Justinian and Basil II are considered to be the greatest Eastern Roman emperors in the history of the empire. In comparison with his successors, Justinian managed to greatly expand the territory of the empire while at the same time, reform the law code of the empire. The previous emperors, had done a great job at maintaining the empire while the Western Roman Empire was disintegrating as result of constant civil wars and usurpations done by rival claimants to the throne. Justinian built upon those successes and expanded the empire to its greatest extent that it would ever see in its history. However, within a century of Justinian reign, most of the gains that he made would be lost and the empire would change completely. Instead of distant provinces, the empire would be defined by the semi-autonomous themes, where the aristocracy would be responsible for maintaining those territories instead of the central government. The apogee of this new system would come under the reign of Basil II, a soldier emperor who spent time with his soldiers and eating from the same rations as them, endearing him to them.
Justinian’s empire would be different from the one that would be fighting the Seijuks and Normans more than 500 years later. That empire was more culturally homogenous than of Justinian’s. The empire under Justinian was more culturally diverse and contained a great variety of peoples. For example, Egypt was a great source of grain for the empire, allowing for Constantinople to grow into a large metropolis that was probably one of the largest on the globe at that time. Egypt and the provinces of Syria and North Africa were some of the wealthiest in the empire, giving the empire ample resources to conduct war, especially offensive ones. In comparison, the empire of Basil II always seemed to be teetering on the verge of fragmentation; after Basil II had passed away, his empire began to disintegrate, with his successors being incompetent and unable to maintain the structures and laws that allowed for the empire to grow. Even though Basil II’s empire was stronger than it had been several generations before, in some ways was weaker than that of Justinian due to the fact, that its military was more dependent on the aristocracy and not a centralized authority.
The empire under Justinian was also more diverse in terms of religion. The Eastern Roman Empire would face much unrest relating to religion. The Eastern Roman Empire under Basil II was more culturally integrated than that of Justinian. The emperor Justinian had to contend with entire Christian sects that were competing for dominance between each other. The emperor would also have to deal with the community of Jews in the holy land, who often resented the control that the Byzantine state wielded over them. This often led into great upheaval that would be prove disastrous in 7th century, when the Jews in the holy land revolted against the emperor Heraclius and invited in the Sassanians to come take over the holy land. Basil II did not have to worry about such religious turmoil as the empire was more unified on the topic of religion. The empire had already settled the icons question in the 9th century and was more able to flex its religious muscles with the sending of missionaries to the Rus and other pagan states in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
Justinian’s empire had a stronger economy than that of Basil II. While under Basil II and previous soldier emperors, the empire was beginning to urbanize, it was not the same as it had been under Justinian. The empire of Justinian retained many of the features of the Greco-Roman urbanization that occurred in the earlier years of the empire. Before the onset of the plague and disastrous war with the Persians, The empire under Justinian had several populous cities under its control. There was an increase in urbanization before Justinian became emperor and it continued, though it would be tempered by the plague and the wars to come. In comparison, Basil II’s empire was definitely more urbanized than the empire had been in 8th and 9th centuries. The recovery of the economy from the 7th century slump meant that there was greater economic impetus for cities to grow. However, urbanization in the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire would not reach its height until the 12th century.
One of the things that has always intrigued me was which empire was more durable. I believe that Justinian’s empire was probably more endurable due to the fact that the empire was able to hold onto its conquered territories for a longer period of time than that of the empire under Basil II. Justinian’s empire was not as culturally unified as Basil II’s but it is was stronger in its terms of its military. Basil II was famous for his warring activity, being able to conquer their rivals, the Bulgarians in a grueling campaign. In spite of this, the emperor was unable to build a foundation that would be able endure after him. Within a few years, the empire would be losing tons of territory to the Seijuk Turks, who took advantage of the civil wars for the imperial throne to move into the Anatolian plateau after several military victories against the Byzantine armies. Justinian’s successors, as much they were not up to his standard in terms of accomplishments, were able to at least maintain the empire’s territorial integrity until the mid 7th centuries, when the Arabs would swiftly move in and conquer swaths of territory.
Basil II is seen by many as the apogee of the medieval Byzantine state. I generally agree with this. Just as Justinian was seen as the apogee of the early Byzantine state, Basil II was the greatest of his time. However, his empire was weaker and not as strong in comparison to that of Justinian. They were literally only a few battles away from having their territories being stolen away from them. This is one of the caveats that that has to be added to any discussion about Basil II. He was a highly effective emperor for sure but he was only one in a line of soldier emperors. Once the era of soldier emperors had past, there wasn’t much left that allowed for one incompetent emperor to cause the whole system to start falling apart at the seams. This is why I see Justinian as being the emperor who had a greater impact on the course of history because his accomplishments were much more enduring. Basil II may have been a great warrior as well as a lawgiver but his successors just threw out his reforms once they came into power; in comparison, Justinian’s successors maintained what he built, even if the conquests were overstretching the empire’s resources. My view is that Justinian is the greater emperor than Basil II and that his empire was more enduring.
Byzantine-Empire.com 