>Constantine Palaiologos XI
a loser
mehmet II is unironically a more legitimate and impressive roman emperor
if he wasn't muslim everyone would accept him as the successor
In no particular order >Constantine V >John II >Valentinian I >Alexios I >Maurice
Hate morons who spout people like Trajan or Justinian, those guys ascended into a calm position and prepared empire
Maurice is overrated. The end of the Persian Wars was due to pure luck and the Danube campaigns were unsustainable and obviously pushed his armies to mutiny, a fact that everyone but he recognized.
Constantine V is so much underrated, he ruled the Eastern Empire at its lowest point and achieved so much. Frick christcucks for ruining his image.
>and the Danube campaigns were unsustainable and obviously pushed his armies to mutiny
They had been conducted for over 30 years by that point. It was in no way 'unsustainable'
>keeps cutting pay and eventually removes it altogether and removing long standing privileges >Forces army to camp out in hostile territory in fricking winter where many would freeze to death to save some money
Maurice was a soulless bureaucrat
1 year ago
Anonymous
>removes it altogether
Literally never happened. They were paid in kind. Which wasn't exactly not paying them, Diocletian introduced the same thing and it worked effectively for over a century.
army to camp out in hostile territory in fricking winter where many would freeze to death to save some money
You mean they had to campaign, as a standing army? This isn't an extraordinary thing, strange sure. But it has happened before. Neither would that 'save' money, winter campaigns are basically antithetical to that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Literally never happened.
Then he goes on to say it happened while still denying it. >They were paid in kind.
With a salary they were able to buy their own equipment and keep what was leftover or the equipment they actually needed. A fricking barter system is not good was only a desperate measure
>Which wasn't exactly not paying them
It amounts to the same thing. >Diocletian introduced the same thing and it worked effectively for over a century.
So? Diocletian's reforms were austere and meant to right the sinking roman state. They were as I stated desperate measures. Anathasius fixed the Roman economy and made it so that Diocletian's economic policies could finally be put to rest. The fact that Maurice started to go back them showed how terrible things became.
>You mean they had to campaign, as a standing army? This isn't an extraordinary thing, strange sure. But it has happened before. Neither would that 'save' money, winter campaigns are basically antithetical to that
No you moron. He wanted them to campaigning when they were already exhausted. This was the around the same time he cut their "wages" as well. On paper the correct decision if you're considering the campaign only. Yes it is an extraordinary thing because it was rare. As I stated before Maurice was a delusional bureaucrat who did not understand the reality on the ground. The army showed signs of rebellion multiple times before as well. He quite literally forced them to the breaking point so they decided to turn around and kill him
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A fricking barter system is not good was only a desperate measure
Still payments. >It amounts to the same thing.
No, it isn't at all. >Anathasius fixed the Roman economy and made it so that Diocletian's economic policies could finally be put to rest
Anathasius did not fundamentally change the Roman economy. He introduced coinage into the economy again because he had everything going for it, the world which fundamentally created the failing Roman economy did not change, if anything it got worse. As much Diocletian did not cause the completely obliterated economy he inherited, neither did Maurice. Maurice was not ruling with extreme wealth and few external enemies, he had far more pressing military and economic concerns which just as Diocletian did with a ruined Roman economy, did his best to cater towards that. You're basically blaming plague, climate change and the decline of urban centres all on Maurice and getting mad he had to deal with the consequences of that. >No you moron. He wanted them to campaigning when they were already exhausted.
This is not how armies work. Campaigns last years, or even into decades. They do not suddenly get 'exhausted' and neither is there any proof to say that these armies were. All we know is that they didn't want to go on campaign and they rebelled, there is no point adding details which don't exist.
>Constantine V is so much underrated, he ruled the Eastern Empire at its lowest point and achieved so much. Frick christcucks for ruining his image.
Um, sweaty, he was also a christcuck.
he was a pseudo muslim (Iconoclast). Orthodogs (Iconophiles) hate him more than they did their actual enemies
1 year ago
Anonymous
So by that logic protestants are muslims? >Orthodogs (Iconophiles)
Okay Ahmad.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>So by that logic protestants are muslims?
Yes they have been accused of this >Okay Ahmad.
Stop seething. It is well known that after secodn iconoclasm ended the iconophiles went in the complete opposite direction and made icons an integral part of orthdox practice further differentiating it from other forms of christianity
1 year ago
Anonymous
>pseudo muslim (Iconoclast)
Iconoclasm was more popular in the Early Church and Roman Church that Iconophiles. It is only later Iconophiles that created an environment where it was accepted as such, it was not controversial for him to do it.
Ataturk
Napoleon
Alexios I
Ismail I the last surviving bloodline of trebizond
Donald J. Trump
Julius Caesar
Henry of Flanders
Constantine Palaiologos XI. If his dynasty had any descendants at all Greece would have still been a monarchy today.
>Constantine Palaiologos XI
a loser
mehmet II is unironically a more legitimate and impressive roman emperor
if he wasn't muslim everyone would accept him as the successor
ottoman will never be roman bro
Pepin the manlet
In my mind, Augustus.
In my heart, Severus Alexander.
>In my heart, Severus Alexander
Lol why?
He was a great emperor who actually repared a fragile empire why wouldn't he be seen as one of the greats?
Arguably Aurelian was better.
In no particular order
>Constantine V
>John II
>Valentinian I
>Alexios I
>Maurice
Hate morons who spout people like Trajan or Justinian, those guys ascended into a calm position and prepared empire
Maurice is overrated. The end of the Persian Wars was due to pure luck and the Danube campaigns were unsustainable and obviously pushed his armies to mutiny, a fact that everyone but he recognized.
Constantine V is so much underrated, he ruled the Eastern Empire at its lowest point and achieved so much. Frick christcucks for ruining his image.
>and the Danube campaigns were unsustainable and obviously pushed his armies to mutiny
They had been conducted for over 30 years by that point. It was in no way 'unsustainable'
>keeps cutting pay and eventually removes it altogether and removing long standing privileges
>Forces army to camp out in hostile territory in fricking winter where many would freeze to death to save some money
Maurice was a soulless bureaucrat
>removes it altogether
Literally never happened. They were paid in kind. Which wasn't exactly not paying them, Diocletian introduced the same thing and it worked effectively for over a century.
army to camp out in hostile territory in fricking winter where many would freeze to death to save some money
You mean they had to campaign, as a standing army? This isn't an extraordinary thing, strange sure. But it has happened before. Neither would that 'save' money, winter campaigns are basically antithetical to that.
>Literally never happened.
Then he goes on to say it happened while still denying it.
>They were paid in kind.
With a salary they were able to buy their own equipment and keep what was leftover or the equipment they actually needed. A fricking barter system is not good was only a desperate measure
>Which wasn't exactly not paying them
It amounts to the same thing.
>Diocletian introduced the same thing and it worked effectively for over a century.
So? Diocletian's reforms were austere and meant to right the sinking roman state. They were as I stated desperate measures. Anathasius fixed the Roman economy and made it so that Diocletian's economic policies could finally be put to rest. The fact that Maurice started to go back them showed how terrible things became.
>You mean they had to campaign, as a standing army? This isn't an extraordinary thing, strange sure. But it has happened before. Neither would that 'save' money, winter campaigns are basically antithetical to that
No you moron. He wanted them to campaigning when they were already exhausted. This was the around the same time he cut their "wages" as well. On paper the correct decision if you're considering the campaign only. Yes it is an extraordinary thing because it was rare. As I stated before Maurice was a delusional bureaucrat who did not understand the reality on the ground. The army showed signs of rebellion multiple times before as well. He quite literally forced them to the breaking point so they decided to turn around and kill him
>A fricking barter system is not good was only a desperate measure
Still payments.
>It amounts to the same thing.
No, it isn't at all.
>Anathasius fixed the Roman economy and made it so that Diocletian's economic policies could finally be put to rest
Anathasius did not fundamentally change the Roman economy. He introduced coinage into the economy again because he had everything going for it, the world which fundamentally created the failing Roman economy did not change, if anything it got worse. As much Diocletian did not cause the completely obliterated economy he inherited, neither did Maurice. Maurice was not ruling with extreme wealth and few external enemies, he had far more pressing military and economic concerns which just as Diocletian did with a ruined Roman economy, did his best to cater towards that. You're basically blaming plague, climate change and the decline of urban centres all on Maurice and getting mad he had to deal with the consequences of that.
>No you moron. He wanted them to campaigning when they were already exhausted.
This is not how armies work. Campaigns last years, or even into decades. They do not suddenly get 'exhausted' and neither is there any proof to say that these armies were. All we know is that they didn't want to go on campaign and they rebelled, there is no point adding details which don't exist.
>Constantine V is so much underrated, he ruled the Eastern Empire at its lowest point and achieved so much. Frick christcucks for ruining his image.
Um, sweaty, he was also a christcuck.
he was a pseudo muslim (Iconoclast). Orthodogs (Iconophiles) hate him more than they did their actual enemies
So by that logic protestants are muslims?
>Orthodogs (Iconophiles)
Okay Ahmad.
>So by that logic protestants are muslims?
Yes they have been accused of this
>Okay Ahmad.
Stop seething. It is well known that after secodn iconoclasm ended the iconophiles went in the complete opposite direction and made icons an integral part of orthdox practice further differentiating it from other forms of christianity
>pseudo muslim (Iconoclast)
Iconoclasm was more popular in the Early Church and Roman Church that Iconophiles. It is only later Iconophiles that created an environment where it was accepted as such, it was not controversial for him to do it.
Gallienus gets no love. Poor bastard tried his hardest.
AVRELIANVS
RESTITVTOR ORBIS
Vytautas, descendant of Palemon, relative of Nero
Easy
Antonius Pius
Trajan and Marcus Aurelius
/Endthread
Zelensky
Charles
Frick Romans.
Pupienus
Henry the 8th
I love the smug butthole on the right