Byzantium Emperor Alexius Comnenus " Why isn't he called "the great"?

[Lantert Lurend]

Well I recently read "A history of Byzantium" written by John Julius Norwich.
I strongly believe that Alexius Comnenus be qulified with the great emperor.
After the Battle of Manzikert, the empire loses its territory in Asia Minor by Turks.
Beyond that, the political turmoil was prevailing in Byzantium.
Battles were playing out across the empire.
But before Alexius, the former emperors just didnt realize great power entails great respobsibities.
In Byzantium, there was just a delicate dance in which each faction fights furiously for its interests.
To cope with this crisis,first, Alexius defended empire against the Pechenegs in the west, Turks in the east, Sicily, and most importantly The first Crusade(it was a great threat to Byzantium.In 1204, it was proved.) and lastly he turned over the throne to John II Komnenos
He defuse the politically volatile situation by do that.
I think he is truly "the great emperor in Byzantium"
What more one can say??

[Tiberios]

While he was certainly a good Emperor that saved his empire from collapsing altogether, I believe he has been critized for weakening the imperial bureaucracy by promoting officials more on family connections than merit. The bureaucracy was quite important to the Roman Empire and it was capable and efficient able befoer it began to weaken.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

In fact I plan on creating an article about how he wiped out the Pechenegs.
What you are asking is a good question.
Alexius was one of the few Emperors who took the reigns of the Byzantine Empire in such a difficult situation and managed to leave a powerhouse to his successor.
When Alexius took over, almost all of Asia Minor, the heart of the economical and military power of Byzantium was lost to the Seljuks, the Normans were attacking the Western shores of the Empire, while at the same time the Pechenegs were pushing from the north, the Byzantine army was no more, while the Byzantine state was bankrupt. It was perhaps the worst situation for the ERE since its creation. Alexius managed to turn the tide and leave Byzantium to his successor as the most powerful state in the Eastern Mediterranean. He defeated the Normans, he wiped out the Pecheneg nation, he used the 1st Crusade in the best possible way for Byzantium, managing to recapture much of Asia Minor. The Byzantine army and economy became once again powerful.

In fact, the grandson of Alexius, Manuel I Komnenos of whom I bear his name in this forum was the one who was named "the Great". There's an explanation to this though. At the time of Manuel I Komnenos, Byzantium was the most powerful state, perhaps in the whole of Europe and was able to influence all the states of the Mediterranean sea during his reign. Manuel was able to keep the Turks divided with successful diplomatic actions, crushed a second Norman invasion and afterwards he sent an army to invade the Norman Kingdom, made the crusader states his vassals and undertook large expeditions against Egypt. At the time of Alexius, Byzantium was in a rebuilding phase, while in the time of Manuel, Byzantium was well established and was able to extent its influence in all of Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps this is the reason why they called Manuel "the Great" and not Alexius, although I believe Alexius deserves it just as much if not more.

There's no doubt though that the three Komnenian Emperors, Alexius, John and Manuel were some of the most successful Emperors in the history of the ERE, there's no need to possess the title to prove this.

[Lantert Lurend]

I think that's a hard pill to swallow.
If he hadn't relied on his family members in that crisis, he would have been forced to abdicate the throne by another ambitious general and the empire would have had a useless civil war.
Also based on his father's success in stabilizing the empire,
his son John II Komnenos could manage the empire rested on the meritocracy(not totally) <- you can find this "A history of Byzantium" written by John Julius Norwich.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Before and after the Komnenian period, the bureaucrats were corrupted and the aristocrats were divided and these were the real reasons who brought the Empire in this situation, neither the battle of Matzikert nor the fall in 1204. During the three Komnenian Emperors corruption was battled out by placing family members and friends on the higher hierarchy levels. This was one of the prons of the Komnenian era.

[hellheaven1987]

Because he failed to conquer Byzantium back to the size of 10th Century?

But be honest half of "the Great" are just overrated.

[Tiberios]

I think that's a hard pill to swallow.
If he hadn't relied on his family members in that crisis, he would have been forced to abdicate the throne by another ambitious general and the empire would have had a useless civil war.
Also based on his father's success in stabilizing the empire,
his son John II Komnenos could manage the empire rested on the meritocracy(not totally) <- you can find this "A history of Byzantium" written by John Julius Norwich.

I agree that his policy on promoting family members and giving them high offices was a good way to ensure stability for the Empire which it also did. The downside is that it did, or could have, set a dangerous precedent for future Emperors to delegate offices based on family connections and not merit. During the capable Komnenian Emperors, disregarding Andronikos, this worked quite well. Under less capable Emperors like the Angeloi, such a precedence of nepotism instead of meritocracy could be a great problem for the Empire.

Overall Alexios was indeed one of the most capable Emperors the Empire ever had in the Middle Ages and I think that he is more deserving for the title Great than his grandson Manuel.

[charles the hammer]

I agree that his policy on promoting family members and giving them high offices was a good way to ensure stability for the Empire which it also did. The downside is that it did, or could have, set a dangerous precedent for future Emperors to delegate offices based on family connections and not merit. During the capable Komnenian Emperors, disregarding Andronikos, this worked quite well. Under less capable Emperors like the Angeloi, such a precedence of nepotism instead of meritocracy could be a great problem for the Empire.

Overall Alexios was indeed one of the most capable Emperors the Empire ever had in the Middle Ages and I think that he is more deserving for the title Great than his grandson Manuel.

Well thats the problem ultimately some times you have to take a risk for short term stabilty and hope your successors dont screw it up, which is why I like the emperor Theodosius who had a similiar problem.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Yeah, in order for the Komnenian system to work a decent Emperor was needed.
Everything was based on the Emperor's decisions and actions. When the Aggeloi took power we saw what happened..

[Lantert Lurend]

Well thats the problem ultimately some times you have to take a risk for short term stabilty and hope your successors dont screw it up, which is why I like the emperor Theodosius who had a similiar problem.

I think emperor Theodosius marry his daughter to Flavius Stilicho considering his son's inability to manage empire, but to no avail

[Tiberios]

At least that's what I've read so far. Still, had he not done so, the Empire could very well have collapsed I think.

Well thats the problem ultimately some times you have to take a risk for short term stabilty and hope your successors dont screw it up, which is why I like the emperor Theodosius who had a similiar problem.

Indeed. Unfortunately Andronikos Komnenos and the Angeloi came to power. Had a capable Emperor taken over, perhaps a more stable system that wasn't so dependable on a capable Emperor could have been introduced.

[charles the hammer]

I think emperor Theodosius marry his daughter to Flavius Stilicho considering his son's inability to manage empire, but to no avail

There is no way they would be ok with stilichio with any offical power as emperor but your right, any one but his children would have been better, I like Theo, but he did make some awful decisions, but this is off topic.

[Lantert Lurend]

Yeah, in order for the Komnenian system to work a decent Emperor was needed.
Everything was based on the Emperor's decisions and actions. When the Aggeloi took power we saw what happened..

the Aggeloi is not the only one to be blamed, I think. Manuel I Komnenos's diplomacy too relied on the bribery, which in his latter years turned out to be too demanding to his people. The severity of the pain was getting worse as the time went by.

[Tiberios]

Actually Manuel I was quite adept at diplomacy and his foreign policy wasn't wholly unsucessful. He reduced Hungary to a minor threat, allied himself with the HRE and reaffirmed the Roman Empire as the greatest power at the time. He also fostered good relations with the crusaders and the Crusader states. His foreign policy failed in his Italian campaign and in his campaigns against the Seljuqs.
The Italian campaign has always seemed as a waste of ressources to me and rather Manuel should have focused on defeating the Turks and reclaiming the last parts of Anatolia. As far as I know his popularity was decreased because of his Latin wife Mari who became a quite unpopular regent after his death and his fondness for Western ideals.

Still, it was Andronikos who destroyed the relations with the rest of the European states with his arrest of Latins in Constantinople. The Angeloi when they came to power, caused a revolt in Bulgaria by raising the tax levels and proving incapable of destroying the revolt afterwards. Under Alexios III the Empire's wealth was wasted on bribing the aristocracy and the army to remain loyal to the Emperor and the Bulgarians managed to conquer extensive territories alongside the Seljuqs who benefitted from the new internal problems of the Roman state. It was dynastic struggle between the Angeloi that was one of the main factors in bringing the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople

[charles the hammer]

Those points are all true, although my late easterm roman empire isnt as good as it should be, so I do have some issue discussing those points at length.

[Tiberios]

Well I could be talking out of my ass, but I base this mainly on the book, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

the Aggeloi is not the only one to be blamed, I think. Manuel I Komnenos's diplomacy too relied on the bribery, which in his latter years turned out to be too demanding to his people. The severity of the pain was getting worse as the time went by.

One bad thing of the Komnenian era was high taxation.
In order to rebuild and sustain the army and navy funds were needed. And these funds were hard to find considering that half of Asia Minor, the richest area of the Empire was lost and the other half was daily attacked by Turcoman hordes. Also, there's another factor which had started becoming very important during the later Komnenian era. The taking over of trade in the Eastern Mediterranean by the Italian cities, such as Venice. It's understandable that the most important source of income were the taxes on the poor people. Unfortunately this proved to be disastrous for the Byzantine low class citizens who were the base on which the Byzantine Empire was standing and the source of the Byzantine soldiers.

Anyway, there's no doubt that the Aggeloi were probably the worst dynasty ever to rule Byzantium. Their military and diplomatic decisions, as well as the civil strife between them destroyed the Empire.

[Exarch]

Because he failed to conquer Byzantium back to the size of 10th Century?

But be honest half of "the Great" are just overrated.

indeed
if anything, he should be called "the devious"

[Antigenes]

On Alexios I, I think that it's reasonable to credit him with some Good Things (like not letting the Empire die and stuff, if you're into that sort of thing) and some Bad Things (like cocking up the recovery). His high-risk preventive defense was only effective so long as it had good managers (like Ioannes II and Manouel I) running it; with Andronikos I or the Angeloi, it was a recipe for disaster. I doubt we'll have a very good idea of how "possible" a sustained reconquest of the Anatolian Plateau was for Alexios, but it was certainly less possible than it could have been due to some poor decisions he made.

"The Great" is probably going overboard, since Leon III, Eirene, Nikephoros II, Ioannes I, and Basileios II don't get that moniker with arguably more worthiness.

Well I could be talking out of my ass, but I base this mainly on the book, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos.

A good book on which to base an opinion of Manouel I. Magdalino is good, if a little bit overenthusiastic about his biographical subject; he seems to go out of his way to excuse Bad Things as 'not being Manouel's fault'. Angold (1997) is a useful corrective, as is Birkenmeier (2002).

[Tiberios]

A good book on which to base an opinion of Manouel I. Magdalino is good, if a little bit overenthusiastic about his biographical subject; he seems to go out of his way to excuse Bad Things as 'not being Manouel's fault'. Angold (1997) is a useful corrective, as is Birkenmeier (2002).

Yes I agree. Magdalino does indeed seem to excuse Manuel many times and lacks a bit of criticism of the Emperor I think.