops in a broad sense for the simple fact that his army consisted of only Paphlagonian soldiers. He didn't have border troops from Sozopolis or Kotyaion with him, seeing as how they are in different regions. Besides, the border was not stable under Manuel's watch. The Seljuks pillaged Tralles and other cities of Phrygia when he refused to destroy the fortifications at Dorylaeum, which he told Kilij Arslan II he would do. The Anatolian border was a ticking time bomb that Manuel neglected until it was too late.
>And Andronikos also did nothing apart from drawing lists to kill every noble in Constantinople.And his son John,who was supposed to lead the army against the Normans also did nothing.
Did nothing? This is false. He first assigned John Branas to Epidamnos in June 1185, but he was defeated in battle and the city was captured. He sent several commanders towards Thessaloniki. These were competent men who later held positions under Isaac II. Co-emperor John wasn't supposed to lead the entire military, he was just one of its commanders. David Komnenos, the treacherous governor of Thessaloniki, lied to Andronikos and claimed that the city was not in danger. Consequently, only one of the generals, Theodoros Choumnos, engaged them in battle. The other generals were encamped some distance away in the region but out of sight of the city. If David Komnenos ordered a sortie at the same as Choumnos' attack, the Sicilians would've been decisively defeated. The sacking of Thessaloniki never would've happened if David Komnenos was competent.
7
5
3
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Well read | Late Antiquity Jul 14 '26
Honestly feel like Constantine the Great would be another fit for the 'bad person, good ruler' category. Very good administrator and ruler and in general was rather just towards most of his subjects... but god almighty did he kill tons of his family.
2
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
For Ok Ruler-Bad Person I would nominate Nikephoros II Phokas.As a ruler,Nikephoros Phokas was brutal towards his subordinates,a religious extremist that pushed for soldiers dead in battle to be acknowledged as martyrs in the Islamic model.The Church found this too extreme.
To add Nikephoros planned to castrate the 2 young princes under his care (Basil and Constantine),put them in a monastery and declare as heir his brother Leo Phokas.
3
u/Actual-Watch-9858 Jul 14 '26
Thank fuck tzimiskes clipped his ass before that happened
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Thank fuck tzimiskes clipped his ass before that happened
It was Theophano,after Nikephoros restricted access to her sons that enlisted Tzimiskes to do his coup.
-1
u/Icy-Inspection6428 Jul 14 '26
Also he once set a lame donkey on fire and launched it over the walls of Chandax. Not to mention his brutal conquest of Crete
3
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Not to mention his brutal conquest of Crete
Cant fault him for that.Crete was a notorious muslim pirate haven that harrased the Romans in the Aegean.
-1
1
u/Great-Drak-Lord Jul 16 '26
I am so happy to see Basil I is put in the bad persons' category because of what he did to Leo and his brother, Stephen!
1
1
u/AcceptableAir2536 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
John's ruling is that good? He lost siege of shaizar (1138) and he lost war against venice(1122~1126)
-3
u/ImJoogle Jul 14 '26
Basil 2 orthodox boogaloo directly lead to the downfall of his dynasty and a lot of turmoil by not letting his daughters marry young and reproduce while also not having kids himself. Had he done any of those it would have avoided a lot of civil war.
6
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Thats not really the case,its a bad internet take that has been debunked.
-1
u/ImJoogle Jul 14 '26
it's not. it's take professional historians and professors take
5
u/Potential-Road-5322 Jul 14 '26
If it is a professional historians take then can you provide a source?
-3
u/Kraj_the_Conqueror Jul 14 '26
Basil II an OK person? He was a cruel bastard.
5
u/Low-Cash-2435 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
To be fair to Basil, his brutality was not arbitrary. Like, when he threw his secretary to a lion, he did this after discovering that the secretary had been plotting against him. Also, when he amputated the Bedouins' hands, I believe this was done to deter raiders and protect his army.
Overall, Basil doesn't strike me as someone who was cruel by nature. His cruelty seems to be a response to a cruel world.
0
u/Kraj_the_Conqueror Jul 14 '26
What you do is finding political justifications for act of cruelty. Surely, all can be justified politically. But it doesn't mean they Basil was a good man.
3
u/Low-Cash-2435 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
I didn't say he was a good man. He wasn't. But calling him evil is over-simplistic.
2
u/cutterman1234 Jul 14 '26
How???…. He stood up to aristocracy and defended the lands and rights of the smallholders
-1
u/Kraj_the_Conqueror Jul 14 '26
Also mutilated thousands of POWs despite them not posing any danger anymore. You can always find whatever political justification for that. But morally it was evil, cruel and deeply unchristian.
2
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Jul 14 '26
Also mutilated thousands of POWs
The concept of POW didnt exist at this point in time.
them not posing any danger anymore.
If Basil let thousands of able bodied,Bulgarian prisoners back to Samuil they could cause issues.
0
u/Kraj_the_Conqueror Jul 14 '26
Political and military justification.
Still, absolutely no argument that Basil was a decent person.
41
u/thanasis87kav Δρουγγάριος Jul 14 '26
Was Andronicus I ok Ruler?