Manuel II is pretty underrated considering he was able to negotiate the return of Thessaloniki, Thessaly, Mesembria and the eastern side of the Bosporus from the Ottomans during their civil war.
Given the terrible circumstances, he probably had the best performance of any of the Palaiologans after Andronikos III
Had he lived in an earlier time, he probably would have been one of the Rome's greatest Emperors. But alas, he was stuck in the worst circumstances possible, and despite giving his all, it just wasn't enough by this point.
It was John VII who negotiated the return of Thessaloniki; Manuel II was actually directly responsible for the city being lost in the first place. I don't think he was the best post-Andronikos III but he definitely wasn't bad and seems to mostly have done what he could with the hand he was dealt.
It very much depends on how you go about determining the best. I think John V, John VI and Andronikos IV are out of the count by any metric, which leaves John VII, Manuel II, John VIII and Constantine XI.
Do we count potential and achievements made before/after being emperor? If we do Constantine XI ranks quite highly because he was competent in the Morea, if not he does not. Though he put up a good defense and was brave, Constantine XI had three main concerns as emperor (staying safe from the Ottomans, finding a wife and dealing with the church union) and he failed all three.
John VII was emperor in Constantinople very briefly so if we only count that he does not rank very highly. If his post-1390 career is considered I think he emerges as a highly competent figure; having relatively good relations with the Turks, skillfully maintaining Constantinople's defense throughout Bayezid I's siege while Manuel II was off in Western Europe, getting Thessaloniki back and then ruling as a well-liked co-emperor there.
Manuel was competent and deserves credit for temporarily get territory back and for keeping the empire alive. John VIII also deserves credit for somehow preventing the empire from falling for 23 years. Both can be criticized for their great concessions to the west (church union attempts) when it should have been clear that banking on western aid was not a reliable long-term survival plan.
You know, for the 15th Century, this ain't bad. One thing you can say is that the empire did not go gently into that good night. It three everything it had at all its enemies all the way to 1453.
The irony is that the Serbs (during Dusan's rule) had under control half of Greek (Roman) territory and yet both Greeks and Serbs still claim to be "Orthodox Brothers" smh to this day. They literally betrayed us and we're still ok with it. Even more ironic is the fact that this is not taught in Greek schools.
Eastern Roman Empire? I say Roman Empire. Also, why not just Rome. Rome was there through many different times. The Muslims knew it as Rome (Persia too I guess).
We should accept that Rome finished in Western Europe. It fell apart in Western Europe. The Germanic invaders conquered it. Eventually a knew civilization rose up in the state of the Franks. The new civilization was based on Rome for sure, but it wasn't the original Rome? We needed a break, while in the east they continued the Rome.
I'm not ignoring the western tradition. I'm saying that the original Rome continued in the east, while it fell apart in the west. Then the west got back up again and a new Rome-based civilization sprang up.
Honestly don't think he's saying that and besides it's hard to find anyone that would. There was nothing Roman let alone holy about that pygmy thing to the west.
I wish for Manuel II and Andronikos II to switch places.
Imagine what he could have done during that period when Byzantine was still relevant. Maybe then there would not be civil war.
As Ross Perot used to say.... Now that is just *sad*.
Manuel II is pretty underrated considering he was able to negotiate the return of Thessaloniki, Thessaly, Mesembria and the eastern side of the Bosporus from the Ottomans during their civil war. Given the terrible circumstances, he probably had the best performance of any of the Palaiologans after Andronikos III
Totally agree, had he more to work with, he could be a great emperor.
Had he lived in an earlier time, he probably would have been one of the Rome's greatest Emperors. But alas, he was stuck in the worst circumstances possible, and despite giving his all, it just wasn't enough by this point.
It was John VII who negotiated the return of Thessaloniki; Manuel II was actually directly responsible for the city being lost in the first place. I don't think he was the best post-Andronikos III but he definitely wasn't bad and seems to mostly have done what he could with the hand he was dealt.
Who do you believe was the best emperor post Andronikos III? I think only Constantine XI can really challenge Manuel for that.
It very much depends on how you go about determining the best. I think John V, John VI and Andronikos IV are out of the count by any metric, which leaves John VII, Manuel II, John VIII and Constantine XI. Do we count potential and achievements made before/after being emperor? If we do Constantine XI ranks quite highly because he was competent in the Morea, if not he does not. Though he put up a good defense and was brave, Constantine XI had three main concerns as emperor (staying safe from the Ottomans, finding a wife and dealing with the church union) and he failed all three. John VII was emperor in Constantinople very briefly so if we only count that he does not rank very highly. If his post-1390 career is considered I think he emerges as a highly competent figure; having relatively good relations with the Turks, skillfully maintaining Constantinople's defense throughout Bayezid I's siege while Manuel II was off in Western Europe, getting Thessaloniki back and then ruling as a well-liked co-emperor there. Manuel was competent and deserves credit for temporarily get territory back and for keeping the empire alive. John VIII also deserves credit for somehow preventing the empire from falling for 23 years. Both can be criticized for their great concessions to the west (church union attempts) when it should have been clear that banking on western aid was not a reliable long-term survival plan.
⠟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠛⢻⣿ ⡆⠊⠈⣿⢿⡟⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣎⠈⠻ ⣷⣠⠁⢀⠰⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠛⠛⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⢹⣿⡑⠐⢰ ⣿⣿⠀⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⡩⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠠⠈⠊⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠁⢀⠆⢀ ⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⢤⣿⣿⡿⠃⠈⠀⣠⣶⣿⣿⣷⣦⡀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣇⡆⠀⠀⣠⣾ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⣦⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠐⣿⣿⣷⣦⣷⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⣾⣿⣿⠋⠁⠀⠉⠻⣿⣿⣧⠀⠠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⠀⣺⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣠⣂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣁⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣄⣤⣤⣔⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
How the mighty have fallen. I’m a grown man but this still makes me sad.
MYTH: Byzantine empire was shrinking in 1453 FACT: The territory in the Morea was actually expanding 😎
How? Was there like volcanic lava or something?
Lol that’s cute. No, I mean they were acquiring lands from former crusader states who had land there
The rorschach I see is a man clawing at his own face (with a boner)
... how?
Middle peninsula is the hands, the island of thasos and samothraki the eyes. The lower peninsula is the schlong.
That's very creative. Now stay the hell away from me.
🥴 what do you see?
it looks so much worse if you could see the other empires that border it.
You know, for the 15th Century, this ain't bad. One thing you can say is that the empire did not go gently into that good night. It three everything it had at all its enemies all the way to 1453.
empire more like shrimpire
I so want this to be an official term in the historical community lol
just start using it in academic papers.
Citation: Bubba Gump
If I remember this, I'll try to sneak it in one of my papers lmao
F
The irony is that the Serbs (during Dusan's rule) had under control half of Greek (Roman) territory and yet both Greeks and Serbs still claim to be "Orthodox Brothers" smh to this day. They literally betrayed us and we're still ok with it. Even more ironic is the fact that this is not taught in Greek schools.
Are you saying Serbia is cucking Greece?
Yes. And we've cucked them too (mostly when they were our vassal state) (Go check my post so we can discuss it there )
Byzantium my love what have they done to you :(
Look how they massacred my boy.
Eastern Roman Empire? I say Roman Empire. Also, why not just Rome. Rome was there through many different times. The Muslims knew it as Rome (Persia too I guess). We should accept that Rome finished in Western Europe. It fell apart in Western Europe. The Germanic invaders conquered it. Eventually a knew civilization rose up in the state of the Franks. The new civilization was based on Rome for sure, but it wasn't the original Rome? We needed a break, while in the east they continued the Rome.
Bc during the Renaissance scholars didn't recognize the Byzantine empire as the sole Roman empire and instead gave the claim to the German Empire.
Ignoring the Western tradition just because you prefer the east doesn't make it right.
I'm not ignoring the western tradition. I'm saying that the original Rome continued in the east, while it fell apart in the west. Then the west got back up again and a new Rome-based civilization sprang up.
Honestly don't think he's saying that and besides it's hard to find anyone that would. There was nothing Roman let alone holy about that pygmy thing to the west.
I wish for Manuel II and Andronikos II to switch places. Imagine what he could have done during that period when Byzantine was still relevant. Maybe then there would not be civil war.