Tag Archives: Rome

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (10)

Posted on by

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome

 

(10) BEST: MAJORIAN

(457 – 461 AD: 4 YEARS 11 MONTHS 1 DAY – NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS)

 

The last, best hope for the western Roman Empire, but alas it was not to be – albeit enough for him to be one of the historical figures labeled as the “Last of the Romans”.

There were probably emperors who might well have outranked Majorian for a place in my top ten but I just couldn’t resist Majorian for my usual wildcard entry in tenth place. What can I say? I’m a romantic for people fighting against the odds.

I also have a soft spot for stories of so-called lost legions, those left still standing or holding the line beyond the high tide mark of the empire – and Majorian was virtually a lost legion all to himself.

When I first found out about Majorian, it was a revelation. I had assumed that by the time of his reign, the western Roman empire was essentially dead on its feet, still standing only as it was propped up by the German barbarian tribes that had all but conquered it. After all, by 457 AD, Rome had been sacked twice by Visigoths and Vandals respectively, narrowly avoiding a third sack by Attila the Hun. Its emperors had all seemed to be one feeble emperor after another, useless or puppets (or both), as well as less than two decades away from the last such emperor being deposed altogether.

Majorian was having none of that. Seemingly cut from the same cloth as another entry in this top ten two centuries earlier, he strove to pull the empire out of its spiral of doom, defeating all of Rome’s enemies he fought even in that twilight of the western empire.

He had of course come from a distinguished military career, starting and serving under none other than that other legendary last of the Romans Flavius Aetius, particularly distinguishing himself fighting against the Franks. That saw him rise to the position of magister militum in the western empire, along with Ricimer, a Romanised German general who was increasingly the maker and breaker of emperors in the western empire.

Upon rising to the imperial throne, he defeated another attack by the Vandals on Italy, before setting upon the reconquest of former imperial territory in Gaul and Hispania, defeating the unruly barbarian allies or ‘foederati’ who had overrun that territory to return them to subordinate status and confined areas of settlement – the Visigoths, the Burgundians and the Suebi.

The jewel in the crown of his reconquest was to be the Vandal kingdom, which had conquered the Roman province of Africa – province of Rome’s old enemy Carthage and whose wealth and grain had formerly been the lifeblood of the western Roman empire – for its own, definitely not as subordinate foederati like other barbarian tribes in the empire.

Had he engaged them on the battlefield, one might anticipate that he would have defeated them as he had consistently defeated all his other adversaries (including the Vandals themselves in Italy) – but alas it was not to be. He did not get to engage them in the battlefield at all, as the fleet he had painstakingly built was scattered or destroyed, usually attributed to treachery paid by the Vandals.

Defeat as they say is an orphan – and Majorian soon found himself orphaned by history, betrayed and assassinated by his former colleague Ricimer.

In fairness, it is not clear whether Majorian could have decisively reversed or stalled the fall of the western empire, although surely his position would have been much improved by the reconquest of Africa.

It is tempting to imagine counterfactuals as to what he could have achieved if he had been able reconquer Africa. Or if the Leonid dynasty in the eastern empire, which pretty much sat around being useless until after 476 AD when emperors such as Zeno and Anastasius ascended the throne, had decided to lend its fleet to the campaign by Majorian rather doing so on its own a few years later for its chosen emperor Anthemius, resulting in disastrous defeat and near bankruptcy for itself. One can imagine that in those circumstances the western Roman empire may well have endured, perhaps long enough to when the eastern empire under Justinian lent itself in earnest to reclaiming or restoring its western half.

However, the precariousness of Majorian’s position and achievements are perhaps demonstrated by the extent to which his fleet could be exposed to treachery paid by the Vandals, or he himself could be deposed and assassinated by Ricimer – not to mention how quickly his reconquests unravelled afterwards.

Still, I tend to share the opinion of Edward Gibbon, who wrote that Majorian “presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species”.

(By the way, if I was to add Roman emperors after 476 AD, this is probably where I’d substitute Alexios Komnenos – as arguably Majorian and Alexios were operating on similar scales in attempting to salvage or restore their empires, except Alexios succeeded in his attempt)

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

MAXIMUS:

I’m not sure the western Roman empire had victory titles or triumphs at that late stage, but he damn well deserved them for his victories over the Franks and Alamanni prior to his accession to the throne, and over the Vandals (in Italy), Visigoths, Burgundians and Suebi as emperor.

 

DEIFIED:

With Christianity as the official religion of the empire, the Romans had ceased deifying emperors, but perhaps literary deification as the Last of the Romans

 

EMPIRE SAVER:

Sadly, almost but not quite. At least saved it for a few more years.

 

SPECTRUM COMPARISON RANKING:

Spectrum ranks the western Roman emperors after 395 AD separately, but not surprisingly ranks Majorian at the top of those – he was the standout after all.

Dovahhatty of course ranks him as a chad, even quoting Gibbon.

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors

Posted on by

 

 

Dilettantes think about the Roman Empire. True Roman connoisseurs rank the Roman emperors.

I owe my own rankings to the influence and inspiration of truer Roman connoisseurs than me. You don’t get more of a true Roman connoisseur than the Youtuber and X-Twitter account Daily Roman Updates, named for his updates on the Roman Empire (“It’s gone”) – and I’m prompted by his joke about asking favorite Roman emperors as an icebreaker at dates or parties, despite his inner voice repeatedly pleading with him not to say to say it.

 

 

Of course, any such ranking is subjective opinion, although there does appear to be some broad consensus (or consensuses?) about the good or better Roman emperors. You don’t get such common labels as “the five good emperors” (which I understand to have originated with Machiavelli and been advanced by Gibbon) without some consensus.

Or the phrase used by the Roman Senate itself in the inauguration of later Roman emperors, invoking two emperors as the paragons of Roman emperors. Don’t be surprised if the emperors from either the five good emperors or the Senate’s inauguration phrase feature prominently in my top ten.

And again I am influenced in my rankings by truer Roman connoisseurs. I’ve seen a post by Daily Roman Updates of his top five Roman emperors, which is largely the same as my own but for one notable exception (which we’ll get to shortly).

Similarly, the Youtuber Spectrum has ranked the Roman emperors in videos and my rankings echo his in many respects, although I dissent in others.

While the Youtuber Dovahhatty – whose Unbiased History of Rome videos are probably my single biggest influence for Roman history on Youtube but who now sadly appears to be inactive there and on X-Twitter – does not actually rank the emperors, he does depict them by meme cartoon figures as being (good) chads or (bad) virgins, with the occasional (good or bad) wojaks. Of course, his tongue is firmly in his parody cheek, such as when he depicts some of the worst Roman emperors as the chads they proclaimed themselves to be.

Of course, by definition I am only ranking my top ten Roman emperors, but I do rank the balance of ‘good’ Roman emperors in my special mentions. And because you can’t rank the best Roman emperors without also ranking the worst Roman emperors as well – primarily because the worst Roman emperors are legendary in their cruelty and depravity – I rank my ten worst Roman emperors with the balance similarly in their own special mentions.

As for any matter of subjective opinion, my criteria for ranking my top emperors are somewhat loose, but primarily might be stated to be their effectiveness in managing or maintaining the empire – which may give rise to some moral dissonance as to what we might look for in leaders of modern democratic states today, given that the lifeblood of empire was brutal war or conquest, “they make a desert and call it peace”.

Conversely, my criteria for the ranking of the worst emperors might be stated to be their ineffectiveness, often characterized by imperial defeats and usually combined with that aforementioned legendary cruelty and depravity.

As for the ground rules for whom I rank, my primary rule is that I am only ranking Roman emperors until 476 AD, when the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed (with the exception I do not include eastern emperor Zeno, who reigned briefly in 474-475 AD before returning for a longer second reign from 476 onwards).

That’s really just a matter of brevity and also that I am more familiar with the ‘classical’ Roman emperors. I know that is short-changing the eastern Roman emperors, particularly as they had a millennium of imperial history after that and probably had more basic competence or effectiveness on average, or at least not the same depths of legendary cruelty and depravity as their worst counterparts in the classical empire.

So yes – sorry Byzantine bros, I am not ranking any eastern Roman emperors from 476 AD onwards in my top ten. Instead, they will get their own special mentions, good and bad, in which I will effectively rank my top best and worst eastern Roman emperors, just only against each other and not among Roman emperors as a whole.

Oh well, what the hell – you can have a ranking of eastern Roman emperors for my top ten as a treat. I rank Basil II (the Bulgar-Slayer) as the best eastern Roman emperor and he would easily rank in my top ten if it extended to 1453 AD. (He was that notable exception for Daily Roman Updates’ top five emperors as against my own, although I’m not sure I’d rank him quite as high).

Otherwise, I’d rank Justinian (narrowly missing out in a close call for best eastern Roman emperor) and Heraclius in my top ten emperors if extended to 1453 AD – probably also Alexios I Komnenos, although he illustrates the further problem of scale between the eastern Roman empire and the classical empire in comparing the emperors of both together. That is, he was operating on a far smaller scale than the emperors of the classical empire – although that also cuts both ways in that he overcame the greater challenges of fewer resources against more powerful enemies posing a genuine existential threat.

As for top ten worst Roman Emperors, I’d easily rank the eastern Roman emperor (and usurper) Phocas among them, pronouncing judgement in the same terms as Heraclius “Is this how you have ruled, wretch?”

On that note, I acknowledge my hubris from my armchair of hindsight in judging people, the least of which has ruled far more than anything I ever have (as in anything at all) – although I’d like to think that I’d have done a better job than the worst of them. Oh, who am I kidding? I’d be partying it up to legendary depravity as well.

My ground rule still leaves the issue of which emperors to rank prior to 476, given the list of claimants to that title – a list that as historian Adrian Goldsworthy points out is likely never to be complete or exhaustive, given the paucity of the contemporary historical record and that we are still finding ‘imperial’ coins minted in the name of new or unknown claimants.

So I’ve gone by Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors, although I reserved the right to consider their entries noted to be of more dubious legitimacy in further honorable (or dishonorable) mentions.

Finally, in addition to my usual star and tier-rankings (which, given that I’m also ranking the worst emperors, goes all the way down to 1 star and F-tier rankings), I also have some other rankings for emperors:

MAXIMUS

The clearest ranking, since it’s the victory titles awarded to or claimed by Roman emperors (setting aside of course the title of emperor or imperator itself) for victories in battle against adversaries or opponents, which I’ll extend to include literal triumphs (for their triumphal processions in Rome)

DEIFIED OR DAMNED

Again a relatively clear ranking (albeit not always), for emperors who were deified after their deaths (I’ll allow this to include sainted) or damned – that is the subject of a damnatio memoriae, or cancelled posthumously to use the modern term. Of course, deification became a little like the Roman currency in the later empire – so routine that it became debased.

EMPIRE MAKER / SAVIOR OR EMPIRE BREAKER / DEBASER (DEBAUCHER)

Exactly what it says on the tin – my own particular (and hence subjective) distinction for those (good) emperors that made or saved the empire – or the (bad) emperors that broke or debased it (bonus points for debauching it as well). Debased the empire that is, not the currency – all emperors did the latter, with a few exceptions, although I will point out those worthy of particular mention

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON

Because of the influence of Spectrum’s rankings for me, I’ll compare them to my own. I’ll also note Dovahhatty’s chad/virgin/wojak rankings here.

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (20)

Posted on by

 

(20) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??

 

Pax Americana. Washington DC – the Fourth Rome!

 

Friends, Romans, countrymen – we’re at the bottom of the Roman Empire iceberg here!

 

I’m joking. The United States has never claimed succession from the Roman Empire, nor has even the most tenuous basis for doing so – although “Americans have been comparing their country to Rome since its foundation” and “in shaping the new country, the Founding Fathers consciously hoped to copy the strengths of the Roman Republic and avoid its eventual downfall”.

 

Unless you accept such metaphysical fantasy claims as in the Percy Jackson series or in John Crowley’s “Little, Big” that the realm of Olympus or the Holy Roman Empire has transferred to it.

 

However, I’m joking and I’m serious. It is a claim that is so often made for it, not least by Americans themselves, that it has become something of a trope – often overlooking that the same trope was also used for the British Empire and its Pax Britannica. (Now people tend to deflect to the British or Europeans being the Greek predecessors to the American Romans).

 

In his preface to “The Fall of the West: The Death of the Roman Superpower”, Adrian Goldsworthy laments that “at certain sorts of parties” the discovery that he is an ancient historian “almost inevitably prompts someone to remark that ‘America is the new Rome'” – “more often than not this is followed by a smug, ‘Of course, they don’t see it.'”

 

As Goldsworthy opines, “any close look at the Roman Empire will soon reveal massive differences from any modern state, including the United States” – although of course there remains the point of comparison that the United States “is overwhelmingly the strongest country in the world and in this sense its position mirrors that of Rome”.

 

Bonus points for having as the most recognizable eagle standard in popular culture – and arguably that most closely resembling the Roman eagle in visual design (as opposed to species).

 

Also bonus points that it, like the latter-day Visigoths or Vandals that preceded and were driven out by it, the United States did technically meet my high-tier ranking criterion by occupying Rome from June 1944 in the Second World War.

 

And while on the subject of American connections to latter-day Italy, if nothing else the United States did give the world the Italian-American film Caligula in 1979 (produced by Bob Guccione and Penthouse) – which along with Suetonius (on which it is largely based) I take as gospel about the reign of Caligula and has influenced my perceptions of the Roman Empire in perpetuity ever since. No – this is not a subject in which I will entertain my debate. And yes – I strive where I can to reserve my final special mention for some kinky entry where the subject permits. I believe I’ve fulfilled that obligation.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (19)

Posted on by

 

(19) ITALY?

 

Well you had to see this one coming – although the Roman Empire may have shifted east, the city of Rome remained in Italy after all. I remember an internet meme to that effect, something about God punishing the Romans by turning them into Italians…

So naturally Rome became the focus of modern Italian nationalism, along with concepts of the revival of the Roman Empire or at least the revival of Rome with respect to a unified Italy – and beyond to a colonial empire and Mediterranean supremacy.

Italian nationalists such as Giuseppe Mazzini even promoted the notion of the Third Rome, although Mazzini substituted the papacy for Constantinople as the Second Rome – “After the Rome of the emperors, after the Rome of the Popes, there will come the Rome of the people.”

“After the Italian unification into the Kingdom of Italy, the state was referred to as the Third Rome by some Italian figures. After unification, Rome was chosen as capital despite its relative backwardness as it evoked the prestige of the former Empire. Mazzini spoke of the need of Italy as a Third Rome to have imperial aspirations, to be realized in the Italian Empire. Mazzini said that Italy should “invade and colonize Tunisian lands” as it was the “key to the Central Mediterranean”, and he viewed Italy as having the right to dominate the Mediterranean Sea as ancient Rome had done.”

And so the new Italy set about acquiring the crappiest of the eight modern major European colonial empires, partly because it was a latecomer from its unification in 1871 – and it was the only European power to be decisively defeated by one of its targets in Africa, Abyssinia or Ethiopia, at the Battle of Adwa in 1896.

Infamously, Mussolini also evoked the Roman Empire, referring to his regime as the Third Rome or New Roman Empire – perhaps most embarrassingly out of all my special mention revivals of the empire, not unlike an elderly relative trying to replicate some feat of their youth at a family gathering to look cool.

Or the sequel that no one wanted as per the meme of the original Roman empire as a TV series.

 

 

In fairness, he did manage to avenge the Italian defeat at the Battle of Adwa, (briefly) conquering Ethiopia, but if anything, this and other territory that he acquired such as Albania made his empire even crappier. The crown jewel of the Italian colonial empire, Libya, didn’t even have oil as they hadn’t discovered it then (and I recall reading even if they had it was beyond the contemporary drilling technology, although those two things probably overlap) – an irony that might have struck Rommel and his fuel-starved Afrika Korps had they known they were driving over some of the world’s largest oil reserves. That’s what happens when you try for a Mediterranean empire at least half a millennium or so after the world’s economic center of gravity had moved on from the Mediterranean.

Also in fairness, I should point out that Italy, even under Mussolini’s sequel no one wanted, did have Rome in it – my foremost criterion for high-tier ranking. So we might add another year for the fall of the Roman Empire – 1943, for the Italian surrender to the Allies in the Second World War. I have actually seen this proposed, although the person proposing it clearly had their tongue firmly in their cheek.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (18)

Posted on by

 

(18) GERMANY?

 

Similarly to Austria, Germany picked up the Holy Roman Empire ball and ran with it when unified under the Prussian monarchy as the German Empire in 1871, styled as the Second Reich after the Holy Roman Empire’s First Reich and with the same imperial title of kaiser derived from Caesar.

Hence the title of Third Reich, also touted to last a thousand years like the First Reich (spoiler – it lasted only twelve) – although apparently that was downplayed later as the Holy Roman association was a little too cosmopolitan and not quite, well, German enough.

In fairness, that last Reich did technically meet my high-tier ranking criterion by occupying Rome, if only for less than a year. It also had one of the most recognizable eagle standards, adapted from the Reichsadler of its imperial predecessors.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD-TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (17)

Posted on by

 

(17) GREECE?

 

Probably not too surprising that modern Greece would claim the mantle of the eastern Roman Empire as its former heartland.

Indeed, after Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, it developed the “Megali Idea” or Great Idea “of recreating the Byzantine Empire, understood as an ethnic-Greek polity with capital in Constantinople”, or the “Greece of Two Continents and Five Seas” (Europe and Asia, the Ionian, Aegean, Marmara, Black and Libyan seas, respectively)”.

Apparently, the idea popped up in political debates in 1844, although of course it had older roots. And Greece took a swing at it in the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 when the opportunity seemed to present itself with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. That didn’t work out too well for them, as while the Ottoman Empire was gone, the new republic of Turkey was not as down and out as everyone had first thought.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (16)

Posted on by

 

(16) AUSTRIA?

 

Yeah, Austria picked up the Roman succession ball through the Holy Roman Empire, which had essentially become a title held by the Austrian Habsburg monarchy while everyone else played along with it.

That is, until Napoleon Bonaparte came along and told them to drop it in 1806 – but the Austrians still ran with it for their own empire, borrowing from the imagery and symbolism of the Holy Roman Empire, not least with the imperial eagle as symbol, even after Austria became a republic.

That’s it, though – but arguably still not the wildest or most tenuous of my wild-tier special mentions.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (15)

Posted on by

 

 

(15) FRANCE?

 

Well, the French monarchy did snap up the title of Emperor of Constantinople from Andreas Palaiologos in his imperial title garage sale to Charles VIII in 1494 prior to him bequeathing it to Spain, for what either was worth.

Spoiler alert – it was worth nothing, although surprisingly the French monarchy apparently used the title until Charles IX could no longer keep a straight face about it in 1566.

And there it lay, until Napoleon Bonaparte, never one to lack for audacity, claimed the mantle of the Roman Empire at his imperial coronation as Emperor of the French in 1804 – albeit through the heritage of the Frankish and Carolingian Empires, as the founders of the Holy Roman Empire.

He imitated Charlemagne’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, down to having Pope Pius VII at the ceremony. Although unlike that pansy Charlemagne, Napoleon crowned himself rather than having the pope crown him (embellished in historical legend as Napoleon snatching the crown from the Pope).

In fairness, Napoleon did at least achieve what is otherwise my high-tier ranking criterion of occupying Rome itself, which places his claim somewhat above other wild tier claims.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (14)

Posted on by

 

(14) SPAIN?

 

Hola, Caesar! Or is that ole Caesar!

Here we are, starting my wild tier successors to Rome, those states that tenuously staked their claims more to the myth or metaphor of Rome in nationalist terms rather than any continuity with the Empire. We’re at the bottom of the Roman succession iceberg here, people.

Of these wild and tenuous claims, I was surprised to find Spain has the most depth to theirs, arguably making it the least wild and tenuous of these wild tier claims (or higher up the iceberg). Don’t worry – we’ll get increasingly wild and tenuous as we go.

If nothing else, at least Spain gave us the term Latin as a substantial label for ethnicity – as well as for geography with Latin America, claiming one continent and a large part of another.

Firstly, there was its loose dynastic claim of succession, starting with Spain’s succession from the Visigothic monarchy as heirs or successors to the Roman Empire in Spain. Subsequent Spanish monarchs apparently used the title Imperator totius Hispaniae to assert equality with the eastern and Holy Roman Empires.

Those claims of succession became a little more concrete firstly when “the last titular holder heir to the rank of Eastern Roman emperor, Andreas Palaiologos” purported to bequeath what he saw as his imperial title and domains in Greece, themselves pretty tenuous claims on his part (particularly as he’d already purported to sell them to another special mention entry), to the ‘Catholic Monarchs’ of the now unified Spain, Ferdinand II and Isabella I, by his will written in 1502.

It gets a lot messier than that – with dynastic claims to the Crusader vassal states to the Latin Empire in Greece and the Spanish crown’s territories in Italy thrown in to the mix. Preempting something of a recurring meme in history, Andreas apparently had grandiose dreams of a Spanish crown crusade from its territories in Italy to reconquer the imperial claims in Greece and ultimately to Constantinople itself. Sadly however, the Spanish monarchy ignored “its Byzantine imperial titles”, although it did gain the title of “King of Jerusalem” from the pope and square off in war with that other claimant of Roman succession, the Ottoman Empire.

With Charles I, the Spanish monarchy also succeeded to the title of Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 – “the first time, since the coronation of Charlemagne in 800, in which the Romano-Germanic and Byzantine crowns coincided in the same person”, albeit that seems to me more like historical sleight of hand for both Charles and Charlemagne.

Anyway, Spanish claims to the succession of the Roman empire go on from these dynastic claims to include more broadly geopolitical and cultural claims – dare I say it, themes and memes of Roman empire – including the Spanish empire in the Americas.

“With all of this history in the Spanish Monarchy, Spanish nationalism claims that there is a legitimate ideological-dynastic (titles of Emperor of Constantinople and King of Jerusalem in the Spanish Crown, also in the past have been Holy Roman Emperor), geostrategic (kingdom of Naples and Sicily together, the conquests of North African plazas in Barbary, like Melilla, Ceuta, Mazalquivir, Oran, Bugia and Peñón of Algiers) and cultural basis (being a Latin country) to claim the inheritance of the Roman Empire.”

“This claim is also reinforced by the history of Spanish colonization of the Americas, which a lot of Hispanists claim is the definitive proof that Spain is the most accurate heir of Rome’s imperial legacy, as Spain was important for the culture of a continent, America (the New World), like Rome was to Europe (the Old World), some even claim that Spain surpassed Rome, since it also knew how to unify diverse peoples for centuries and maintaining cultural unity despite the imperial collapse. Even today there are opinions in which Philip VI of Spain is considered the nearest heir of Rome.”

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empire (Special Mentions) (13)

Posted on by

 

(13) SERBIAN EMPIRE (1346-1371 AD)

 

Okay, this empire and its claim to the Roman Empire came down to the man who made both, the Serbian emperor (Stefan) Dusan the Mighty. He was succeeded by his son Usok the Weak, but you can guess how well it all went after that by comparing their two epithets.

Dusan proclaimed himself Emperor – once again Tsar from Caesar – not only of the Serbs but of the Greeks or Romans as well, a title signifying a claim to the succession of the Byzantine Empire, then in the last century or so of its existence.

In fairness, he did put his money where his mouth was, having “expanded his state to cover half of the Balkans, more territory than either the Byzantine Empire or the Second Bulgarian Empire in that time” – including substantial territory conquered from the former in Greece.

Like the Bulgarian Empire or the Sultanate of Rum, it did not achieve my foremost high-tier ranking criterion of occupying Constantinople, but came close enough in the conquests for its claim to rank in high tier. And also like them, at least it staked its claim while the empire was still alive, albeit in its last century or so of life – ranking it above my wild-tier special mention entries who staked their claim to the empire’s corpse in the West…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)