Flavius Anastasius becomes Byzantine emperor, with the name of Anastasius I.

This comprehensive list chronicles the succession of Byzantine emperors, marking their rule from the pivotal year of 330 AD, a date conventionally recognized as the foundation of Constantinople and the symbolic birth of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. The narrative concludes with the empire's ultimate fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 AD. The selection criteria for inclusion are stringent: only those emperors who were widely acknowledged as legitimate rulers, exercising full sovereign authority over the empire, feature in this historical record. This carefully curated approach naturally excludes junior co-emperors, known as symbasileis, who, despite their imperial title, never ascended to the status of a sole or senior ruler. Similarly, numerous usurpers or rebellious figures who briefly claimed the imperial mantle without lasting recognition are also omitted, ensuring a clear lineage of recognized authority.

The Dawn of a New Empire: Constantine the Great and Constantinople

Our journey begins with Constantine the Great, a figure of monumental importance not only as the first Christian emperor but also as the visionary who extensively rebuilt and refashioned the ancient city of Byzantium into a magnificent imperial capital, which he proudly named Constantinople. This "New Rome" would serve as the heart of the empire for over a millennium. Constantine’s reign was foundational, setting many of the enduring characteristics that would come to define the Byzantine state. It emerged as a distinctly Roman political entity, yet its geographic and cultural center was firmly rooted in the Greek-speaking East. Critically, under Constantine, Christianity transitioned from a persecuted faith to the official state religion, intertwining secular and divine authority in a way that would profoundly shape imperial policy and identity for centuries to come. Indeed, later emperors often looked to Constantine as the quintessential model ruler, embodying the ideal blend of imperial power and Christian piety.

The Enduring Roman Legacy and the Imperial Title

The Byzantine Empire was, in essence, the direct and legal continuation of the eastern half of the venerable Roman Empire, a distinction that became pronounced following the definitive division of the Roman Empire in 395 AD. Consequently, emperors listed up to Theodosius I, who reigned until 395, were considered either sole or joint rulers of the entire, undivided Roman Empire. While the Western Roman Empire eventually ceased to exist in 476 AD, its eastern counterpart, ruling from Constantinople, steadfastly maintained its claim as the legitimate successor to Rome. The emperors in Constantinople considered themselves the rightful "Roman Emperors," tracing their lineage in an unbroken, direct succession all the way back to the revered Augustus. It is crucial to note that the term "Byzantine" itself, though ubiquitous today, was not used by the inhabitants of the empire; they invariably referred to themselves as "Romans" (Rhomaioi). This nomenclature, "Byzantine," was a later construct, coined by Western historiography as recently as the 16th century, largely to differentiate the Greek-speaking, Christian empire from its Latin-speaking, pagan predecessor.

This exclusive claim to the title of "Roman Emperor" by those ruling from Constantinople remained largely unchallenged in the international arena until a pivotal event on Christmas Day, 800 AD. On this momentous occasion, Pope Leo III, in Rome, crowned the powerful Frankish king, Charlemagne, as the Holy Roman Emperor. This audacious act was partly a strategic political move, an assertion of papal authority, and partly a response to the perceived vacancy of the imperial throne in the West. It was also, significantly, a challenge to the legitimacy of the then-reigning Byzantine empress, Irene, whose claim to the throne, as a woman, was not recognized by the Pope, who viewed her rule as illegitimate. From this point forward, the imperial title became a source of ongoing diplomatic and political friction between East and West.

The Emperor's Divine Mandate and Absolute Authority

In practice, the Byzantine emperor wielded immense power, a concept deeply rooted in both Hellenistic political traditions and evolving Christian theology. According to this profound understanding, the emperor was bestowed with total authority directly from God, making him the ultimate architect of the state and its subjects. He was the final arbiter and supreme legislator of the empire, with all his actions and governance ideally conceived as an imitation of the sacred kingdom of God itself. Furthermore, in alignment with core Christian principles, the emperor was regarded as the ultimate benefactor and protector of his people, tasked with ensuring their well-being and defending the Christian faith.

A Glimpse into the Reign of Anastasius I Dicorus (491-518 AD)

Anastasius I Dicorus (Greek: Ἀναστάσιος; c. 431 – 9 July 518) stands out as a remarkable Eastern Roman emperor who reigned from 491 to 518. His ascent to the throne was quite unconventional for his time; a seasoned career civil servant rather than a military general or dynast, he was chosen at the relatively advanced age of 61. His selection was notably influenced by Ariadne, the powerful wife of his predecessor, Zeno, highlighting the significant role empresses sometimes played in imperial succession. Anastasius’s reign is widely celebrated for its profound and lasting impact, characterized by a series of shrewd reforms and significant improvements across various sectors of the Empire, including government administration, state finances, the broader economy, and the efficiency of the bureaucracy. He masterfully navigated the empire through challenging times, leaving it with a remarkably stable government, a reinvigorated monetary economy, and, perhaps most impressively, a substantial budget surplus. This fiscal prudence was not merely a passive achievement; it strategically positioned the Empire to pursue far more ambitious policies under his successors, most notably empowering Justinian I’s grand reconquest efforts. Indeed, the enduring nature of many of Anastasius’s reforms meant that his influence profoundly shaped the Empire for several centuries after his death.

Beyond his administrative prowess, Anastasius’s personal religious convictions were a defining feature of his reign. He was a devout Miaphysite, a theological position that, while embraced in some parts of the East, often found itself at odds with the Chalcedonian orthodoxy prevalent in Constantinople and the West. These personal religious tendencies inevitably caused significant tensions throughout his rule, as the Empire was increasingly grappling with deep-seated religious divisions. Despite these challenges, and perhaps reflecting the complexity of his legacy, Anastasius is venerated as a saint by the Syriac Orthodox Church, with his feast day observed on 29 July.

FAQs

What criteria determined inclusion in the list of Byzantine emperors?
The list includes only those emperors who were officially recognized as legitimate rulers and exercised sovereign authority. It excludes junior co-emperors (symbasileis) who never became sole or senior rulers, as well as various usurpers or rebels who claimed the imperial title without widespread, lasting recognition.
Why is 330 AD considered the conventional start of the Byzantine Empire?
330 AD marks the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great. This event is seen as the conventional start because the city became the new capital, signifying a shift in the Roman Empire's focus towards the East and laying the groundwork for the unique cultural and political identity of the Byzantine state, distinct from the earlier Roman Empire centered in Rome.
How did the Byzantine Empire relate to the Roman Empire?
The Byzantine Empire was the direct legal continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire following its division in 395 AD. Byzantine emperors considered themselves the rightful Roman emperors in direct succession from Augustus, despite the Western Roman Empire falling in 476 AD. They referred to themselves as "Romans" (Rhomaioi).
Why was the title "Roman Emperor" contested after 800 AD?
The title was contested after Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor on December 25, 800 AD. This act was partly a response to the Byzantine coronation of Empress Irene, whose claim, as a woman, was not recognized by the Pope. The West's crowning of its own emperor challenged Constantinople's exclusive claim to the universal Roman imperial title.
What was the nature of the Byzantine emperor's power?
The Byzantine emperor was regarded as having total power, granted by God, to shape the state and its subjects. He was the ultimate authority and legislator, whose work was seen as an imitation of the sacred kingdom of God. According to Christian principles, he was also the ultimate benefactor and protector of his people.
Who was Anastasius I Dicorus and what were his key contributions?
Anastasius I Dicorus was Eastern Roman emperor from 491 to 518. A career civil servant, he became emperor at 61. His reign was characterized by significant reforms in government, finances, economy, and bureaucracy. He is noted for leaving the empire with a stable government, a reinvigorated monetary economy, and a sizeable budget surplus, which greatly benefited his successors, particularly Justinian I. Despite religious tensions due to his Miaphysite beliefs, his administrative reforms had a lasting impact for centuries.