I feel like I'm going to get a lot of slaps for the red row, haha!
Let me clarify, my sympathies (as well as the character's interestingness) range from red to purple.
Gray - characters about whom it is difficult for me to say anything specific.
White - characters of which there are so few that they are easily forgotten or lost.
I just watched a couple of videos on YouTube about the philosophy of sci-fi, and I was really offended that when mentioning works, almost all of them are TV series, but no anime. And then a question arose in my mind: what if it had been possible to make a live-action adaptation of the book in the 80s, with the budget and capabilities of TV series of that time?
Yes, I know it sounds like a pipe dream - such production would have been incredibly expensive. Plus, and it's not like Japan had anything like Star Trek or the knowledge to make them right. Still, i wonder, would Legend of the Galactic Heroes have become more popular as a live-action series, or would it have remained something largely unknown outside of Japan for a long time?
Leading up to the events involving the false Batu Rem and his clumsy attempt to assassinate the main trio, both the Exile and Lieutenant Grenn speculate that there might be survivors on Peragus. Although this is highly unlikely to be the case (I am 98% convinced that all the staff and miners perished before the Exile woke up), I appreciate that the protagonist doesn't automatically possess this information, leaving both them and Grenn to continue believing they might still save someone.
This is an example of good writing: the hero doesn't automatically know the truth but is left to speculate.
Okay, this is a pretty bold claim, but I hope it sparks an interesting discussion.
First of all, I should clarify what I mean by "the best" emperor/ To me, a truly great emperor is someone who takes power during a crisis, successfully overcomes it, achieves significant things without making any truly major or fatal mistakes, and leaves the state in a better condition than he found it in? while also leaving a capable successor who is prepared for the difficulties of ruling.
In my view, John Doukas Vatatzes meets all these criteria.
He certainly wasn't a saintly man or a flawless ruler, but he ultimately transformed the Empire of Nicaea into a powerful, stable and cohesive state that was capable of doing more than simply surviving. Under him, it became capable of defeating its enemies and actively reclaiming territory. I don't want to diminish Theodore I Laskaris, because he genuinely ruled under incredibly difficult circumstances. But while Theodore I was largely trying to keep Nicaea alive and secure from one crisis to the next, John III successfully consolidated what his predecessor had built and turned Nicaea into a state from which the restoration of the Roman Empire became a realistic possibility.
He built a remarkably strong economy. The foundation of Nicaean prosperity was agriculture: John encouraged farming and livestock breeding, increased food production and generally made the country much more economically self-sufficient. Nicaea was prosperous enough that neighboring states were buying grain and other food from it. At the same time, he maintained a degree of commercial cooperation with Venice when necessary, despite generally being quite hostile toward excessive Italian economic influence.
He also managed to maintain a very interesting balance between the aristocracy and the rest of society. He limited the political power of the great aristocratic families and promoted men of more modest origins, while at the same time avoiding pushing the aristocracy into open revolt or making them permanently hostile to the government. He supported the peasantry and urban population without completely alienating the traditional elite.
Militarily, he was equally successful. He built a strong army and rebuilt a fleet capable of operating effectively in both the Aegean and Black Seas. Nicaea expanded in western Anatolia and, even more importantly, into the Balkans. John suffered defeats, of course, but his defeats never turned into catastrophic crises. He was usually able to recover, regroup and continue expanding.
His diplomacy was just as important. John III managed to prevent the various enemies of Nicaea from turning the situation into another large scale crusade against the empire. The Latin Empire made repeated attempts to recover from its losses, but those efforts never amounted to anything more than temporarily prolonging Latin control of Constantinople. John understood how to deal with Venice, the papacy and the various Balkan powers without allowing any of them to become an existential threat.
And then there was the Mongol problem.
John III managed to avoid the devastation that destroyed much of the political landscape around him. Nicaea and Trebizond were essentially the only major states in the region that escaped being devastated by the Mongol advance, and unlike many of their neighbors, Nicaea did not become a Mongol tributary or military vassal. John instead strengthened Nicaea's position in Anatolia and began establishing diplomatic relations with the Mongols, which helped keep them from becoming a serious threat to the empire.
And probably the most important thing of all: he had an excellent heir.
Theodore II Laskaris was highly educated, politically experienced and prepared to rule. John didn't simply expand the state and leave it economically and militarily stronger than he had found it. He also left behind a capable successor who could continue his work. Theodore II had his own problems, of course, and his reign was far more troubled politically, but he was still a competent ruler who maintained much of what his father had built and continued the expansion of Nicaea. Unfortunately, he died far too young to take that process much further.
And even Michael VIII Palaeologus, for all of his controversial decisions and later failures, was still capable of major territorial expansion and of defending Byzantine interests. Most importantly, he inherited a state strong enough to take Constantinople back in 1261.
In my view, of all the late Byzantine rulers following the Komnenos, he was the most qualified, skillful, and capable.
Greetings from Russia!
When we talk about the legacy of Byzantium, we recall the many successors of the Roman idea. One could sneer at how little Russia and Byzantium had in common in terms of heritage, but I decided to approach it from a different angle.
Russia during the late reigns of Ivan III, Vasily III, and Ivan the Terrible, as well as the early Romanov tsars (before Peter the Great), continued its unique path in terms of external attributes—architecture, church architecture, dress code, titles, and naming conventions. I think people talk too little about how Muscovy in the 16th and 17th centuries essentially became (or attempted to be) a great northern Byzantium.
This makes me wonder: if Byzantium had successfully survived 1453 and become strong enough to engage in the meager development of its territories and cities, how much would the Romans have resembled the Muscovites? Women would have worn kokoshniks and covered their heads with fabrics, men would have gone into battle in yushmans and mirrored armor, infantry would have used berdyshes in conjunction with firearms, Byzantium would have invited regiments of the Western order as mercenaries, the question of the autonomy of the patriarch and the question of the two-fingered or three-fingered sign of the cross would have become important for the Romans and Greeks, how the church would have treated Protestantism, schisms would have arisen within the Roman Orthodox Church, etc.
