The History of Byzantium · [email protected]

Episode 315 - Questions XV

December 9, 2024·32 min·2 clips

Why was Andronicus II so useless, and how did his decisions lead to the empire's catastrophic collapse?

The questions begin with Andronicus. Instead of taking each listener question in isolation, the host folds them into one clarification of the emperor's lifetime and the Roman state he faced. Anatolia is where the judgment starts to wobble. Once it was gone, the empire had lost half its revenue, so the military choices look less like plain incompetence and more like a bad hand played under pressure. The money was thin. Warren Treadgold's estimates get used carefully, with Andronicus at a little over a million hyperpyra in a good year. Then the comparisons land. Basil II at the height of Byzantine power comes in at 11.8 million. Theophilus in the ninth century sits just over 6 million. Even decline had grades. Constantine V, battered by Arab raids, still had roughly four times Andronicus's income. That does not clear Andronicus, but it changes the charge sheet. He was not working with the fiscal depth earlier emperors had. Then come the Catalans. A listener asks whether hiring them drew on memories of the First Crusade and its success against the Turks in western Anatolia. The precedent was real enough. Latin knights had fought Turks before, often effectively, but their loyalty was shaky, which made the bargain dangerous from the start. So the answer is uncomfortable: Andronicus was following a tradition that made sense, and the built-in risk came due. The close moves from finance and mercenaries to elite usurpations and the histories written to defend them. Anna Komnene, her husband, and John Kantakouzinos show up as a warning that the sources are not just witnesses. They had arguments to win.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The History of Byzantium