Who in the Justinian Dynasty made mistakes that had the most long-term bad effects

[LouisJoseph]

Thread title says it all.

 

[Dreadnought]

You have quite the Byzantine obsession, don't you?

 

[Dachs]

This is such a weird question. It's like asking which of the Five Good Emperors made mistakes that had the most long-term bad effects. These guys, on the whole, made decent decisions, and the ones that didn't, weren't really big problems over the long term.

So I'll just default to "who sucked most" out of those five, and go with Ioustinos II.

 

[Ajidica]

Would I be burned at the stake if I said Justinian? For all of his conquests he left behind a bankrupt state with far too many military obligations.

Of the ones on the list, I'll agree with Dachs and say Justinian II, but Maurice makes a rather strong argument for himself, what with his overthrow and the resulting chaos.

 

[Dachs]

Would I be burned at the stake if I said Justinian? For all of his conquests he left behind a bankrupt state with far too many military obligations.

Of the ones on the list, I'll agree with Dachs and say Justinian II, but Maurice makes a rather strong argument for himself, what with his overthrow and the resulting chaos.

Those might be good answers, if either one of their failings had much to do with their mistakes (you know, the whole point of the thread).

 

[Lone Cat]

well. every Bisansos emperors do. for defying Olympians.

Personally I'm favoring Pagan romans rather than Christianized ones. Frankly... the 'Christianized Emperors' are no less oppressing than Pagan ones. in some degree the Baptisme of those emperors brought Barbarians to the house and ruined much of classic cultures...

ok Sorry if I hurts every christians and those who practices Abrahamic religions here. but olympians contributed much to the western civilizations don't they?

 

[Ajidica]

Those might be good answers, if either one of their failings had much to do with their mistakes (you know, the whole point of the thread).

I may be relying too much on Norwich here (much to your despair), but if Maurice hadn't forced the army to winter in tent campts beyond the Danube Phokas wouldn't have been able to overthrow him. Making a singular bad decision is still a mistake.

in some degree the Baptisme of those emperors brought Barbarians to the house and ruined much of classic cultures...

No, just no. The increased use of 'barbarians' in the army or their settling inside the empire has nothing to do with Christianity unless you choose to regress around 300 years and engage in the follies of Gibbon.

 

[Dachs]

I may be relying too much on Norwich here (much to your despair), but if Maurice hadn't forced the army to winter in tent campts beyond the Danube Phokas wouldn't have been able to overthrow him. Making a singular bad decision is still a mistake.

Camping north of the Danube was a way to cut costs that badly needed to be cut, while providing an operational buffer for the Balkans (something that the Byzantine territories in Europe desperately needed). Wintering up north was standard operating procedure under previous Emperors during the midst of a campaign, and Maurikios himself had had his soldiers do it earlier in the Slav campaigns.

Regardless, the reasonable downside of having the troops winter north of the Danube - the soldiers getting pissed and demanding to move back south again - was insufficiently dangerous for Maurikios to be castigated as having made a foreseeable mistake. There's no way he can reasonably have been expected to foresee that the army commander, Petros (his own brother), would have handled the mutineers' decisions so badly, or that the mutineers would then raise one of their own number in rebellion and play kingmaker.

 

[Ajidica]

Any reason things went so badly this time when Maurice tried to get troops to camp north of the Danube?

 

[Dachs]

Like I said: Petros didn't manage the situation right this time around. Taking a hard line when you've got nobody on your side isn't the smartest of moves.

 

[Ajidica]

Petros had the Emperor on his side, and presumably the rest of the Imperial army. Is there any reason Maurice wasn't able to quickly bring in troops to reinforce Constantinople or even use the Navy to defend the walls?

 

[Dachs]

He had the Exkoubitores, at the very least, but it seems that rioting in the city itself compromised any plans for its defense.

 

[Lone Cat]

Camping north of the Danube was a way to cut costs that badly needed to be cut, while providing an operational buffer for the Balkans (something that the Byzantine territories in Europe desperately needed). Wintering up north was standard operating procedure under previous Emperors during the midst of a campaign, and Maurikios himself had had his soldiers do it earlier in the Slav campaigns.

.

I'm not sure if this is ther reasons why Balkans supported Turks during the empire's final days... to the point that provide guns to them instead of the Bisanzo.

And i'm not sure that what is the Balkan's point of view on Greek and Turks during our days. but it seems that Serbs Dissed Turks and Loved Greeks. or just opposite..???

 

[Dachs]

I'm not sure if this is ther reasons why Balkans supported Turks during the empire's final days... to the point that provide guns to them instead of the Bisanzo.

And i'm not sure that what is the Balkan's point of view on Greek and Turks during our days. but it seems that Serbs Dissed Turks and Loved Greeks. or just opposite..???

I guarantee that Byzantine retrenchment in the sixth century had absolutely nothing to do with the Turkish invasions of the fourteenth century.

 

[Tee Kay]

You have quite the Byzantine obsession, don't you?

Typical for CFC.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Those might be good answers, if either one of their failings had much to do with their mistakes

How do you differentiate between "failings" and "mistakes"?

 

[Dachs]

How do you differentiate between "failings" and "mistakes"?

"Failing" in the sense that, insofar as their reigns were not utterly perfect ones, they failed - not "failing" the noun describing a character trait.

A mistake is something you commit, a failing is not. "Failing" might not have been the best word (too many potential meanings) but it was the best one I could think of at the time.

 

[Lord Baal]

I guarantee that Byzantine retrenchment in the sixth century had absolutely nothing to do with the Turkish invasions of the fourteenth century.

Epic post. And it was only one sentence long.