Throughout history there are many rulers who are the pride of their people and nation. One of the things about the Roman Empire is that it was a long-lived state, with a great variety of rulers who held onto the grip of power. For us history buffs, the Roman state is a fascinating state to study, mainly because of the personalities of its rulers. There are the good emperors like Augustus, Vespasian, and Hadrian. Then there are the bad emperors like Caligula and Nero. Then there are some in between. Specifically, I want to talk about two warrior emperors who are separated by a millennium but are representative of their eras. Trajan was the apex of the Ancient Roman state, bringing the state to its greatest extent that it would ever see; Basil II was also the apex of the medieval Eastern Roman state. They both have their similarities and differences but both are considered the best of their respective empires.
Trajan unlike Basil II began his life as a provincial citizen of the Roman Empire. His father was a prominent senator and general. His father had served with distinction with Vespasian during the Jewish Revolt of 69 AD, commanding a legion. His provincial status is very important as Trajan’s status represents a shift in the Empire’s demographics and power groups. Previously, all emperors were from Italy, the heartland of the Roman Empire. As the Roman state gained more and more territory, it began bringing in all different types of people. Originally, the state was centered around the city of Rome. The 2nd century would see the rise of provincial emperors, rulers who did not hail from the Italian heartland. This is one of the main differences between Trajan and Basil II. Basil II was born into the purple in Constantinople, which meant that his ruling family was close to the center of power. Trajan’s family, though they were originally from Italy, had settled in Hispania Baetica. His father, Marcus Ulpius Traianus eventually served as governor of the province, where Trajan would spend his formative years.
Trajan would eventually serve with distinction in the Roman military, one of the similarities between him and Basil II. They were both military men and made careers in the soldiering profession. Basil II was very adept at horseback riding and proved himself to be a capable soldier as well as ruler, being very diligent in his studies of administrative duties and military science. However, Trajan would spend his military years in an Empire that was completely different from that of Basil II. The Roman Empire in the years of Trajan had much breathing room for it to operate. It dominated the entire of the Mediterranean and its frontiers were on the Rhine, Danube, the Sahara deserts, and the Euphrates Rivers. The empire was a superpower beyond any rival state, probably excluding Han China. Trajan would have spent his time in the military, being involved in the very machinery of this mighty and large imperial project known as the Roman Empire. Trajan eventually would transfer his experience to a consulship that he would be awarded with in the year 91.
After Emperor Domitian’s assassination in the year 96, Trajan would find himself elevated to heir of the Empire by the elderly Emperor Nerva. He received this honor solely due to his military achievements. During the reign of Emperor Nerva, Trajan ruled Germania Superior (Upper Germany). By the time that Nerva passed away in January of 98, Trajan ascended to the throne as Emperor. This is quite a difference with Basil II. Basil II was coronated emperor when he merely a toddler who had barely begun to walk; Trajan achieved the ultimate power goal in the empire at the age of an adult.
Trajan’s ascension to the throne went off without much incident, except for the execution of a particularly troublesome Praterorian Prefect. Basil II in comparison would have to deal with a raging rebellion by the Anatolian military aristocracy and Bardas Phokas and Bardas Skleros. This rebellion would engulf the entirely of the first part of his reign. In comparison, Trajan was able to spend most of his time(before he would launch wars against Parthia and Dacia, focused on building projects and building up his relationship with the senate.
Basil II unlike Trajan, governed more like an autocrat, After defeating the twin rebellions of Bardas Skelleros and Phokas, he learned an important lesson in imperial from the defeated Skelleros. He stated verbatim: “Cut down the governors who become over-proud. Let no generals on campaign have too many resources. Exhaust them with unjust exactions, to keep them busied with their own affairs. Admit no woman to the imperial councils. Be accessible to no-one. Share with few your most intimate plans.”. Trajan unlike Basil, would attempt to portray himself as a man who reluctantly wanted power, much in line with the spirit of the age. The Emperor of the 2nd century was supposed to be a Princeps, an equal among men, not above them. That was not the case in the 11th century; the emperor, who was supposed to be above other men and ruled with absolute power with no illusions of the Republican ideal that had once existed in the Empire.
The military activity of the two men followed a similar path. They both sought to enlarge the empire to reasonable apexes. Trajan’s task was in some ways easier and more indulgent; the empire he commanded was already large and had no real rivals that could threaten it, excluding the Parthians and the Germanic tribes. Basil II on the other hand had to contend with a very powerful rival, Bulgaria, which was threatening the empire on several occasions. Bulgaria, unlike the Parthians, had territory very close to the capital, Constantinople. They had repeatedly gotten themselves in wars with the Eastern Romans, defeating them on several times. The war that Basil II would fight in Bulgaria would be hard and long one, taking many years and seeing Basil II himself be on the front lines. Trajan also served on the front lines of war, taking the battle to the Dacian tribes who had bested Roman troops during the reign of Domitian. However, his wars are indulgent in comparison with that of Basil. The war against Parthia was one of imperial conquest and expansion. The war against Bulgaria was one of utter necessity to the Roman state; It was important for the survival of the Roman state as a whole.
In terms of coinage, one can see the difference in how both ages represented their rulers. In the case of Trajan, the human face is depicted with a great deal of realism and thought. On the back of the coins, generally speaking, there would be images of Roman gods or goddesses, generally Victory. On a special commemorative coin celebrating his victory in Dacia, Trajan’s image would decorate the front of the coin while a depiction of Trajan’s column would on the reverse of the coin. Military prowess was something that classical Roman culture prized above all else. This is one of the reasons that Trajan is known as the Optimus Princeps. In comparison, Basil II is depicted in a more stylistic manner compared to Trajan. He is often seen with his brother, Constantine VIII, who lingered in the shadows of his rule up until his passing away in 1025 AD. They both seen holding a cross together, a symbol of how Christianity had taken over the mental space of Romans by the 11th Century. No longer were coins being used to celebrate victories, they were being used to show how pious and devoted to Christ they were. On the reverse of such coins, Christ would be depicted with honor and devotion that would be expected of a Christian state.
Trajan’s empire would be more enduring than that of Basil II’s, considering that the Roman Empire had many more years ahead of it. In comparison, Basil II’s empire would start stagnating and falling apart as soon as the throne passed on to his brother, Constantine VIII. I think that Trajan’s conquests were smartly analyzed by his successor, Hadrian, who decided that the only territories worth holding onto were the gold-rich lands of Dacia. There was no such successor for Basil II. His brother was an incompetent man, squandering all that Basil had built. The emperors afterwards would not much better. Trajan’s succesors were truly men fit for the times; they maintained and fortified the borders of the empire, giving it breathing room. Similar to Justinian, its possible that Basil II may have overextended the borders of the Roman Empire in the in 11th century, providing an opportunity for its rivals to take advantage of the weakening borders.
Overall, I feel that Trajan was the better emperor than Basil II. Trajan truly represented the ethics of the age, being a man among equals and not allowing himself to have too many delusions of grandeur. While Basil II was definitely an effective emperor and probably one of the best ”medieval” Roman emperors, his accomplishments are muddied by the fact that he did not leave the empire in the hands of an heir that would be able to steer the ship through the dangerous storm that was the geopolitical situation in Southern Europe and Asia Minor. He needed to give the empire to someone who was able capable of ruling the empire. Instead, he gave it to his brother. Trajan made the right decision in comparison, adopting Hadrian as his heir. He couldn’t have made a better decision towards the latter parts of his reign.
Trajan and Basil II were both immense figures on the historical stage. They were both incredible men who managed to conquer a great deal of land. Today, they represent the pride of their respective peoples.
Byzantine-Empire.com 