恕刪大部分。 ※ 引述《fatisuya (伊達楓)》之銘言： : 誠然，平心而論，Basil II的許多功業都僅止於他這一代。其征服成果很快的又逐漸喪失 : ，其駕馭軍事力量的能力不是後繼者能夠效仿的。這位皇帝他能夠身先士卒，跟士兵打成 : 一片，甚至讓他的宮廷禮儀官抱怨他說話“太粗俗”。Basil II真正的掌握到了古羅馬先 : 祖留下的頭銜“Impetator”的精髓，綜觀整個拜占庭帝國史上沒幾個人能像他那樣自在 : 平衡的玩弄。他同時擁有政客跟軍人身分，面對各名君們毫不遜色。 : 但他是政客，不是政治家，他沒有留下任何變革真正解決問題，土地兼併的隱憂是他憑著 : 私人威望強行鎮壓，這在他死後很快又爆發並成為中衰的一大主因。甚至，Basil II沒有 : 替帝國留下一個繼承人。他有一個弟弟，但並不成才，似乎皇帝也不在乎，歷史上沒有看 : 到他有任何規劃。我們今天很難分析Basil II的心境，或許他跟很多帝王一樣，都不想去 : 思考身後事--後事還須問後人。 我要做一點點反駁。 牛津有出一本書： 《Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025)》, Catherine Holmes 以下節錄自該書第八章〈The Reign of Basil II: A Reconstruction〉 第九節 8.9 Basil's legacy But if Basil's legacy was so gilded and benign, why had his empire all but collapsed by 1081, the year that Alexios Komnenos came to the throne? ... The crucial difference between Basil II and the later eleventh‐century successor emperors, particularly those who ruled after Constantine IX, was that few enjoyed a luxury of choice as to where they sought to channel the empire's energies and resources. ... Indeed, if blame is to be apportioned anywhere for collapse in the eleventh century, Haldon has argued that it should be directed not towards those who governed Byzantium in the later tenth and early eleventh centuries, but instead at that political elite which dominated central government from the reign of Constantine Monomachos (1042–55) onwards. ... 翻譯： Basil II死後，帝國在1081年崩潰的主因是 1.他的後繼者碰上的局面比較嚴峻，對手比較強 2.君士坦丁九世即位時期以後的菁英階級才是衰弱的罪魁禍首 基本上這本書認為Basil II的內政很強，所以結論也不意外就是 XD -- The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten. ～John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.112.25.106 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Warfare/M.1488967247.A.59F.html