Why were eastern emperor more powerful than those in the west (the byzantines)?

Answer 1

Yes and No.

Comparing Byzantine emperors with Charlemagne in the time of 800 to 814 is comparing them with the one person who was probably the most powerful monarch of the Middle Ages.

Later Byzantine emperors would have to be compared with western emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of their own times. Most of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were rather weak. This was partly because they were elected, and so there was no father to prepare the throne for them, but it was mostly because they had powerful feudal vassals, including kings, who limited their authority.

Of course the Byzantine Empire gradually declined through the entire Middle Ages, leaving a rather decrepit country in the end, and an emperor of this country had no more power than his country did, and the Holy Roman Emperor had much more power than the Byzantine Emperor.

Answer 2

It not that the Byzantine Emperors were more powerful. Byzantine Empire is a term historians have coined to refer the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The east did not fall because it was far from the areas the Germanic peoples invaded in the west. These invasions precipitated the fall of the west.

Answer 3

It is not that the Byzantine emperors were more powerful. Byzantine Empire is a name which has been coined by historians to indicate the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Western Roman empire. The difference was that the west fell under the weight of the Germanic invasion, while the east, which was not affected by the invasions, continued to exist for another 1,000 years.

Answer 4

suck a fat hard dick