Byzantine ruler, which one will you prefer?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It doesn't quite fit the historical background though. Not that it matters in the game as it is evident from having war carts before the wheel and animal husbandry :^)

It could be changed around due to the new alliance types and loyalty system, but I'm not an expert enough on the new components to think of anything in particular.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I dislike how the poll suggests Theodora was just a wife and little else. In the very least change it so it reads "Justinian's co-ruler".

I wasn't referring to her title. It is just to distinguish her from another Theodora empress, who was co-ruler with Zoe. But it can be changed if you are really troubled by it.

I dislike how the poll suggests Theodora was just a wife and little else. In the very least change it so it reads "Justinian's co-ruler".

I prefer Justinian but Basil II or Theodora would also be ok for me. Justinian was the biggest dreamer though, and his story arguably the best. His life would make an excellent historical drama series.

I do like little Justin more as well, when it comes to story telling.

 

[The Kingmaker]

If Basil the Bulgar-slayer was the leader, it'd make sense for him to have the Varangian Guard as part of his leader UA as a second UU.

In fact, I'd call either his Ability or agenda "Bulgar-slayer." Maybe the former is the ability and the latter could be Porphyrogenitos (or Born to the Purple). Or vice versa.

The main UU could then stay the Dromon.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Okay, I'm going into a tangent here, but I have to lay this down here:

Spoiler Rant :

There's a lot of buzz about Justinian being a good emperor, but he's by far the most overrated and by extension the one whose flaws are most glaring. His campaigns to restore the empire's western territories were uncalled for strategically since the empire was not in danger from the Germanic kingdoms controlling them at he time. So he wasted over 50% of the empire's treasury on funding campaigns that a) drained the empire's manpower to the point of being unsustainable for the next generations allowing Avar and Sassanian expansion and b) completely ransacked the territories he wanted to recover. Italy went from being the richest region in the world to rubble within a decade.

His response to the Nika riots was appallingly bad and only made a sensible choice with Theodora changing his mind. And when he did change his mind to stay and actually deal with the riots, his response was to slaughter thousands of his own citizens to cease hostilities. Similarly, following the Samaritan revolt, he committed an effective genocide not much different to the one the ancient Romans did at the Jews' expense.

And the most frustrating thing is that he received the empire at its absolute peak, it was the richest nation in the region by quite a margin and projected power throughout the entirety of the Mediterranean. His purely sentimental, nonsensical ambitions left the empire in a considerably worse state than the one he started with. Maximum territorial extent =/= maximum power.

/endrant

Indeed she is. No idea why though.

If you only seek for stability, Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Khan and Alexander disagree with this, considering how much they wasted their resources and how fast their empire dissolved into fractions.
But still I won't say that they are overrated.
Greatness, in most cases, only blooms for a short time. Like wild fire, it consumes a lot but it provides so much sparkles with its fleeting life.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

If you only seek for stability, Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Khan and Alexander disagree with this, considering how much they wasted their resources and how fast their empire dissolved into fractions.
But still I won't say that they are overrated.
Greatness, in most cases, only blooms for a short time. Like wild fire, it consumes a lot but it provides so much sparkles with its fleeting life.

Stability is certainly a part of it, but that's not the main quarrel with Justinian and it's definitely multifaceted (as my rant would suggest). And of course my rant was rather a summation of several key points, there are plenty of other things we could attribute to Justinian's mistakes i.e. the defeat in the Lazic war against the Sassanids.

All 3 leaders you mentioned had a different impact on the long-term future of their respective polities. Mongol khanates dominated Eurasia for the next 150-200 years (aside from China) and it created a legacy which lasted all the way through to the Timurids and subsequently the Mughals. Qin Shi Huang's imperial office was revived and continued to exist with a united concept of China for thousands of years. Alexander's diadochoi and Hellenistic states also dominated their area and had the long-lasting effect of transmitting Greek language and culture to the east. But most importantly, all 3 of them didn't waste more resources than they gained as their conquests facilitated the strengthening of their respective polities. Not to mention that Alexander and Genghis also have the "redeeming quality" of actually being adept military commanders and reformers themselves.

Justinian's conquests on the other hand had no long-lasting effect other than the damage it did to the empire itself and the areas conquered. I mean, part of the alienation of the Papacy from the rest of the Church came from the fact that while the Byzantines controlled Rome, they didn't have the manpower or resources to provide any meaningful defence against invaders which gave the Pope incentive to look elsewhere i.e. the Frankish kings. Considering the political aspect of the Great Schism, we could say that Justinian's conquest actually initiated much of the problem.

Also, I think the main gist of my argument is a bit misunderstood. I don't think Justinian is a bad emperor, there have been way worse leaders in his mould. What I'm saying is that he is at best mediocre in his administration and thus the praise he often gets (not here exclusively) is unjustified. When something's overrated, it's much easier to emphasize the negative side to illustrate this.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Stability is certainly a part of it, but that's not the main quarrel with Justinian and it's definitely multifaceted (as my rant would suggest). And of course my rant was rather a summation of several key points, there are plenty of other things we could attribute to Justinian's mistakes i.e. the defeat in the Lazic war against the Sassanids.

All 3 leaders you mentioned had a different impact on the long-term future of their respective polities. Mongol khanates dominated Eurasia for the next 150-200 years (aside from China) and it created a legacy which lasted all the way through to the Timurids and subsequently the Mughals. Qin Shi Huang's imperial office was revived and continued to exist with a united concept of China for thousands of years. Alexander's diadochoi and Hellenistic states also dominated their area and had the long-lasting effect of transmitting Greek language and culture to the east. But most importantly, all 3 of them didn't waste more resources than they gained as their conquests facilitated the strengthening of their respective polities. Not to mention that Alexander and Genghis also have the "redeeming quality" of actually being adept military commanders and reformers themselves.

Justinian's conquests on the other hand had no long-lasting effect other than the damage it did to the empire itself and the areas conquered. I mean, part of the alienation of the Papacy from the rest of the Church came from the fact that while the Byzantines controlled Rome, they didn't have the manpower or resources to provide any meaningful defence against invaders which gave the Pope incentive to look elsewhere i.e. the Frankish kings. Considering the political aspect of the Great Schism, we could say that Justinian's conquest actually initiated much of the problem.

Also, I think the main gist of my argument is a bit misunderstood. I don't think Justinian is a bad emperor, there have been way worse leaders in his mould. What I'm saying is that he is at best mediocre in his administration and thus the praise he often gets (not here exclusively) is unjustified. When something's overrated, it's much easier to emphasize the negative side to illustrate this.

I thought I caught what you tried to mean, but just to point out that Qin wasnt the first to create an unified China, nor the last to unify it. Ancient China was already in one piece a few hundred years before Qin's birth.

It will not be appropriate to say Justinian's conquest left no long lasting legacy, I must say.

I suppose, people praise him because he was the last "Roman emperor" actioned to take back Rome. That courage and strong will was fascinating, shadowing all the cost he paid.

Shall i ask, what did Gilgamesh do that gave us a legacy then lol? If you are really justifying with that standard.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

I thought I caught what you tried to mean, but just to point out that Qin wasnt the first to create an unified China, nor the last to unify it. Ancient China was already in one piece a few hundred years before Qin's birth.

The dynasty before the Qin didn't include all of what is considered core Chinese territory, mostly northern territories. Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of the state though, that's quite literally what his name means. The breaking up of China and reunification later didn't supersede the office of emperor Qin Shi Huang established, in fact the fragmentation was largely based on who is the rightful owner. The office of emperor that existed up until the 20th century was in fact the same one Qin Shi Huang established.

It will not be appropriate to say Justinian's conquest left no long lasting legacy, I must say.

Well, what were the positive long-term effects then? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm curious what you think qualifies as a positive long-term effect from Justinian's campaigns.

I suppose, people praise him because he was the last "Roman emperor" actioned to take back Rome. That courage and strong will was fascinating, shadowing all the cost he paid.

Rome stopped being an important administrative center in the western half of the empire even for around a century before its fall. The main administrative center moved first to Milan and then to Ravenna which is where Justinian's main HQ for the Italian provinces was placed. Rome was purely of symbolic/sentimental value which is why the concept of taking back Rome wasn't exactly a particularly great idea.

I'd also argue it didn't take much courage to do. As I've said, the empire at that point was not threatened by their Germanic neighbours and was by far the strongest polity in the region with unmatched resources, manpower and wealth. It's definitely daring in a multitude of ways that he attempted it, but that's not necessarily courage.He wasn't personally involved in the campaign either, so he wasn't exactly courageous in taking up the task either.

Shall i ask, what did Gilgamesh do that gave us a legacy then lol? If you are really justifying with that standard.

Gilgamesh isn't even a definite historical figure, the legacy of his which survives is purely mythical. The epic of Gilgamesh is neither an accurate depiction of who Gilgamesh might have been nor a historical account altogether. Which is also why I'm actually not thrilled having Gilgamesh in the game either since there are 100% historical Sumerian figures that would fit his place. Gilgamesh being famous is the primary reason behind his inclusion, but it's more or less the equivalent of making Achilles leader of the Greeks.

 

[halfhalfharp]

The dynasty before the Qin didn't include all of what is considered core Chinese territory, mostly northern territories. Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of the state though, that's quite literally what his name means. The breaking up of China and reunification later didn't supersede the office of emperor Qin Shi Huang established, in fact the fragmentation was largely based on who is the rightful owner. The office of emperor that existed up until the 20th century was in fact the same one Qin Shi Huang established.



Well, what were the positive long-term effects then? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm curious what you think qualifies as a positive long-term effect from Justinian's campaigns.



Rome stopped being an important administrative center in the western half of the empire even for around a century before its fall. The main administrative center moved first to Milan and then to Ravenna which is where Justinian's main HQ for the Italian provinces was placed. Rome was purely of symbolic/sentimental value which is why the concept of taking back Rome wasn't exactly a particularly great idea.

I'd also argue it didn't take much courage to do. As I've said, the empire at that point was not threatened by their Germanic neighbours and was by far the strongest polity in the region with unmatched resources, manpower and wealth. It's definitely daring in a multitude of ways that he attempted it, but that's not necessarily courage.He wasn't personally involved in the campaign either, so he wasn't exactly courageous in taking up the task either.



Gilgamesh isn't even a definite historical figure, the legacy of his which survives is purely mythical. The epic of Gilgamesh is neither an accurate depiction of who Gilgamesh might have been nor a historical account altogether. Which is also why I'm actually not thrilled having Gilgamesh in the game either since there are 100% historical Sumerian figures that would fit his place. Gilgamesh being famous is the primary reason behind his inclusion, but it's more or less the equivalent of making Achilles leader of the Greeks.

Not really, Qin's office was indeed kept in the following dynasties. But those titles wield no real power nor being responsible for any official tasks. Many Chinese emperors took reforms on the governed system in the history.

And will just be an ignorance to say the government remains unchanged until 20th century. Just look at the last Qing dynasty, the government system was nothing alike to what Qin left. Moreover, with the introduction of Manchuria people, many titles and office positions fitting to their culture and society were added.

The statement about the size territory is quite true though. But the "core territory" actually refers to the northern regions only.

Well, what were the positive long-term effects then? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm curious what you think qualifies as a positive long-term effect from Justinian's campaigns.

I lack the interest to dig into details, sorry. But judging someone's work as purely malicious and seeing nothing positive from it barely reflects objectivity, if there is any.

I do like your opinion of praising Basil II and Alexios, but not on the basis of stumping Justinian's name to the earth.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Not really, Qin's office was indeed kept in the following dynasties. But those titles wield no real power nor being responsible for any official tasks. Many Chinese emperors took reforms on the governed system in the history.

And it is just an ignorance to say the government remains unchanged until 20th century. Just look at the last Qing dynasty, the government system was nothing alike to what Qin left. Moreover, with the introduction of Manchuria people, many titles and office positions fitting to their culture and society were added.

I didn't say that the government was the same, what I said is that the office of emperor of China which Qin Shi Huang established was the same as the one up until when the Chinese monarchy was toppled. There's a difference in governmental reforms and the political office which you hold. Ancient Egypt has had over 3000 years of continuous history and mostly individual sovereignty and during that Despite numerous changes in law, government and religion as one might expact from a history spanning millenia, the office of the absolute monarch was exactly the same as a title. A more recent example is England. The English and/or British government has been subjected to numerous changes, but the crown of England is one continuous office that goes from the middle ages to this day.

The statement about the size territory is quite true though. But the "core territory" actually refers to the northern regions only.

Chinese core territory as I inferred it is what is identified as "ethnically Han Chinese" today. The southern part of China identifies as ethnically Han Chinese for the most part and it has done so for several centuries. It would certainly not qualify as core Chinese territory in Qin Shi Huang's time, but before him there was no concept of a unified Chinese state or a common Chinese identity, so we're judging China in more of a retrospect from other parts of their history as well.

I lack the interest to dig into details, sorry. But judging someone's work as purely malicious and seeing nothing positive from it barely reflects objectivity, if there is any.

I'll reuse a paragraph of mine on that one:

I don't think Justinian is a bad emperor, there have been way worse leaders in his mould. What I'm saying is that he is at best mediocre in his administration and thus the praise he often gets (not here exclusively) is unjustified. When something's overrated, it's much easier to emphasize the negative side to illustrate this.

I'm clearly not saying Justinian is all bad, in fact I never even characterized what he did as purely malicious, even though he committed some horrible atrocities no doubt. For one, ordering Roman law to be officially written down is a good thing, if a bit unimpressive. His building projects became staples of Byzantine architecture. That neither overshadows his bad decision-making nor does it invalidate the claim he was mediocre. The fact he is given so much praise by plenty of people is what causes me to give a more down-to-earth perspective of what his military endeavours achieved and outline the negative side. If he was remembered more humbly and the negatives of his rule were as widely circulated as the good ones, then there would be no need to illustrate how he was not so great.

As for objectivity, there's certainly going to be preference in one way or another for anyone discussing these things, but I believe that my comments on Justinian were rather impartial by just listing down some historical truths about the events of his rule. I'm not saying he ransacked Italy while trying to recapture it because I hate the guy, it's just what happened.

 

[Aurelesk]

Justinian I was competent. He ruled way before he came to power. Under his uncle rules, he was in charge secretly almost during 10 years. After, his reign was almost 40 years. He was a great leader. But all depend what a great leader is.

If a great leader is a absolute monarch that know and control everything, well Justinian isn't your guy. Justinian strength's is to be able to choose the right person for the right task. When he wanted to do something and didn't know how: he delegated to someone competent. He wasn't a fervent and spiritual leader, nor a military mastermind. But his legacy was:

• The Corpus Juris Civilis: Compilation of the byzantine laws, making the same law for everybody. It was a big deal back them. It was done by Tribonian.
• Social Policies: Reduce the inegalties between rich and poor (slaves and small farmer), and between women and men. Poor have free access to justice and inhumation. It's mostly Theodora works (she was kind of working as counterintelligence as well).
• Tax Reform: Due to christian ideology, rich pays more and becoming rich by exploiting is on the fall (slavery still in effect). It's John the Cappadocian works.
• Builder: Hagia Sophia is rebuilt, as many others edifices all over the empire. Theodose wall is complete and byzantine art rise. It's Justinian I's works.
• Military expansion and defense: the dream of an unified roman empire with Rome in it. It's Belisiarus (and Narses) works.

Theodora was a great woman. Mostly because Justinian I was maybe the first ruler to really listen his wife (and because she was smart). But I disagree: she wasn't in power (except during the Plague period). She have some power and she used it, but Justinian ruled.

I agree on something: conquering Italy was nonsense just because he wanted Rome in the roman empire. And he wasted a lot of gold in the military expansion in the west, leaving the east defenceless (so losing a lot of money to the sassanids as well as tribute). The sassanid empire have a brilliant mastermind with Khosro, so difficult to deal with it. Justinian faced a lot of disaster: earthquake, plague, extrem weather events, riots, making ruling difficult and wasted a lot of gold to rebuild everything as well as to pay for his military and people to bankrupt.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I didn't say that the government was the same, what I said is that the office of emperor of China which Qin Shi Huang established was the same as the one up until when the Chinese monarchy was toppled.

If I may ask, which "office" are you referring to then, before details? Monarchy was long established before Qin if you are talking about the form of government.

Chinese core territory as I inferred it is what is identified as "ethnically Han Chinese" today. The southern part of China identifies as ethnically Han Chinese for the most part and it has done so for several centuries. It would certainly not qualify as core Chinese territory in Qin Shi Huang's time, but before him there was no concept of a unified Chinese state or a common Chinese identity, so we're judging China in more of a retrospect from other parts of their history as well.

.

Before him, there was already a strong identity of who was Chinese. They referred people in the more northern region as "Chinese"/"Central Kingdom" while the others, including the southern part and the western region where Qin ruled, were viewed as "Barbarians". I shall direct you to wiki.

Qin's importance was to reconquer the fragmented lands in the previous dynasty (and some more) back into an empire, which quickly collapsed and became the step stone of the Han dynasty, which was a golden age.
His ruthlessness and vanity towards building the Great Wall and wonders were far more famous than his legacy.

Sorry to diverge the discussions to this far. The point is to compare Qin's work with Justinian's. They did similar things: massive building, wasting resources and reconquering. Qin was praised, as the succeeding dynasty rose from the damage and prospered. While Justinian was controversial, as his legacy became vain when no one was able to hold it. I imagine people will mock Qin's miscalculation and impracticability, if China was split up soon after his death.

So I won't judge a leader only by long-turn legacy --as legacy can soon be lost if a successor can not turn it into his own legacy.
Your reasons to criticize Justinian's work have their standing though, but they will not render him a lesser leader compared to the others.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

He rules way before he came to power. Under his father rules, he was in charge secretly almost during 10 years.

This is a bit misleading. Justinian's father was not an emperor, it was his adoptive father Justin that preceded him as emperor. The key here is "adoptive": Byzantine monarchy was dual in that there was a main ruler and a "junior emperor" which tended to hold the office of "Caesar" in the imperial court before being crowned co-emperor. Justinian in particular was a consul before his adoptive father's death and his own subsequent coronation as sole ruler. So the fact that Justinian exerted political influence before becoming the official emperor was actually the system working accordingly. This is similar to Basil the Macedonian's ascension to power, minus the fact Justinian didn't order his senior emperor's assassination to become sole emperor.

If a great leader is a absolute monarch that know and control everything, well Justinian isn't your guy. Justinian strength's is to be able to choose the right person for the right task. When he wants to do something and don't know how: he delegates to someone competent. He wasn't a fervent and spiritual leader, nor a military mastermind. But his legacy was:

• The Corpus Juris Civilis: Compilation of the byzantine laws, making the same law for everybody. It's Tribonian work's.
• Social Policies: Reduce the inegalties between rich and poor (slaves and small farmer), and women and men. Poor have free access to justice and inhumation. It's mostly Theodora works.
• Tax Reform: Due to christian ideology, rich pays more and becoming rich by exploiting is on the fall (slavery still in effect). It's John the Cappadocian works.
• Builder: Hagia Sophia is rebuilt, as many others edifices all over the empire. Theodose wall is complete and byzantine art rise. It's Justinian I's works.
• Military expansion and defense: the dream of an unified roman empire with Rome in it. It's Belisiarus (and Narses) works.

I don't disagree with that, that's not what my problem is though. When I mention competence, I am judging outcomes and deeds more so than his own individual involvement. There's no shame in being an emperor "behind the curtains", it's just that his choices politically and militarily were not all that great.

Theodora was a great woman. Mostly because Justinian I was maybe the first ruler to really listen his wife. But I disagree: she wasn't in power (except during the Plague period). She have power and she uses it, but Justinian I ruled.

Theodora was officially co-regent of the Roman empire thus she was by definition Justinian's (junior) co-ruler. A lot of women in Roman history have had great influence on emperors, particularly mothers of emperors. Anna Dalassene (Alexios' mother) effectively ran the empire while her son was out campaigning in the early years of his reign.

Also, it's not just that Justinian listened to Theodora, Theodora exerted great influence on Justinian. The Nika riots are a great example of this, but a lot of strategic decisions happened by consulting Theodora as well. She was more competent in much of what is attributed to her own judgement, but of course she had her (many) flaws as well and Justinian still had the final say in everything.

Justinian faced a lot of disaster: earthquake, plague, extrem weather events, riots, making ruling difficult and wasted a lot of gold to rebuild everything as well as to pay for his military and people to bankrupt.

Many people even attribute much of the spread of the plague to Justinian's poor response to the outbreak, but on that I am skeptical. I agree that Justinian wasn't blessed with the best of luck.

If I may ask, which "office" are you referring to then, before details? Monarchy was long established before Qin if you are talking about the form of government.

The office of "emperor of the Qin (and by extension China)". As I've said, Qin Shi Huang was the first one to hold that office, hence his name.

Before him, there was already a strong identity of who was Chinese. They referred people in the more northern region as "Chinese"/"Central Kingdom" while the others, including the southern part and the western region where Qin ruled, were viewed as "Barbarians". I shall direct you to wiki.

"Zhongguo" is in fact the central or middle kingdom, it doesn't make any reference to ethnicity or culture. Chinese ethnic identity as it is perceived today is "Han Chinese", Han itself deriving from the Han dynasty. That is the endonym used today for the people and the language of the Chinese people. That is why I mentioned core Chinese territory including the south.

Qin's importance was to reconquer the fragmented lands in the previous dynasty (and some more) back into an empire, which quickly collapsed and became the step stone of the Han dynasty, which was a golden age.

His importance is a subjective matter, so I don't think that definite statements apply. But what he did which is in fact a historically significant event is establishing the Chinese empire whose head of state remained the dominant political office of the realm(s) for millenia to come.

His ruthlessness and vanity towards building the Great Wall and wonders were far more famous than his legacy.

Not a fair assessment, I'd say. The thing isn't that Qin Shi Huang is some figure remembered for one thing instead of another, he is just not a famous figure in western literature in general, whereas the Terra Cotta army and the Great Wall are famous world wonders. The fact he is known as Qin Shi Huang shows that historically his legacy is centered around his one major political accomplishment.

Sorry to diverge the discussions to this far. The point is to compare Qin's work with Justinian's. They did similar things: massive building, wasting resources and reconquering. Qin was praised, as the succeeding dynasty rose from the damage and prospered. While Justinian was controversial, as his legacy became vain when no one was able to hold it. I imagine people will mock Qin's miscalculation and impracticability, if China was split up soon after his death.

The fact we are going along the tangent of history is quite the divergence, so don't worry much about that. If anything, I think I'm the main culprit here :^)

Qin Shi Huang's rule and Justinian's rule have some vague similarities, but other than that there is a very large dissonance. For one, Qin's major building project was purely defensive which despite its impracticality did work as something more than just a sign of wealth and power. Before Qin, there was no one single Chinese empire, at least not as we know it today. He united the warring states of the north and expanded into previously unconquered territory. Justinian inherited and passed through the exact same polity and political office with several previously Roman lands retaken. The resource thing is definite debatable as I have not found anything about the expenses of Qin Shi Huang's campaigns, so I'll leave that up as possible.

Justinian was definitely praised, he is the only Roman emperor of the "Byzantine" era that has received the epithet "the Great". Now, whether Qin Shi Huang is as overrated as Justinian in that manner, I doubt it, but even assuming he is, there are more things to him than the Justinian parallelisms. After all, I would be reluctant to attribute the fragmentation of the empire upon its leader's death solely on him. Mismanagement during his rule is a definite factor in many cases indeed, but that doesn't take away any blame on his successors. For example, the Byzantine empire crumbled following the battle of Manzikert, less than 50 years after Basil's death. Is it Basil's fault that his brother and the next 1-2 rulers after that were completely inept?

So I won't judge a leader only by long-turn legacy --as legacy can soon be lost if a successor can not turn it into his own legacy.

Sidenote here: I see you are using the term "legacy" a lot, but it's not exactly my point. Effect isn't legacy. I'm not saying Justinian's legacy is poor, in fact it's quite (over)glorified and constantly praised among many people. It's the long-term effects of his choices that were undeniably bad. Legacy is a purely subjective thing based on public perception. Effects are merely the direct (or indirect) consequences and repercussions of a ruler's policies.

One example of contradicting legacy and effect other than Justinian is Nero. Nero has a terrible legacy, having an image of being inept and a tyrant that set Rome on fire and hunted Christians down. That however contradicts what he actually did and many of the good decisions he made which had positive effects in Rome's future such as the rebuilding of Rome following the great fire (which he didn't cause). Is he a great emperor? Certainly not, but because he isn't as bad as he is often remembered, he is by extension seen in a much more positive light today.

Your reasons to criticize Justinian's work have their standing though, but they will not render him a lesser leader compared to the others.

It depends on who the "others" are. Alexios and Basil? His mistakes definitely make him a lesser emperor than those. Other random Byzantine rulers? It depends on whom you're drawing the comparison with. Justinian is way better than Phocas, Constantine VIII or Alexios Angelos, that's for sure.

 

[Aurelesk]

I knew that Justin was his uncle, don't know why I say he was his father. I corrected it in my previous message.

I didn't knew that Theodora was officialy his co-ruler, you learn me something. But I don't think she really be in control: she just have more influence on Justinian than his advisor. Basicly, Procopius say that Justinian was incompetent and a demon and Belisarius was dominated by his wife. But Procopius didn't like the fact Justinian dare to marry a "lesser woman" (and change the law to be allowed to marry her) and dare to be advised by her. It was taboo.

Many people even attribute much of the spread of the plague to Justinian's poor response to the outbreak, but on that I am skeptical. I agree that Justinian wasn't blessed with the best of luck.

The plague was a new disease back them, and nobody know how to deal with it. Constantinople was a big city (bigger in Justinian rules), so low sanitation, so big rat population. The people thougth that was a divine punishment, and Justinian was the cause because he didn't follow the rules, traditions and the right faith. But I don't think Justinian could have done something against it. The people just fled in the countryside.
The global cooling is worldwide, and maybe sign the end of the sassanid (and the aztecs possibly) due to the famine.

Thanks for helping me for learning more about the subject.

 

[halfhalfharp]

The office of "emperor of the Qin (and by extension China)". As I've said, Qin Shi Huang was the first one to hold that office, hence his name.

I just cant hold my curiosity here, for I have never heard of "office of the emperor". I know what is government (Aristocracy, monarchy etc...) of the emperor, the court of the emperor, the administrative system of the emperor. But, what is the emperor's office in precise?

You denied that it was the government system, nor the titles of the officials. So... what is it? Please kindly make a define of it?

"Zhongguo" is in fact the central or middle kingdom, it doesn't make any reference to ethnicity or culture. Chinese ethnic identity as it is perceived today is "Han Chinese", Han itself deriving from the Han dynasty. That is the endonym used today for the people and the language of the Chinese people. That is why I mentioned core Chinese territory including the south.

"The central plains" or "zhongyuan", also interchangeable with "the central kingdom" or "zhongguo", carries a cultural meaning indeed. I don't know if you can read the chinese version of wiki.... but nvm. Chinese had their identity long before Han dynasty actually, not in sense of one nation, but in sense of cultural values.

Not a fair assessment, I'd say. The thing isn't that Qin Shi Huang is some figure remembered for one thing instead of another, he is just not a famous figure in western literature in general, whereas the Terra Cotta army and the Great Wall are famous world wonders. The fact he is known as Qin Shi Huang shows that historically his legacy is centered around his one major political accomplishment.

No, traditional chinese historical views depicted him a tyrant. You can refer to the historiography under the legacy category in wiki ( luckily this one has got an English version) He was famed for that brutality and ruthlessness, while his achievements entirely shadowed by his immorality. And I suppose this side is less known to the western world, as they only see the Wonders, but not the bones buried underneath.

He did use his people to build his palace actually, although it was shadowed by the casualties of building the great wall already. So "purely defensive purpose" is not appropriate. And the great wall wasn't used in next generations, it simply fell into ruin. Rounding up, his projects were more show off of power than any practical use.

The other things are personal opinions so I leave it that way.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Basicly, Procopius say that Justinian was incompetent and a demon and Belisarius was dominated by his wife. But Procopius didn't like the fact Justinian dare to marry a "lesser woman" (and change the law to be allowed to marry her) and dare to be advised by her. It was taboo.

The source behind Theodora's powers isn't Procopius though, rather various accounts and the fact we know she had her own imperial seal and strategic planners. I'm not saying she dominated Justinian, but she had an immense impact on his decision-making.

The plague was a new disease back them, and nobody know how to deal with it. Constantinople was a big city (bigger in Justinian rules), so low sanitation, so big rat population. The people thougth that was a divine punishment, and Justinian was the cause because he didn't follow the rules, traditions and the right faith. But I don't think Justinian could have done something against it. The people just fled in the countryside

That's true, I don't think anyone would be in a position to do anything differently. Even in the high middle ages the response to disease outbreaks was poor and ill-prepared.

Thanks for helping me for learning more about the subject.

No problem

I just cant hold my curiosity here, for I have never heard of "office of the emperor". I know what is government (Aristocracy, monarchy etc...) of the emperor, the court of the emperor, the administrative system of the emperor. But, what is the emperor's office in precise?

You denied that it was the government system, nor the titles of the officials. So... what is it? Please kindly make a define of it?

Definition of office
1 a : a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose : a position of authority to exercise a public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it
b : a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/office

Common modern phrases include "voted in office" in reference to presidents and PMs which infers the exact same thing.

No, traditional chinese historical views depicted him a tyrant. You can refer to the historiography under the legacy category in wiki ( luckily this one has got an English version) He was famed for that brutality and ruthlessness, while his achievements entirely shadowed by his immorality.

Being a tyrant and being the first ruler to establish the title of "emperor" for a Chinese state are not mutually exclusive. That would be the equivalent of saying that Lenin isn't remembered for the October revolution and successful installment of a communist regime because his legacy is linked with numerous mass executions and atrocities.

He did use his people to build his palace actually, although it was shadowed by the casualties of building the great wall already. So "purely defensive purpose" is not appropriate.

"Purely defensive" is about his major building project, as in one single project i.e. the Great Wall. I didn't claim that all of his buildings projects were purely defensive.

And the great wall wasn't used in next generations, it simply fell into ruin.

I quite clearly stated that the Great Wall was an impractical building decision in my previous post, I'm not in any way denying what you are saying. The point is that the project was meant as a practical solution regardless, even if it failed to facilitate one in the end.

Rounding up, his projects were more show off of power than any practical use.

All major architectural works are meant to showcase wealth and power in the end, that doesn't mean that their main purpose is always aesthetic. Qin Shi Huang didn't wake up one day and thought that a wall hundreds of kilometres long would be a jolly good idea to spend state money on. He faced external threats which he attempted to hamper. The fact the wall is so large and impressive is a testament to muscle-flexing resources, wealth and manpower. The fact it was a wall is quite telling about what the purpose of the project was.

The other things are personal opinions so I leave it that way.

You mean my Nero analogy? That's most definitely not an opinion, I believe it's quite well-established how Nero is remembered and what he actually did.

 

[Morningcalm]

Justinian is iconic. None of the other Byzantine emperors are quite so. For better or worse, Justinian and Theodora are associated with Byzantium very strongly and come to mind when Byzantium is mentioned (the fact that the Hagia Sophia as we know it was complete in Justinian's reign certainly helps). It helps for Justinian's cause that his legal code had lasting impact (even cited in a Supreme Court of the United States case that I have since forgotten). It also help that Justinian's enemies (Goths, Persians, etc) recall Rome and its enemies.

Bulgarians don't like when Bulgar-slayer emperors are considered worthy as main leaders, so that's cutting against Basil somewhat (a minor factor admittedly). The Varangian Guard is cool but we already have one of them in the game (Harald Hardrada), represented mostly in a dull stereotypical manner. It's tough to see how the Varangian Guard could adequately convey Byzantineness if placed in the game, even if the Byzantines got a second iconic unit like the dromon or cataphract. Basil did endure a coup attempt and had many military successes but his life otherwise seems a military story with little drama. He was a solid, humble, military emperor who did great things. Yawn.

Alexios had a somewhat more interesting story (many conspiracies against him, endured a Norman invasion, took desperate measures to get the gold needed to pay mercenaries, and his ruthless mother served as a very influential advisor at his court), but he's still not as iconic as Justinian.

Look at it this way--if each of the three male emperors cited most in this thread had their life made into a drama series by HBO, which would you watch first? The answer for most is clear. Justinian's reign saw him endure the plague (he had it and survived it), the death of his unlikely love (breast cancer), defeat (by the Persians, though Justinian was able to limit his losses somewhat), victory (Rome recaptured, large swathes of once-Roman land recaptured), rioting that threatened his life (Nika!), and of course, assassination conspiracies. Theodora, Belisarius, Narses and a whole host of other colorful characters populate his life with drama. Justinian had the most colorful victories and memorable failures of the big Byzantine emperors that are considered great.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Justinian is iconic. None of the other Byzantine emperors are quite so. For better or worse, Justinian and Theodora are associated with Byzantium very strongly and come to mind when Byzantium is mentioned (the fact that the Hagia Sophia as we know it was complete in Justinian's reign certainly helps). It helps for Justinian's cause that his legal code had lasting impact (even cited in a Supreme Court of the United States case that I have since forgotten). It also help that Justinian's enemies (Goths, Persians, etc) recall Rome and its enemies.

Bulgarians don't like when Bulgar-slayer emperors are considered worthy as main leaders, so that's cutting against Basil somewhat (a minor factor admittedly). The Varangian Guard is cool but we already have one of them in the game (Harald Hardrada), represented mostly in a dull stereotypical manner. It's tough to see how the Varangian Guard could adequately convey Byzantineness if placed in the game, even if the Byzantines got a second iconic unit like the dromon or cataphract. Basil did endure a coup attempt and had many military successes but his life otherwise seems a military story with little drama. He was a solid, humble, military emperor who did great things. Yawn.

Alexios had a somewhat more interesting story (many conspiracies against him, endured a Norman invasion, took desperate measures to get the gold needed to pay mercenaries, and his ruthless mother served as a very influential advisor at his court), but he's still not as iconic as Justinian.

Look at it this way--if each of the three male emperors cited most in this thread had their life made into a drama series by HBO, which would you watch first? The answer for most is clear. Justinian's reign saw him endure the plague (he had it and survived it), the death of his unlikely love (breast cancer), defeat (by the Persians, though Justinian was able to limit his losses somewhat), victory (Rome recaptured, large swathes of once-Roman land recaptured), rioting that threatened his life (Nika!), and of course, assassination conspiracies. Theodora, Belisarius, Narses and a whole host of other colorful characters populate his life with drama. Justinian had the most colorful victories and memorable failures of the big Byzantine emperors that are considered great.

I must say, I truely appreciate this long paragraph is not drawing into the yawning and redundant arguements of who is "greater" or "bad ruler".

Just as what I always support for the civ leaders-- extraordinary life, of course on the foundations of he/she being a true power holder. Not even historians who are already used to boredom, like to talk too much about rulers who lived a humble but yet less dramatic lives.

Although this is not about choosing a protagonist for a shakespeare opera, my favor is still towards encouraging rulers with a vivid background and character.

But I won't say no to see Alexios or Basil II anyway.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Justinian is iconic. None of the other Byzantine emperors are quite so.

That’s likely true only for western historiography. The most iconic Byzantine emperor in areas traditionally within Byzantium’s sphere of influence is Constantine XI. Constantine XI has the same status in Greek folklore as king Arthur has in the English one; he is the alleged “marble emperor” who was saved by angels during the fall of Constantinople and turned to marble so one day he can wake up and take back the City. This is also the reason why in large the name “Constantine” is an immensely popular name Greece.

It helps for Justinian's cause that his legal code had lasting impact

It wasn’t his own law code. What Justinian did was to have existing Roman law written down in official form. There are claims that Justinian instructed the scribes to make alterations, but a) these claims are rather speculative and b) even if they were definite, there is no clue as to what and how Justinian changed it, hence it could just as easily been Justinian removing laws or twisting them to serve his interests.

The Varangian Guard is cool but we already have one of them in the game (Harald Hardrada), represented mostly in a dull stereotypical manner.

I agree. That’s why we need a proper representation of what the Varangians really did.

It's tough to see how the Varangian Guard could adequately convey Byzantineness if placed in the game, even if the Byzantines got a second iconic unit like the dromon or cataphract.

How would you personally define "Byzantineness"?

Also, Varangians are trademark Byzantine forces with no exact equivalent in any other state. Cataphracts as used by the Byzantines are close to carbon-copies of Sassanian cataphracts which in turn derive from Parthian cataphracts which in turn come from a variety of Iranic (mostly Scythian) tribes. Plus, as several previous posts suggested, the Varangians wouldn’t push out both of these, the dromon could easily remain the main Byzantine UU while the Varangians are leader-specific.

Basil did endure a coup attempt

He fought 2 consecutive civil wars against pretender rebels to be more precise. An interesting highlight is a rumour about Basil’s final battle against Bardas Skleros’ (one of the wannabe usurpers) army where Skleros located Basil on the battlefield and charged at him, but suffered a stroke and died mid-charge. It is generally believed that it was at this point that God had chosen Basil to lead the Roman nation.

He was a solid, humble, military emperor who did great things. Yawn.

There’s definitely more to Basil’s story than those. I mean, the most (in)famous episode of his life was him being vindictive and cruel. If gouging the eyes of 10.000 enemy soldiers doesn’t make him at least a tad bit interesting, I don’t know what is.

Of course, these are all subjective. I’m not basing rooting for Basil on him being just interesting, that’s something each person can decide and formulate an opinion (as numerous complaints about Amanitore’s inclusion clearly show). I’m basing my preference partly on meritocracy and the potential of making the gameplay aspect fun. Perhaps more importantly, it would represent the dominant time period that defined the Byzantine empire, something completely left out from every iteration of the empire in Civ games thus far. We have got nothing but Theodora and Justinian thus far, it’s time for something new.

Look at it this way--if each of the three male emperors cited most in this thread had their life made into a drama series by HBO, which would you watch first? The answer for most is clear. Justinian's reign saw him endure the plague (he had it and survived it), the death of his unlikely love (breast cancer), defeat (by the Persians, though Justinian was able to limit his losses somewhat), victory (Rome recaptured, large swathes of once-Roman land recaptured), rioting that threatened his life (Nika!), and of course, assassination conspiracies. Theodora, Belisarius, Narses and a whole host of other colorful characters populate his life with drama. Justinian had the most colorful victories and memorable failures of the big Byzantine emperors that are considered great.

I'm skeptical on how certain that outcome would be, given there’s clearly a very intense interest in Alexios, Basil, Constantine XI etc in much of the “Byzantinophile” circles. But alright, I concede that your assertion is accurate for the sake of the argument. Then how much would you rely on that majority to have decided their preference based on having a wholesome picture of the comparison? Justinian is a famous Byzantine emperor even among people not necessarily verged in Byzantine history. There’s a very good chance that a considerable portion of that majority would be far less absolute on it if they have read the Alexiad, for example.

And we haven't even gone over Heraclius; his struggle against the legitimate emperor Phocas, his rise to the throne, his epic war against the Sassanids (including the recovery of the Holy Cross) and later war with the Rashidun Caliphate. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Heraclius, but he's definitely an interesting character with an intriguing life.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I'm very glad to see my boy Basil II leading the poll. We've only ever had Justinian and Theodora for Byzantium up until this point, and I'd love to see a different point in the empire's history represented. I would also rather watch a show about him, my boy Basil II, than Justinian, but honestly the quality of it comes down the production crew and how much research they're willing to do than anything else.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Basil II was already in the Vikings scenario... anyone remember what his uniques were?