etymology
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-other-Europeans-call-the-Byzantine-Empire-until-its-fall-in-1453-Would-they-still-refer-to-it-as-the-Roman-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/If-Greeks-somehow-recovered-Istanbul-would-they-be-renamed-to-Byzantium The city of Byzantium was founded by the Greeks in 657bC and bore that name up to 330 (nearly 1.000 years !). In 330 the city was renamed New Rome and Constantinople. It remained with that name up to 1453 (more than 1.100 years). The Ottomans, from 1453 onward, called the city Kostantiniye (= town of Constantine). It became Istanbul in 1926. Under a fictional Greek rule, I presume Constantinople would prevail…
- https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-official-name-of-the-Byzantine-Empire-during-its-existence-What-did-Europeans-contemporary-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-call-it-and-why
- ****https://www.quora.com/Is-it-incorrect-to-call-the-Eastern-Roman-Byzantines
- https://www.quora.com/What-should-we-call-the-Byzantine-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/I-ve-heard-that-the-term-Byzantine-Empire-is-an-anachronism-and-the-Byzantines-referred-to-themselves-as-Greek-or-Roman-At-what-point-did-the-rest-of-the-world-coin-the-term-Byzantine-Empire-and-refer-to-the-Eastern “Byzantine,” to describe the Medieval, eastern, Orthodox, Greek-speaking phase of the Roman empire (as opposed to its classical, pan-Mediterranean, pagan, Latin-speaking phase), was coined in mid-16th century (a hundred years after Constantinople had fallen to the Turks) by Heironymous Wolf, a German scholar. Wolf was editing a collection of Christian poetry translated from the Greek and wanted a word to describe it sufficiently distinctly from pagan Greek letters as well as western Christian works. He hit upon “Byzantine,” after Byzantium, the small city Constantine had rebuilt into his new capital. That word was used now and again in the following centuries, becoming the predominant term in the 19th and 20th centuries. - the English, French and Franks (all Latins regardless of place of origin) in the crusader states referred to them as Greeks — or derogatorily as “Griffons” — not Romans.https://www.quora.com/Did-only-the-inhabitants-of-the-Byzantine-Empire-call-themselves-Roman-or-did-the-rest-of-medieval-Europe-also-call-them-Romans
- The Byzantines, of course, did not refer to themselves with the English word “Romans,” but with the Greek word rhomaioi, which we usually translate as “Romans” but I think is better translated as “those who are Roman,” if you want to get technical about it. In other words, they described themselves by reference to an adjective they all shared (“Roman”) rather than a place they were all from (“Rome”).The rhomaioi of the late 5th through 15th centuries may not have had Rome the place (except briefly), but they definitely had the culture, and it was the culture - the adjective of “Roman-ness” - by which they named themselves. To me, this gently suggests that they generally didn’t care all that much about the place, nor saw any great contradiction between calling themselves rhomaioi even though their Empire no longer held Rhoma.https://www.quora.com/The-Byzantine-Empire-was-referred-to-simply-as-the-Roman-Empire-during-its-time-as-a-state-Did-the-average-Roman-care-that-they-did-not-hold-the-city-of-Rome
-******[baidu] 拂菻国（Byzantine Empire），中古汉语读音pʰɨut̚ liɪm，是中国中古史籍中对东罗马帝国（见拜占庭帝国）的称谓。帝国首都君士坦丁堡，古代亦称大秦或海西国。拂菻的称呼脱不开“罗马”这个名称，只是由于传播过程中经历不同民族，这个名称的发音和书写形式发生变异: Rum (Rom) - -词进入亚美尼亚语演变为Hrom (Horum)， 帕列维语(Pahlavi)变为Hrom;由于波斯方言中h转为f，进入花拉子密语和粟特语转为From (Furum),最后进入汉语转读为“拂菻”。“P”音作为一个单独音节在汉语中读为“拂”，毫无疑义;而rom或rum音译为“秣”也不乏其例。（如蒙古汗国首都和林，又作哈刺和林，即Qaraqorum, 又作Xarayorum，在欧洲使节柏朗嘉宾记为Caracorom，卢布鲁克记做Caracorum，马可·波罗记做Caracoron。7现代汉学家将它统一为Karakorum。 ）可知，rom、 ron与rum均可对应为“林“。“林”与“菻”通，故“拂菻”又记作“拂林”(《梁四公记》)、拂懔(《大唐西域记》)、拂临(《往五天竺国传》)等。对于拜占庭帝国事物，隋唐时代的中国史籍在绝大多数情况下记于“拂菻”名下。此名在《魏书·高宗纪》、《显祖纪》作“普岚”。《北史·西域传》作“伏卢尼（Fūrūmi）”。玄奘著《大唐西域记》卷十一波剌斯国条所附西方诸国作“拂懔”，道世《法苑珠林》卷三九及所引《梁职贡图》作“拂懔”，慧超《往五天竺国传》作“拂临”，杜环《经行记》、《隋书》、《旧唐书》等均作“拂菻”，各种异译都是伊兰语族的Frwm（粟特语作Frōm）、Purum（安息语作Prom）、Hrōm 或Hrūm（中古波斯语）等的汉字对音。19世纪末在蒙古高原发现的8世纪突厥文毗伽可汗碑中作Purum。学者们多方考定，以上各种叫法，都出自东罗马帝国的名称Rum。杜环《经行记》和两唐书西域传对拂菻国的物产、建筑、民俗等情况有详细记载，但两唐书中的记载据认为有一部分系从唐代长安情况类推而来。在唐代，长安与拂菻之间，西突厥汗廷与拂菻之间都有频繁的使节和商旅交往，特别是西突厥曾与它联合对抗波斯的萨珊王朝。景教（基督教聂斯脱利派）当自该地传来。武则天大足元年（701年），拂菻国遣使来朝。《元史》卷一三四爱薛传有“弗林”、“拂林”，戴良《九灵山房集》卷九有“拂林”，据学者考证，此“拂林”当是Farang 一词的音译，乃阿拉伯、波斯人对欧洲的称谓，亦即《明史》之佛郎机，非北魏、隋唐时期的拂菻。古代又称大秦、海西国。随历史时期之不同，此名有时也指苫国（今叙利亚）等地中海东岸地区。宋、元时代又用以称呼塞尔柱突厥人统治的小亚细亚。
- 菻，(〈文〉名 蒿类植物。
- 《唐书·高仙芝传》拂菻、大食诸胡七十二国降附。
- 「萬物生靈：絲綢之路上 的動物與植物」 展覽現正於杭 州的中國絲綢博物館舉行，展 品來自全國十四間文博機構和 企業。圖為醉拂菻駱囊駱駝。http://paper.takungpao.com/resfile/PDF/20210622/PDF/b4_screen.pdf
royalty
- Apart from the Paleologi family that might be descended from the Byzantine dynasty although they lived in Romania before coming to France. Maurice Paleologue His family survives till the present day All other probable Byzantine Princes are tied in with the dynasty of the KomneniThe most purest branch fled from their Empire of Trebizonde to Spain, became Roman Catholic and settled on Sardinia. They had a title on that island and are still alive. I think they are the Angeloi attacked in another answer but their claim is rather old, not modern.. The Byzantine dynasties constantly intermarried and the Comnenoi and Angeloi are no exception.Another branch settled in Georgia. They are descended from an illegitimate son of the cruel East Roman Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos and his mistress and cousin, Queen Theodora Komnene of Jeruzalem, the widow of King Baldwin III.These Georgian Komneni were nobles in Georgia and fled during the Russian Revolution to France, They are also still in existence but are Greek/Russian Orthodox.The blood of several Byzantine dynasties flows in the European royals including that of Russia.https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Byzantine-family-members-that-still-exist-now-Who-is-the-current-head-of-the-Byzantine-Empire-Where-are-current-Byzantine-family-members
- succession
- https://www.quora.com/If-the-Byzantine-Empire-was-restored-today-who-could-claim-the-throne he Byzantine throne was never hereditary. Following the ancient Roman tradition—sometimes only by name, but others in more tangible ways—the Byzantines didn’t believe in blood aristocracy or birth rights. No title or office was hereditary, and the imperial one was no exception. There have been numerous men who rose from obscurity, poverty and even illiteracy to become emperors: Justin I, Basil I and Romanos I are among the best known examples. The best an emperor could do to ensure his son would inherit the throne was appoint him co-emperor before his own death; thus, there would be no sede vacante period, and transition was expected to be smooth. If the new emperor was young or weak, though, there were many who would try to seize the crown for themselves—and sometimes even revolts or conspiracies against seasoned emperors would take place. Of course, as time went by the notion of dynasties was introduced to the Byzantine Empire; between 1259 and 1453 the empire was governed by the Palaeologi, a dynasty functioning similarly to their Western European counterparts, and between 1204 and 1259/61 by the Lascarids, another dynasty. Even then, though, there was no law about primogeniture or anything like that. It was habit, tradition and practice, not law, that dictated the transition from father to son.
- ethnicity
- https://www.quora.com/Which-ethnicity-were-the-imperial-dynasties-of-the-Byzantine-empire The ethnic backgrounds show us the power dynamics of Byzantium. For most of the Empire’s early history, for instance, the throne was dominated by Thracians or Illyrians. Later throughout the Empire’s history, with the lost of these provinces to the Avars and Slavs, the Empire became dominated by ethnic Armenians because they were from the Arab borderlands, enabling them to become war heroes and rise through the political structure. Finally, with the fall of Eastern Anatolia and the Empire’s Armenian lands, the Empire was dominated by ethnic Greeks (it should be noted, however, that “Greek” is a modern term and during the medieval ages applied to people from Western Anatolia as well because of the extensive Hellenization of the region carried out during antiquity).
Zeno the Isaurian (/ˈziːnoʊ/; Latin: Flavius Zeno Augustus; Byzantine Greek: Ζήνων; c. 425 – 9 April 491), originally named Tarasis Kodisa Rousombladadiotes/ˈtærəsɪs/, was Eastern Roman Emperor from 474 to 475 and again from 476 to 491. Domestic revolts and religious dissension plagued his reign, which nevertheless succeeded to some extent in foreign issues. His reign saw the end of the Western Roman Empire following the deposition of Romulus Augustus and the death of Julius Nepos, but he contributed much to stabilising the Eastern Empire. In ecclesiastical history, Zeno is associated with the Henotikon or "instrument of union", promulgated by him and signed by all the Eastern bishops, with the design of solving the monophysite controversy.
- very detailed viet wiki version
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-survive-whilst-the-west-declined-circa-360-476-AD
Justinian I (/dʒʌˈstɪniən/; Latin: Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus; Greek: Φλάβιος Πέτρος Σαββάτιος Ἰουστινιανός Flávios Pétros Sabbátios Ioustinianós) (c. 482 – 14 November 565), traditionally known as Justinian the Great and also Saint Justinian the Great in the Eastern Orthodox Church, was a Byzantine (East Roman) emperor from 527 to 565. During his reign, Justinian sought to revive the empire's greatness and reconquer the lost western half of the historical Roman Empire. Justinian's rule constitutes a distinct epoch in the history of the Later Roman empire, and his reign is marked by the ambitious but only partly realized renovatio imperii, or "restoration of the Empire". Because of his restoration activities, Justinian has sometimes been called the "last Roman" in modern historiography. This ambition was expressed by the partial recovery of the territories of the defunct western Roman empire. His general, Belisarius, swiftly conquered the Vandal kingdom in North Africa. Subsequently Belisarius, Narses, and other generals conquered the Ostrogothic kingdom, restoring Dalmatia, Sicily, Italy, and Rome to the empire after more than half a century of rule by the Ostrogoths. The prefect Liberius reclaimed the south of the Iberian peninsula, establishing the province of Spania. These campaigns re-established Roman control over the western Mediterranean, increasing the Empire's annual revenue by over a million solidi. During his reign Justinian also subdued the Tzani, a people on the east coast of the Black Sea that had never been under Roman rule before. A still more resonant aspect of his legacy was the uniform rewriting of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His reign also marked a blossoming of Byzantine culture, and his building program yielded such masterpieces as the church of Hagia Sophia. A devastating outbreak of bubonic plague in the early 540s marked the end of an age of splendour.
- https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-people-of-Rome-react-when-Justinian-I-recaptured-the-city
- https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-unable-to-hold-onto-consolidate-Justinians-conquests
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Procopius-dislike-Justinian-so-much John of Ephesus and John the Lydian are two other contemporary historians who also write very bitterly - through certainly less colorfully - about Justinian and his regime. The fact that they, like Procopius, were also high-ranking literati who had first-hand knowledge of the emperor and his court, hints at a pattern here. So I’d say their views, even if not overall objective assesments of Justinian’s rule, are at least representative of what people under that rule really thought of their emperor. And it’s not difficult to see why. Recall that in 532, just five years after his coronation, Justinian was already facing the Nika riots - the biggest and bloodiest rebellion in history of Constantinipole. Both the populace and elites of the city, united in their revolt against Justinian’s heavy taxes, legal reforms and rather shady ministers, attempted to seize the imperial palace, depose the emperor and crown a new one in his stead. When the army intervened to rescue Justinian and restore order, around thirty thousand people were killed, and half of Constantinopole was left in ruins. That hardly improved his image, I’d say - and his reign only grew worse from then. In 534, the final version of Codex Justinianes was published; and of this great compilation of Roman law, it is enough to say that its reintroduction into 12th century Europe contributed to founding of various inquisitions in the western church. Justinian’s religious policy was one of state-sponsored persecutions and forced conversions, with the intolerance and zeal hardly any of the previous Christian emperors displayed. Not only did he try to impose Christianity onto every nook and cranny of still largely multi-religious, pagan empire; but the Christianity he tried to impose was the western, Chalcedonian creed, over a largely Monophysite east. The western Romans, on the third hand, Justinian alienated with his destructive wars, which I really think he was starting to export his internal problems aboard. It’s telling that the reconquests of north Africa and Italy started few years after the Nika Riots and conclusion of “Eternal peace” with Persians. And even if these wars weren’t really as devastating as Procopius makes them to be (though again, uprooting of two perfectly functional kingdoms could hardly be done without breaking a lot of eggs), they still contributed their share to overall depopuplation of Roman lands, together with the plague that struck by 540s.https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Procopius-dislike-Justinian-so-much- https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Belisarius-and-why-did-he-not-become-emperor
- https://www.quora.com/Does-Emperor-Justinian-rank-up-there-with-the-greatest-Roman-Emperors-like-Trajan-and-Aurelian note the mention of a plague in 541ad
- The Isaurian emperors were successful in defending and consolidating the Empire against the Caliphate after the onslaught of the early Muslim conquests, but were less successful in Europe, where they suffered setbacks against the Bulgars, had to give up the Exarchate of Ravenna, and lost influence over Italy and the Papacy to the growing power of the Franks.The Isaurian dynasty is chiefly associated with Byzantine Iconoclasm, an attempt to restore divine favour by purifying the Christian faith from excessive adoration of icons, which resulted in considerable internal turmoil.By the end of the Isaurian dynasty in 802, the Byzantines were continuing to fight the Arabs and the Bulgars for their very existence, with matters made more complicated when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") which was seen as an attempt at making the Carolingian Empire the successor to the Roman Empire.Leo III, who would become the founder of the so-called Isaurian dynasty, was actually born in Germanikeia in northern Syria c. 685; his alleged origin from Isauria derives from a reference in Theophanes the Confessor, which however may be a later addition. After being raised to spatharios by Justinian II, he fought the Arabs in Abasgia, and was appointed as strategos of the Anatolics by Anastasios II.
- Irene of Athens (Greek: Εἰρήνη, Eirénē; c. 752 – 9 August 803), surname Sarantapechaina (Σαρανταπήχαινα), was Eastern Roman empress by marriage to Emperor Leo IV from 775 to 780, regent during the childhood of their son Constantine VI from 780 until 790, co-regent from 792 until 797, and finally sole ruler and first empress regnant of the Eastern Roman Empire from 797 to 802. A member of the politically prominent Sarantapechos family, she was selected as Leo IV's bride for unknown reasons in 768. Even though her husband was an iconoclast, she harbored iconophile sympathies. During her rule as regent, she called the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which condemned iconoclasm as heretical and brought an end to the first iconoclast period (730–787).As Irene's son Constantine reached maturity, he began to move out from under the influence of his mother. In the early 790s, several revolts tried to proclaim him as sole ruler. One of these revolts succeeded, but in 792, Irene was re-established in all imperial powers as co-ruler with Constantine. In 797, Irene organized a conspiracy in which her supporters gouged out her son's eyes, maiming him severely. He was imprisoned and probably died shortly afterwards. With him out of the way, Irene proclaimed herself sole ruler. Irene's alleged unprecedented status as a female ruler of the Roman Empire led Pope Leo III to proclaim Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day of 800 under the pretext that a woman could not rule and so the throne of the Roman Empire was actually vacant. A revolt in 802 overthrew Irene and exiled her to the island of Lesbos, supplanting her on the throne with Nikephoros I. Irene died in exile less than a year later.Irene was born in Athens sometime between 750 and 755.[1] She was a member of the noble Greek Sarantapechos family, which had significant political influence in central mainland Greece.[1] Although she was an orphan, her uncle or cousin Constantine Sarantapechos was a patrician and possibly also a strategos ("general") of the theme of Hellas at the end of the eighth century.[1] Constantine Sarantapechos's son Theophylact was a spatharios and is mentioned as having been involved in suppressing a revolt in 799.Irene was brought to Constantinople by Emperor Constantine V on 1 November 769 and was married to his son Leo IV on 3 November. Her coronation took place the following month, on 17 December.[2][1] It is unclear why she was selected as the bride for the young Leo IV.[1] Especially unusual is that, while Constantine V was a militant iconoclast who was known for persecuting venerators of icons, Irene herself displayed iconophile predilections.[1] This fact, combined with the limited information available about her family, has led some scholars to speculate that Irene may have been selected in a bride-show, in which eligible young women were paraded before the bridegroom until one was finally selected.
Basil II (Greek: Βασίλειος, translit. Basileios; c. 958 – 15 December 1025), nicknamed the Bulgar Slayer (Greek: ὁ Βουλγαροκτόνος, translit. ho Boulgaroktonos),[note 4] was a Byzantine Emperor from the Macedonian dynasty whose effective reign—the longest of any Byzantine monarch—lasted from 10 January 976 to 15 December 1025. He had been associated with the throne since 960 as a junior colleague to a succession of senior emperors: his father Romanos II (r. 959–963), his step-father Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–969), and John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976). In addition to these emperors, Basil's influential great-uncle Basil Lekapenos held power for several decades until he was overthrown in 985. From 962, Basil II's brother Constantine, who succeeded him as Constantine VIII (r. 1025–1028), was nominal co-emperor. The early years of Basil's reign were dominated by civil wars against two powerful generals from the Anatolian aristocracy; first Bardas Skleros and later Bardas Phokas, which ended shortly after Phokas' death and Skleros' submission in 989. Basil then oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empireand the complete subjugation of the First Bulgarian Empire, its foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. Although the Byzantine Empire had made a truce with the Fatimid Caliphate in 987–988, Basil led a campaign against the Caliphate that ended with another truce in 1000. He also conducted a campaign against the Khazar Khaganate that gained the Byzantine Empire part of Crimea and a series of successful campaigns against the Kingdom of Georgia. Despite near-constant warfare, Basil distinguished himself as an administrator, reducing the power of the great land-owning families who dominated the Empire's administration and military and filling its treasury. He left the Empire with its greatest expanse in four centuries. Although his successors were largely incapable rulers, the Empire flourished for decades after Basil's death. One of the most important decisions taken during his reign was to offer the hand of his sister Anna Porphyrogenita to Vladimir I of Kiev in exchange for military support, thus forming the Byzantine military unit known as the Varangian Guard. The marriage of Anna and Vladimir led to the Christianization of the Kievan Rus' and the incorporation of later successor nations of Kievan Rus' within the Byzantine cultural and religious tradition. Basil is seen as a Greek national hero but as a despised figure among Bulgarians.巴西尔二世「保加利亚人屠夫」，（希腊语：Βασίλειος ό Βουλγαροκτόνος，958年～1025年12月15日）马其顿王朝的东罗马帝国（拜占廷）皇帝（976年～1025年在位）。在他统治时期，中世纪的拜占廷帝国达到极盛状态。巴西尔二世是拜占廷皇帝罗曼努斯二世之子，其母狄奥法诺有亚美尼亚血统。960年，巴西尔被他的父亲确定为皇位继承人。但当罗曼努斯二世在963年去世时，巴西尔年仅5岁，因此他与其弟君士坦丁（即后来的君士坦丁八世）都因年龄太小而被暂时排除了继承皇位的可能性（不过巴西尔二世曾被他的父亲加冕为共治皇帝，所以从理论上说他的统治应始于960年，至迟是963年）。狄奥法诺皇后与帝国的一名主要将领尼基福鲁斯·福卡斯（即尼基福鲁斯二世）结婚，之后尼基福鲁斯获得皇帝的地位（孀居的皇后与将领结婚使后者获得皇帝权力是拜占廷历史中常见的现象）。尼基福鲁斯二世于969年遭到谋杀，谋杀者约翰一世·齐米斯基斯（也是一名将领）继承他的位置进行统治。约翰一世死于976年，此时巴西尔二世已经长大成人，于是他无争议地登上了皇位。
- maps
- https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-best-and-most-prosperous-period-of-the-Byzantine-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Basil-II-blind-so-many-Bulgars In July 1014, the Byzantines under Emperor Basil II defeated Tsar Samuel’s Bulgarians at Kleidion.
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-between-1025-and-1076
Doukas, Latinized as Ducas (Greek: Δούκας; feminine: Doukaina/Ducaena, Δούκαινα; plural: Doukai/Ducae, Δοῦκαι), from the Latin title dux ("leader", "general", Hellenized as δοὺξ [ðouks]), is the name of a Byzantine Greek noble family, whose branches provided several notable generals and rulers to the Byzantine Empire in the 9th–11th centuries. A maternally-descended line, the Komnenodoukai, founded the Despotate of Epirus in the 13th century, with another branch ruling over Thessaly. After the 12th century, the name "Doukas" and other variants proliferated across the Byzantine world, and were sometimes presented as signifying a direct genealogical relationship with the original family or the later branch based in the Despotate of Epirus. The continuity of descent amongst the various branches of the original, middle Byzantine family is not clear, and historians generally recognize several distinct groups of Doukai based on their occurrence in the contemporary sources. According to Demetrios I. Polemis, who compiled the only overview work on the bearers of the Doukas name, in view of this lack of genealogical continuity "it would be a mistake to view the groups of people designated by the cognomen of Doukas as forming one large family".杜卡斯王朝（1059年－1081年）1059年，科穆寧王朝皇帝伊薩克一世被廢黜後，大臣君士坦丁·杜卡斯稱帝，建立杜卡斯王朝。1081年，伊薩克一世的遠親阿歷克塞一世領兵攻入都城君士坦丁堡，廢黜皇帝尼基弗魯斯三世，杜卡斯王朝中斷。最終在1205年，杜卡斯王朝最後一個皇帝阿歷克塞五世復辟王朝後不久被殺，杜卡斯王朝終結。
- ?????https://www.quora.com/Was-the-reign-of-Constantine-Doukas-a-turning-point-for-the-Byzantines In 1060, for the first time since the 10th c., a purple-born (porphurogennētos) prince was born: Constantius, Constantine X’s third son. The boy was crowned co-emperor a few days later along with his eldest brother, the future Emperor Michael VII (r. 1071–1078)—Constantine’s second son, Andronicus, was excluded, which probably underlines the the importance of having been born in the purple for the Byzantines. After decades of antagonism, a family gained the upper hand and stabilized its grasp of the throne with a hereditary claim.
Komnenos (Greek: Κομνηνός), Latinized Comnenus, plural Komnenoi or Comneni (Κομνηνοί [komniˈni]), is a noble family who ruled the Byzantine Empire from 1081 to 1185, and later, as the Grand Komnenoi (Μεγαλοκομνηνοί, Megalokomnenoi) founded and ruled the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1461). Through intermarriages with other noble families, notably the Doukai, Angeloi, and Palaiologoi, the Komnenos name appears among most of the major noble houses of the late Byzantine world.
- Alexios I Komnenos (Greek: Ἀλέξιος Αʹ Κομνηνός, c. 1048 – 15 August 1118) was Byzantine emperor from 1081 to 1118. Although he was not the founder of the Komnenian dynasty, it was during his reign that the Komnenos family came to full power. Inheriting a collapsing empire and faced with constant warfare during his reign against both the Seljuq Turks in Asia Minor and the Normans in the western Balkans, Alexios was able to curb the Byzantine decline and begin the military, financial, and territorial recovery known as the Komnenian restoration. The basis for this recovery were various reforms initiated by Alexios. His appeals to Western Europe for help against the Turks were also the catalyst that likely contributed to the convoking of the Crusades. Alexios was the son of the Domestic of the Schools John Komnenos and Anna Dalassene, and the nephew of Isaac I Komnenos (emperor 1057–1059). Alexios' father declined the throne on the abdication of Isaac, who was thus succeeded by four emperors of other families between 1059 and 1081. Under one of these emperors, Romanos IV Diogenes (1067–1071), Alexios served with distinction against the Seljuq Turks. Under Michael VII Doukas Parapinakes (1071–1078) and Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078–1081), he was also employed, along with his elder brother Isaac, against rebels in Asia Minor, Thrace, and in Epirus.
- Anna Komnene (Greek: Ἄννα Κομνηνή, Ánna Komnēnḗ; 1 December 1083 – 1153), commonly latinized as Anna Comnena, was a Byzantine princess, scholar, physician, hospital administrator, and historian. She was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and his wife Irene Doukaina. She is best known for her attempt to usurp her brother, John II Komnenos, and for her work The Alexiad, an account of her father's reign.
- Anna wrote the Alexiad in the mid-1140s or 1150s. Anna cited her husband's unfinished work as the reason why she began the Alexiad. Before his death in 1137, her husband, Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger, was working on a history, which was supposed to record the events before and during the reign of Alexios I.[50] His death left the history unfinished after recording the events of the reign of Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates. Ruth Macrides argues that while Bryennios' writing may have been a source of inspiration for the Alexiad, it is incorrect to suggest that the Alexiad was Bryennios' work edited by Anna (as Howard-Johnston has argued on tenuous grounds).
- Following her father’s death in 1118, Anna and her mother attempted to usurp John II Komnenos. Her husband refused to cooperate with them, and the usurpation failed. As a result, John exiled Anna to the Kecharitomene monastery, where she spent the rest of her life.
- during the Norman-Byzantine conflict Anna Komnene, whose father fielded cataphracts, would comment on the Norman charge as being very dangerous and powerful;However she also noted that while the soldier was protected by huge towering shields and sturdy mail shirts the horse was not. She specifically mentions how her father ordered his soldiers to focus on shooting horses because shooting the rider made little sense. The Battle of Hattin played out in similar manner with the horses all being slain and wounded while the knights survived in greater number. Hattin in this case is exemplary of what Western cavalry typically did to alleviate this, or rather a good example of what happened when they didn’t.https://www.quora.com/Didn-t-unarmored-horses-ruin-the-effectiveness-of-European-cavalry-How-could-such-cavalry-charge-survive-missile-fire-e-g-early-chainmail-knight-and-late-cuirassier-vs-the-Eastern-cataphract
- https://www.quora.com/What-if-the-Byzantine-Empire-won-the-Fourth-Crusade
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-AIMA-prophecy-self-fulfilling
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-AIMA-prophecy-self-fulfilling
The Palaiologos (pl. Palaiologoi; Greek: Παλαιολόγος, pl. Παλαιολόγοι), also found in English-language literature as Palaeologus or Palaeologue, was the name of a Byzantine Greek family, which rose to nobility and ultimately produced the last ruling dynasty of the Byzantine Empire. Founded by the 11th-century general Nikephoros Palaiologos and his son George, the family rose to the highest aristocratic circles through its marriage into the Doukas and Komnenos dynasties. After the Fourth Crusade, members of the family fled to the neighboring Empire of Nicaea, where Michael VIII Palaiologosbecame co-emperor in 1259, recaptured Constantinople and was crowned sole emperor of the Byzantine Empire in 1261. His descendants ruled the empire until the Fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Ottoman Turks on May 29, 1453, becoming the longest-lived dynasty in Byzantine history; some continued to be prominent in Ottoman society long afterwards. A branch of the Palaiologos became the feudal lords of Montferrat, Italy. This inheritance was eventually incorporated by marriage to the Gonzagafamily, rulers of the Duchy of Mantua, who are descendants of the Palaiologoi of Montferrat.
- fourth crusade
- Enthusiasm for this crusade was notably diminished compared to the three earlier ones. No king, nor any important nobleman, was prepared to lead it, and financing was so short that when the crusaders reached the port of embarkation, Venice, they were unable to pay for transport. The Venetians offered to provide the shipping for “free” – in exchange for crusader help in eliminating their (Christian) commercial rival, the city of Zara. Over the vehement protest of many participants -- and the Pope! -- and after much soul-searching, the crusade’s commanders agreed to do Venice’s dirty work, but a number of crusaders refused to follow their leaders and proceeded independently to the Kingdom of Jerusalem to offer their services there.Following the capture of Zara, however, the crusaders still lacked the resources to sail for Egypt and their proposed crusade. They were no closer to recapturing Jerusalem than before they embarked. Furthermore, they had been excommunicated by the Pope for attacking a Christian city and pursuing material gain when under crusader vows. Many men abandoned the army altogether, the wealthy traveling independently to the Kingdom of Jerusalem to take up the struggle for Jerusalem as individual armed pilgrims rather than as part of a crusading army.It was now, however, that the son of a deposed Byzantine Emperor, sought their aid. Alexios Angelos alleged that he would be welcomed with jubilation by the people of Constantinople and offering huge rewards. The crusaders succeeded in putting Alexios on the Byzantine throne in August 1203, but his promises of pay proved empty. Worse, he was highly unpopular and deposed in a popular upraising in January 1204 -- an uprising that was directed against the Latins still camped outside the city.There was now no hope the crusaders would be paid for their services and they were in worse straights than ever. At this juncture, Venice proposed taking the wealthy city of Constantinople on their own account. It was a daring plan. The crusaders were few in number, and morale was low. On the other side was a city that had defied all attempts to capture it up to now. Twice, massive armies led by devout (not to say fanatical) Muslim leaders had failed to take the city after months-long sieges.The crusader victory is largely attributable to the remarkable technology of the Venetian ships which enabled an assault from the sea -- something the Arabs had not been able to do. Equally important, however, is the fact that the mob in Constantinople did not elect a new emperor until the very day before the city fell. This suggests the population was divided and that there was no clear leadership of the defense. The great city fell to the crusaders on April 13, 1204, and the erstwhile crusaders captured and sacked one of the greatest Christian cities in the world.Although this action was repudiated by the Pope and reviled by many devout Christians throughout Western Europe, the damage had been done. The reputation of so-called "crusaders" was besmirched forever -- and the "Fourth Crusade" is always held up as an example of the corruption of the entire concept by opponents. Yet the capture of Constantinople was not a crusade at all! The Pope had very explicitly prohibited the siege and capture of Constantinople and papal approval is the essence of a crusade. It is only a historical convention to refer to this hijacked crusade as the "Fourth Crusade."https://www.quora.com/Did-Byzantium-know-that-they-were-being-attacked-by-the-Fourth-Crusaders-Was-Constantinople-prepared-for-an-assault
- Andronikos II Palaiologos (Medieval Greek: Ἀνδρόνικος Β′ Παλαιολόγος; 25 March 1259 – 13 February 1332), usually Latinized as Andronicus II Palaeologus, reigned as Byzantine Emperor from 1282 to 1328. Andronikos' reign was marked by the beginning of the decline of the Byzantine Empire. During his reign, the Turks conquered most of the Western Anatolian territories of the Empire and, during the last years of his reign, he also had to fight his grandson Andronikos in the First Palaiologan Civil War. The civil war ended in Andronikos II's forced abdication in 1328 after which he retired to a monastery.
- Andronikos II was born Andronikos Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos (Ἀνδρόνικος Δούκας Ἄγγελος Κομνηνός Παλαιολόγος) at Nicaea. He was the eldest surviving son of Michael VIII Palaiologos and Theodora Palaiologina, grandniece of John III Doukas Vatatzes. Andronikos was acclaimed co-emperor in 1261, after his father Michael VIII recovered Constantinople from the Latin Empire, but he was not crowned until 1272. Sole emperor from 1282, Andronikos II immediately repudiated his father's unpopular Church union with the Papacy, which he had been forced to support while his father was still alive, but he was unable to resolve the related schism within the Orthodox clergy until 1310. Andronikos II was also plagued by economic difficulties. During his reign the value of the Byzantine hyperpyron depreciated precipitously, while the state treasury accumulated less than one seventh the revenue (in nominal coins) that it had previously. Seeking to increase revenue and reduce expenses, Andronikos II raised taxes, reduced tax exemptions, and dismantled the Byzantine fleet (80 ships) in 1285, thereby making the Empire increasingly dependent on the rival republics of Venice and Genoa. In 1291, he hired 50–60 Genoese ships, but the Byzantine weakness resulting from the lack of a navy became painfully apparent in the two wars with Venice in 1296–1302 and 1306–10. Later, in 1320, he tried to resurrect the navy by constructing 20 galleys, but failed. Andronikos II Palaiologos sought to resolve some of the problems facing the Byzantine Empire through diplomacy. After the death of his first wife Anne of Hungary, he married Yolanda (renamed Irene) of Montferrat, putting an end to the Montferrat claim to the Kingdom of Thessalonica. Andronikos II also attempted to marry off his son and co-emperor Michael IX Palaiologos to the Latin Empress Catherine I of Courtenay, thus seeking to eliminate Western agitation for a restoration of the Latin Empire. Another marriage alliance attempted to resolve the potential conflict with Serbia in Macedonia, as Andronikos II married off his five-year-old daughter Simonis to King Stefan Milutin in 1298.
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Beylicats_d%E2%80%99Anatolie_vers_1330-fr.svg/1920px-Beylicats_d%E2%80%99Anatolie_vers_1330-fr.svg.png Les beylicats turcs à la fin du règne d'Andronic II.
- Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, Latinized as Palaeologus (Greek: Κωνσταντῖνος ΙΑ' Δραγάσης Παλαιολόγος, Kōnstantinos XI Dragasēs Palaiologos; Serbian: Константин XI Драгаш Палеолог, Konstantin XI Dragaš Paleolog; 8 February 1405 – 29 May 1453) was the last reigning Roman and Byzantine Emperor, ruling as a member of the Palaiologos dynasty from 1449 to his death in battle at the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Previously serving as regent for his brother John VIII 1437–1439, Constantine succeeded his brother, who died in Constantinople of natural causes in 1448, as Emperor following a short dispute with his younger brother Demetrios. Despite the mounting difficulties of his reign, contemporary sources generally speak respectfully of Constantine. Constantine would rule for just over 4 years, his reign culminating in the Ottoman siege and conquest of Constantinople, the imperial capital, under Sultan Mehmed II. Constantine did what he could to organize the defenses of the city, stockpiling food and repairing the old Theodosian walls, but the reduced domain of the Empire and the poor economy meant that organizing a force large enough for the defense of the city was impossible. Constantine led the defending forces, numbering approximately 7,000, against an Ottoman army numbering around 10 times that and died in the ensuing fighting. Following his death, he became a legendary figure in Greek folklore as the "Marble Emperor" who would awaken and recover the Empire and Constantinople from the Ottomans. His death marked the end of the Roman Empire. It had continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire for 977 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. The Empire had begun with the reign of Augustus in 27 BC, 1,479 years prior.
- Helena Palaiologina (Greek: Ἑλένη Παλαιολογίνα) (3 February 1428 – 11 April 1458) was a Byzantine princess of the Palaiologos family, who became the Queen consort of Cyprus and Armenia, titular Queen consort of Jerusalem, and Princess of Antioch through her marriage to King John II of Cyprus and Armenia. She was the mother of Queen Charlotte of Cyprus.
She may have poisoned her son-in-law John of Portugal, and ordered the nose of her husband's mistress to be cut off. She did, however, welcome and assist many Byzantine refugees in Cyprus after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Helena was born in the castle of Mistras, Morea, Greece on 3 February 1428, the only child of Theodore II Palaiologos, Despot of Morea, and Cleofa Malatesta. Her paternal grandfather was Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, and her uncles included emperors John VIII Palaiologos and Constantine XI Palaiologos. When she was five years old, her mother died. Her father never remarried as he was occupied in the war which was fought against the Latin states in Greece for the unification of Morea.
She may have poisoned her son-in-law John of Portugal, and ordered the nose of her husband's mistress to be cut off. She did, however, welcome and assist many Byzantine refugees in Cyprus after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Helena was born in the castle of Mistras, Morea, Greece on 3 February 1428, the only child of Theodore II Palaiologos, Despot of Morea, and Cleofa Malatesta. Her paternal grandfather was Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, and her uncles included emperors John VIII Palaiologos and Constantine XI Palaiologos. When she was five years old, her mother died. Her father never remarried as he was occupied in the war which was fought against the Latin states in Greece for the unification of Morea.
- it is believed that the panagia chrysaliniotissa church in lefkosia, cyrprus (dedicated to panagia chrysaliniotissa) was first built in 1450 by her
constantinople
- ******* https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-Constantinople The Making of Constantinople: Constantine’s “New Rome” The Christian emperor Constantine was ever pragmatic; he could only push his pagan subjects so far. One act of his, in the end, ensured the position of Christianity: the establishment of a new capital that would be known as Constantinople.By the time of Diocletian in the late 3rd century, it was already clear that Rome no longer occupied the position of the capital of the Roman Empire. During the period known as the tetrarchy, when you had four emperors ruling, none of them used Rome as their capital. Constantine’s father and Constantine himself ruled in Germany, on the Rhine frontier. The senior emperor in the West usually resided in Milan, in northern Italy. The senior emperor in the East was usually somewhere in Turkey; Diocletian’s capital was at Nicomedia. The junior emperor generally lived at Antioch in Syria. Major cities were chosen that were closer to frontiers and closer to the resources necessary to battle barbarians and suppress rebels. Rome increasingly became a ceremonial capital. It was awkwardly placed. To this day, Rome really isn’t the capital of Italy, at least not in a financial/economic sense. Its importance is due to its political and religious significance. There was always a move to get the capital out of Rome to a better location. Constantine therefore was, in many ways, responding along the lines of what other soldier-emperors had done. Constantine made a major difference here. He decided to establish a capital, “New Rome,” which would be Christian in nature from the start. There would be no pagan gods. He chose the city of Byzantium, where we get the word “Byzantine”—Byzantine civilization.
- Constantine wanted Nova Roma to be a break from the pagan past. It was to be a Christian city. Christ's seat on Earth. So there were no gladiatorial arenas. And I just noticed it a few minutes ago, no Greek Amphitheaters either. The only concession Constantine made was the Hippodrome. Even Christ's Vicar on Earth can't deny the citizens their chariot races. There were certainly plenty of churches & monasteries. The best part is he upgraded the defenses of old Byzantion. Not only the city is safe from the land side. But there are seawalls surrounding the coasts. Later the defenses were upgraded further with the triple walls of Theodosius. Constantine wanted the Christian Senators, Equites & Patricians to bring their money, move to the city & be safe. Underground cisterns were constructed to store drinking water in case of a siege.https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Constantine-build-Constantinople-Nicomedia-was-directly-across-the-Bosphorus-and-was-also-commonly-an-imperial-capital- https://www.quora.com/What-was-life-like-in-Medieval-Constantinople
goths
- https://www.quora.com/Was-it-wise-or-a-big-mistake-in-splitting-the-Roman-Empire-into-two-Emipires What made the Roman division catastrophic was the East sending Goths to invade and occupy the West, which they did
- https://www.quora.com/Was-it-wise-or-a-big-mistake-in-splitting-the-Roman-Empire-into-two-Emipires What made the Roman division catastrophic was the East sending Goths to invade and occupy the West, which they did
- https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-differences-between-the-Goths-the-Visigoths-and-the-Ostrogoths-Did-they-all-have-a-different-language-from-one-another
- Gothic is an extinct East Germanic language that was spoken by the Goths. It is known primarily from the Codex Argenteus, a 6th-century copy of a 4th-century Bible translation, and is the only East Germanic language with a sizable text corpus. All others, including Burgundian and Vandalic, are known, if at all, only from proper names that survived in historical accounts, and from loanwords in other languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, and French. As a Germanic language, Gothic is a part of the Indo-European language family. It is the earliest Germanic language that is attested in any sizable texts, but it lacks any modern descendants. The oldest documents in Gothic date back to the fourth century. The language was in decline by the mid-sixth century, partly because of the military defeat of the Goths at the hands of the Franks, the elimination of the Goths in Italy, and geographic isolation (in Spain the Gothic language lost its last and probably already declining function as a church language when the Visigoths converted to Catholicism in 589). The language survived as a domestic language in the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) as late as the eighth century. Gothic-seeming terms are found in manuscripts subsequent to this date, but these may or may not belong to the same language. In particular, a language known as Crimean Gothic survived in the lower Danube area and in isolated mountain regions in Crimea. Lacking certain sound changes characteristic of Gothic, however, Crimean Gothic cannot be a lineal descendant of Bible Gothic.
- https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-y-in-the-alphabet-pronounced-why-instead-of-yai
The Visigoths (UK: /ˈvɪzɪˌɡɒθs/; US: /ˈvɪzɪˌɡɑːθs/, Latin: Visigothi, Wisigothi, Vesi, Visi, Wesi, or Wisi) were the western branches of the nomadic tribes of Germanic peoples referred to collectively as the Goths. These tribes flourished and spread during the late Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, or the Migration Period. The Visigoths emerged from earlier Gothic groups (possibly the Thervingi) who had invaded the Roman Empire beginning in 376 and had defeated the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. Relations between the Romans and the Visigoths were variable, alternately warring with one another and making treaties when convenient. The Visigoths invaded Italy under Alaric I and sacked Rome in 410. After the Visigoths sacked Rome, they began settling down, first in southern Gaul and eventually in Spain and Portugal, where they founded the Visigothic Kingdom and maintained a presence from the 5th to the 8th centuries AD. The Visigoths first settled in southern Gaul as foederati of the Romans – a relationship established in 418. However, they soon fell out with their Roman hosts (for reasons that are now obscure) and established their own kingdom with its capital at Toulouse. They next extended their authority into Hispania at the expense of the Suebi and Vandals. In 507, however, their rule in Gaul was ended by the Franks under Clovis I, who defeated them in the Battle of Vouillé. After that, the Visigoth kingdom was limited to Hispania, and they never again held territory north of the Pyrenees other than Septimania. A small, elite group of Visigoths came to dominate the governance of that region at the expense of those who had previously ruled there, particularly in the Byzantine province of Spania and the Kingdom of the Suebi. In or around 589, the Visigoths under Reccared I converted from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, gradually adopting the culture of their Hispano-Roman subjects. Their legal code, the Visigothic Code (completed in 654) abolished the longstanding practice of applying different laws for Romans and Visigoths. Once legal distinctions were no longer being made between Romani and Gothi, they became known collectively as Hispani. In the century that followed, the region was dominated by the Councils of Toledo and the episcopacy. (Little else is known about the Visigoths' history during the 7th century, since records are relatively sparse.) In 711 or 712, a force of invading Arabs and Berbers defeated the Visigoths in the Battle of Guadalete. Their king and many members of their governing elite were killed, and their kingdom rapidly collapsed. Gothic identity survived, however, especially in Marca Hispanica and the Kingdom of Asturias, which had been founded by the Visigothic nobleman Pelagius of Asturias after his victory over the Moors at the Battle of Covadonga. During their governance of the Kingdom of Hispania, the Visigoths built several churches that survive. They also left many artifacts, which have been discovered in increasing numbers by archaeologists in recent times. The Treasure of Guarrazar of votive crowns and crosses is the most spectacular. They founded the only new cities in western Europe from the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire until the rise of theCarolingian dynasty. Many Visigothic names are still in use in modern Spanish and Portuguese. Their most notable legacy, however, was theVisigothic Code, which served, among other things, as the basis for court procedure in most of Christian Iberia until the Late Middle Ages, centuries after the demise of the kingdom.
flag
- https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Albanian-flag-a-copy-of-the-Byzantine-imperial-flag there was actually never a single official Byzantine imperial flag. Different emperors and royal houses had their own emblems and banners. It is true that one of the symbols most closely associated with the Byzantine Empire is the double-headed eagle. Ironically, though, this symbol did not become prominent until close to the very end of the Byzantine history. It first rose to prominence during the rule of the Palaiologos Dynasty (ruled 1261 – 1453), which was the last ruling dynasty of the Byzantine Empire.
governance
- administrative
- The Byzantine political system evolved naturally from the Roman imperial tradition, especially the form the latter acquired under Diocletian (r. 284–305)—it was the so-called dominatus. The emperor was praised as nomos empsūkhos ‘living law,’ and the Byzantine political system functioned on the principle princeps legibus solutus ‘the ruler is not restrained by the laws.’ Around the emperor there existed a highly sophisticated and very well organized bureaucracy. It was traditionally fairly meritocratic, which was helped by the fact that noble ranks never became hereditary in the Byzantine Empire. There were specialized scrinia and later sekreta (something like ministries) responsible for the central administration. The provinces also had their own separate mini-bureaucracy, though it was militarized during the Dark Ages (7th–8th cent.) with generals replacing the old proconsules (for provinces)—vicarii (for dioceses, units that included many provinces) and praefecti praetorio (for preferctures, units that included many dioceses) also ceased to exist by then. Various taktika ‘treatises on order’ include lists of all the military and civil magistrates, and we know that the system reached its apex during the 10th cent. Eunuchs played an important role in the administration of the empire as well. Neither judges nor military commanders were necessarily lifetime careerists in those fields; specialization did exist, but the emperor would easily appoint any official he deemed worthy commander of a campaign or responsible for the judicial examination of a case. Inside the city of Constantinople, the eparch (earlier praefectus urbi ‘prefect of the city’) was the most important official; he was responsible, i.a., for the guilds. ETA: Under the Comnenian dynasty (1081 onward), the empire came close to becoming a feudal state. The 11th–12th cent. chronicler John Zonaras explains how Alexius I (r. 1081–1118) run the empire the way a man runs his private business. Relatives of the emperor started playing a far more important role in the administration, and that continued under the Palaeologi (1259 onward) with sons of emperors being granted appanages and junior emperors acquiring real institutional power. By then, the empire had drifted apart from the older Roman institutions, though far from completely. https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Byzantine-Empire-like-politically
- provinces
- Byzantium’s most prosperous provinces were the areas surrounding Constantinople - the state’s wealthiest, most prosperous, and most heavily populated city. These provinces would provide the Empire with their bureaucracy and countless administrators, generals, soldiers, and Emperors - especially during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-prosperous-provinces-for-the-Byzantine-Empire
- The pronoia (plural pronoiai; Greek: πρόνοια, meaning "care" or "forethought") was a system of granting dedicated streams of state income to individuals and institutions in the late Eastern Roman Empire. Beginning in the 11th century and continuing until the empire's conquest in the 15th century,[2] the system differed in significant ways from European feudalism of the same period.A pronoia was a grant that temporarily transferred imperial fiscal rights to an individual or institution. These rights were most commonly taxes or incomes from cultivated lands, but they could also be other income streams such as water and fishing rights, customs collection, etc. and the various rights to a specific piece of geography could be granted to separate individuals. Grants were for a set period, usually lifetime, and revokable at will by the Emperor. When institutions, usually monasteries, received grants they were effectively in perpetuity since the institutions were ongoing. Grants were not transferable or (excluding certain exceptional cases late in the institution) hereditary; a pronoia gave the grantee possession, not ownership, which remained Imperial. The limits and specifics of a pronoia were recorded in an Imperial document called praktika ("records"); holders of pronoia (the grantees, in other words) were called pronoiarios, and those working the income stream in question (for instance, farmers on the land) were called paroikoi in the documents. The word pronoia could refer to the grant itself (land, for instance), its monetary value, or the income it produced. Although pronoia were often used to reward military service or other loyalties, they carried no specific military obligation (in contrast to feudal fiefs), although the threat of revocation provided coercive power for the state.After the Crusaders captured Constantinople in 1204, the pronoia system continued in the Empire of Nicaea, where the emperors ruled in exile. John III Ducas Vatatzes also gave pronoiai to the church and noblewomen, which had not been done before. When Constantinople was recaptured by Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1261, he allowed pronoiai to be inherited, which made the empire more like the feudal states in Europe. He also audited the pronoiai to make their values more realistic according to contemporary conditions, as the empire had lost much of its land and revenue since the 11th century. Under the Palaeologans, pronoiars could more easily be organized into military units if the emperor required their service. The emperor could also confiscate the revenues for whatever reason. Andronicus II Palaeologus, for example, used the money raised by the pronoiars to finance military expeditions against the Bulgarians, but he did not require them to provide military service themselves. During this time pronoiars could also attract followers by giving them pronoia grants of their own. Recruiting pronoiars to form an army helped unite the remnants of the empire after 1261. However, there were by this time only a few thousand pronoiars, and although they paid for their own expenses, the emperors could not afford a full army or navy to strengthen the empire's defenses. The impoverished empire had very little tax revenue, and pronoiars began to extract rents from the paroikoi, turning back to the old Thema system. The empire continued to lose land to the Ottoman Empire, and Constantinople was finally lost in 1453, but the Ottomans continued to use their own version of the pronoia system, called the timar system, which they had borrowed from the Eastern Romans during their conquests.「プロノイア」は、語源としては「予想」「配慮」を意味する。
- themes
- During the Principate, provincial governors were responsible for, and commanded, the armed forces of their province. On the contrary, the Diocletian-Constantinian model, commonly known as Dominate, was based on the separation of civil and military power. Provinces were governed by civic officials, and grouped to form dioceses (under vicars), which in their own turn were grouped to form praetorian prefectures (under praetorian prefects). Despite its advantages, the system had shortcomings too. Diarchy is prone to misunderstandings and can be less effective in times of peril or urgency. Thus, it was undermined or adapted quite early on. At least in the time of Justinian I (r. 527–565), the governors of some specific provinces (Thebaid, Isauria, Mauretania) combined military and civil authority. In the late 6th c., the dangers the empire faced led to the formation of the exarchate of Africa (capital: Carthage) and the exarchate of Ravenna; their governors also held both civil and military power, so that the could act swiftly and autonomously. Those developments paved the road for the eventual abolition of the separation of powers all over the country.The late Roman Empire went through a long, complicated and multifactorial crisis between the 5th/6th and 8th/9th c. Until that time, most of its archaic institutions and way of life were intact. The empire was essentially an confederation of semi-autonomous cities, had a rather small—though gradually increasing after Constantius II (r. 337–361)—central bureaucracy, an active provincial aristocracy and was characterized by big landholding. The collapse of the cities, a series of famines and natural disasters, a rise of social unrest, migrations and foreign invasions led to the crumbling of the old order. The empire was now a smaller, agrarian state in need of military protection. The land was fragmented, leading to small landowners becoming the norm, while the provincial aristocracy disappeared, and the economy was demonetized. Overall, everything became more medieval, to put it schematically. It was in this context that the administration and military of the empire took a new form. Instead of professional soldiers or mercenaries, the army now relied on medium-small landowners, who held estates in the provinces and were enlisted in the local, thematic armies to fight for their home. Only the tagmata (regiments) stationed in and around Constantinople comprised professionals. Obviously, the system suited better the status of finances and land ownership of the empire. At the same time, the provinces were replaced by the themes, large territorial entities under stratēgoi (generals), who held both military and civil authority. Again, that made governance simpler and easier, and defense more effective—all qualities the empire was in dire need of. When the most turbulent period passed, themes were broken in smaller units, so that the generals couldn’t threaten the emperor.https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-develop-the-theme-system
- eunuchs
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Byzantines-have-eunuchs
cities
- https://www.quora.com/Which-Byzantine-cities-were-the-most-important-after-Constantinople
senate
- https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-if-any-did-the-Senate-still-possess-in-the-Byzantine-Empire
military
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-last-for-so-long
The main reason why the Eastern Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years after the fall of the west is because it was simply impossible to breach the walls of Constantinople until the advent of gunpowder artillery.Constantinople had 3 layers of defensive walls and a large moat. It also had a massive chain protecting one side so that enemy ships could not simply sail in and attack them from the estuary known as the Golden Horn. Anytime they were outnumbered, the Romans could simply hide inside their city until the threat passed. Inside the walls they were completely safe until, in 1453, the Turkish Sultan Mehmet II decided to build the biggest cannon that the world had ever seen. They also had massive underground fresh water reservoirs. These underground cisterns were filled from springs in the surrounding hills via aqueducts and were able to supply the city with enough fresh water to outlast almost any siege.Greek fire was also an essential part of the Eastern Roman Naval defense strategy.
- https://www.quora.com/I-often-hear-that-the-Byzantine-army-was-the-best-in-the-world-at-many-points-in-its-history-why-was-it-unable-to-have-the-same-level-of-success-in-conquering-large-swaths-of-territory-that-their-ancient
The spatharii or spatharioi (singular: Latin: spatharius; Greek: σπαθάριος, literally "spatha-bearer") were a class of Late Roman imperial bodyguards in the court in Constantinople in the 5th–6th centuries, later becoming a purely honorary dignity in the Byzantine Empire.Originally, the term was probably applied to both private and imperial bodyguards.[1] The original imperial spatharioi were probably or later became also the eunuch cubicularii (Greek: koubikoularioi), members of the sacrum cubiculum (the imperial "sacred chamber") charged with military duties. They are attested from the reign of Emperor Theodosius II (r. 408–450), where the eunuch Chrysaphius held the post.[1] The existence of the specific title of spatharokoubikoularios for eunuchs in 532 probably suggests the existence by then of other, non-eunuch, spatharioi in imperial service. The various generals and provincial governors also maintained military attendants called spatharioi, whilst those of the emperor were distinguished with the prefix basilikoi ("imperial ones").[2] The officer leading the imperial spatharioi held the title prōtospatharios ("first spatharios"), which became a separate dignity probably in the late 7th century.By the early 8th century, these titles had lost their original military connotations and become honorific titles. The title of spatharios ranked initially quite high, being awarded for instance by Emperor Justinian II (r. 685–695) to his friend and future emperor Leo III the Isaurian (r. 717–741). It gradually declined, however, and in the Klētorologion of 899, it occupies the seventh-highest place in the hierarchy of ranks for non-eunuchs, above the hypatos and below the spatharokandidatos.[4] According to the Klētorologion, the insignia of the dignity was a gold-hilted sword.[5] At the same time, the term oikeiakos spatharios still designated a bodyguard of the imperial oikos ("household"), as distinct from the basilikoi spatharioi who now were the holders of the honorary dignity.[1] The term ceased to be used in these contexts after circa 1075, and by the time Anna Komnene wrote her Alexiad in the early 12th century, a spatharios was held to be completely insignificant.
people
- Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Latinized as Laonicus Chalcondyles (Greek: Λαόνικος Χαλκοκονδύλης, from λαός "people", νικᾶν "to be victorious", an anagram of Nikolaos which bears the same meaning; c. 1430 – c. 1470), was a Byzantine Greek historian from Athens. He is known for his Histories in ten books, which record the last 150 years of the Byzantine Empire.
- Chalkokondyles was a member of a prominent family of Athens, which at the time was ruled by the FlorentineAcciaioli family. His father George was a kinsman of Maria Melissene, the wife of Duke Antonio I Acciaioli. When Antonio died in 1435, Maria attempted to secure control of the Duchy of Athens and sent George on a mission to the Orroman Sultan Murad II, asking that the government of Athens might be entrusted to herself and George Chalkokondyles. However, during his absence, the Duchess was enticed out of the Acropolis and a young scion of the Acciaiuoli family, Nerio II, was proclaimed Duke of Athens. Meanwhile, George Chalkokondyles had his proposal rejected, despite offering the Sultan 30,000 gold pieces, and was cast into prison. George Chalkokondyles managed to escape to Constantinople, according to William Miller "leaving his retinue, tents and beasts of burden behind him", but after leaving Constantinople by ship, he was captured by an Athenian ship and taken back to the Sultan, who pardoned him. George with Laonikos and the rest of the family relocated to the Peloponnese, which was under Byzantine rule as the Despotate of the Morea. In 1446 Constantine Palaiologos, then Despot of the Morea, sent George on a diplomatic mission to Murad II to obtain the independence of the Greek states south of Thermopylae; enraged at the offered terms, the Sultan put George Chalkokondyles into prison, then marched on Constantine's forces holding the Hexamilion wall on the Isthmus of Corinth and after bombarding it for three days, destroyed the fortifications, massacred the defenders, then pillaged the countryside, ending all hopes of independence.[2] According to Miller, Laonikos was "evidently" an eye-witness to this battle, although the historian Theodore Spandounesclaims Laonikos was the secretary of Murad II and present at the Battle of Varna in 1444. The one glimpse we have of Laonikos himself is in the summer of 1447, when Cyriacus of Ancona met him in the summer of 1447 at the court of Constantine Palaiologos at Mistra. Cyriacus describes him as a youth egregie latinis atque grecis litteris eruditum ("surprisingly learned in Latin and Greek literature"). It was at Mistra where Laonikos was taught by George Gemistos Plethon, and who gave Laonikos his personal copy of the Histories of Herodotus: Laur. Plut. 70.6, written in 1318, with corrections by Plethon, and later used by Bessarion in 1436 to make another copy, contains a subscription written by Laonikos. Laonikos' movements and actions after 1447 are not known with certainty. Internal evidence has led Byzantinist Anthony Kaldellis to put the date Laonikos stopped writing his Histories as 1464. In writing this work, his account of the circumcision of Sultan Mehmed II's sons in 1457 suggest he was an eye-witness to the event, and his account of Ottoman finances indicate he interviewed the Sultan's accountants.[6] Other speculations about Laonikos Chalkokondyles' life are not as widely accepted.
- descendants of royalty and nobles
- https://www.quora.com/Are-there-true-descendants-from-a-Byzantine-Eastern-Roman-emperor-nowadays The Angeloi survive as nobles, originally based in Sardinia but their title is Spanish just as Sardinia was Spanish for several centuries. They are the real thing. The more famous Paleologi also survived but their ancestry appears contested. Their most famous representative was Maurice Paleologue, a French diplomat in Russia whose ancestors came from Romania. But naturally blood of several Byzantine dynasties courses through several Italian and German dynasties, even through the Romanovs as there was a Byzantine in Catherine the Great’s family tree according to a colleague..’ And of course the Habsburgs. In one of my Byzantine books was told that a famous Greek magnate family was supposed to descend from a Byzantine dynasty but i have to look it up.
cities
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-Byzantine-cities-look-like-before-the-Ottoman-conquest
Architecture
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-Byzantine-cities-look-like-before-the-Ottoman-conquest
Architecture
- Byzantine architecture is the architecture of the Byzantine Empire, also known as the Later Roman or Eastern Roman Empire. This terminology is used by modern historians to designate the medieval Roman Empire as it evolved as a distinct artistic and cultural entity centered on the new capital of Constantinoplerather than the city of Rome and environs. The empire endured for more than a millennium, dramatically influencing Medieval architecturethroughout Europe and the Near East, and becoming the primary progenitor of the Renaissance and Ottoman architectural traditions that followed its collapse. Early Byzantine architecture was built as a way of remembering Roman architecture. Stylistic drift, technological advancement, and political and territorial changes meant that a distinct style gradually resulted in the Greek cross plan in church architecture. Buildings increased in geometric complexity, brick and plaster were used in addition to stonein the decoration of important public structures, classical orders were used more freely,mosaics replaced carved decoration, complex domes rested upon massive piers, and windows filtered light through thin sheets of alabaster to softly illuminate interiors. Most of the surviving structures are sacred in nature, with secular buildings mostly known only through contemporaneous descriptions. Prime examples of early Byzantine architecture date from Justinian I's reign and survive inRavenna and Istanbul, as well as in Sofia (theChurch of St Sophia). One of the great breakthroughs in the history of Western architecture occurred when Justinian's architects invented a complex system providing for a smooth transition from a square plan of the church to a circular dome (or domes) by means of pendentives.
- legacy
- [precarious belongings] the former seoul station was modeled on the architectural designs of tokyo station and manchuria's changchoon station, where were built under japanese rule (both buildings had features of byzantine-style domes)
*******https://www.quora.com/Could-the-Byzantine-Empire-have-feasibly-restored-the-borders-of-the-old-Roman-empire Yes, the Byzantine Empire could have done so, but it required the Empire to do the one thing it refused to do, give land to the peasants.The problem with the late Roman Empire was that most of the land was owned by a small handful of men (the big exception was modern day Greece and Turkey which was mostly small farmers, many given their plots of land by Diocleian and Constatine and their successors as part of they pay for military service, this is the start of the Theme system, through the actual Themes would not occur till after the Arab Conquest) . Upin any reconquest these land lords demanded their rent from the peasants who worked the land. These rent demands exceeded any tax the peasants had to pay and were the peasants main objection to return to being subjects of the Empire. Eliminate that objection, the peasants, almost all Christians by 400 AD, wanted to be under the Empire for that is what the Church taught. When Egypt was lost to Persia around 600 AD, that was the first time Egypt had ever been under Non Imperial rule since the time of Julius Caesar, over 700 years before. Within 15 years the Persians were gone and what happened in Italy, Sicily, North Africa and Spain re-occured this time in Egypt, i.e. the rich landlords returned demanding they rent. When the Arabs occurred about 15 years later the peasants remembered the low rents of the Persians and supported the Arabs over Empire. This was do to the fact the peasants received more of their own produce under the Arabs then under the Empire.
industry
- silk
- https://www.quora.com/Which-single-event-was-the-most-detrimental-to-the-Byzantine-Empire In 1204, Constantinople lost it's monopoly on silk production in the Empire. They had difficulty finding a source of cash flow afterwards.
food
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-average-Byzantine-person-eat
- use of fork
- https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-interesting-things-about-the-Byzantine-empire-and-era-that-influenced-the-world-we-live-today
"ethnic people"
- conflicts
- conflicts
- https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-Byzantine-Empire-have-ethnic-conflicts-like-the-Ottoman-Empire-did
punishment
- blinding
- https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-Byzantines-virtually-cease-using-Latin-altogether-even-in-its-own-administration-and-made-Greek-totally-dominant-not-just-as-a-lingua-franca-Did-most-Byzantines-especially-in The majority of the population of Anatolia spoke either Greek or Armenian centuries before the point we start calling the Roman Empire “Byzantine". Latin was never an important language there. Its pretty much the same in all the rest of the eastern empire. There were two, maybe three languages of import. Local ones like Coptic or Syriac, and Greek. In the east the amount of users of Latin was miniscule, and it was mostly limited to government workers and soldiers. So when the western provinces fell it wasn't really needed anymore. So by the 7th century and the rule of the Emperor Heraclius there was really no point continuing to use Latin at all, and it wasnt really even being used as a military or court language anyway by that point. So he just made a change that was already well under way official, and made the state language of the Roman Empire Greek.
- blinding
- https://www.quora.com/Blinding-was-a-common-method-of-punishing-political-rivals-in-Byzantium-Why-was-this-so-common-in-the-Byzantine-Empire-and-why-does-it-seem-that-this-method-of-punishment-was-not-as-common-in-other-parts-of-Europe
- https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-Byzantines-virtually-cease-using-Latin-altogether-even-in-its-own-administration-and-made-Greek-totally-dominant-not-just-as-a-lingua-franca-Did-most-Byzantines-especially-in The majority of the population of Anatolia spoke either Greek or Armenian centuries before the point we start calling the Roman Empire “Byzantine". Latin was never an important language there. Its pretty much the same in all the rest of the eastern empire. There were two, maybe three languages of import. Local ones like Coptic or Syriac, and Greek. In the east the amount of users of Latin was miniscule, and it was mostly limited to government workers and soldiers. So when the western provinces fell it wasn't really needed anymore. So by the 7th century and the rule of the Emperor Heraclius there was really no point continuing to use Latin at all, and it wasnt really even being used as a military or court language anyway by that point. So he just made a change that was already well under way official, and made the state language of the Roman Empire Greek.
- Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire evolved into Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian & Istro-Romanian languages. In 620, Emperor Heraclius changed the official language from Latin to Greek. The empire was embroiled in a war with Sassanian Persia.https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Byzantines-stop-speaking-Latin
religion
religion
- The Greek Orthodox payed 10 % taxes, schismatics 20 %, “heretics”and Jews 30 % and pagans 40 %. I am not sure about the actual figures but you get the message. It became very expensive to stay pagan! Actually the muslims followed a like system. Really persecuted were only Manicheans and like gnostic sects. They were seen as worshipping the Bent One, which was only half true. And in many cases they were just deported . Sure, there existed Edicts against Pagans but rarely active persecution. A churchman residing at Gaza in Palestine remarked that the Governor still tolerated Pagan Festivals . It was at the Eve of the Arrival of Islam. https://www.quora.com/Were-Greek-pagans-persecuted-by-the-Byzantine-Empire
uk, britain, british
uk, britain, british
- https://www.quora.com/Has-there-ever-been-a-Roman-or-Byzantine-emperor-who-had-British-ancestry The Byzantine emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos (r. 1328–41) was the grandson of Andronicus II, whom he defeated in a civil war, deposed and succeeded. In 1326, amidst that very civil war, the freshly widowed Andronicus III married Anna of Savoy, daughter of count Amadeus V of Savoy. Their marriage produced several children, including Andronicus’ successor John V. After Andronicus’ death, Anna served as regent for the underage John. Her regency grew unpopular and clashed with Andronicus’ old friend and marshal John Kantakouzenos, which led to the civil war of 1341–7. Kantakouzenos became emperor, John VI, but the Palaiologoi prevailed in the long run. All the following emperors until 1453 were John V’s descendants.Through her mother, Anna of Savoy had an interesting ancestry. Her great-great-great-great-grandmother was countess Mary I of Boulogne
athens
- Athens had lost most of its material wealth and splendor by the late 4th c. AD. That can be attributed both to systemic and to incidental factors. The major late antique and medieval trade networks largely bypassed the city, its fertile lands were not extended enough to give it any prominence in the agrarian society that was the Byzantine Empire, and strategically it didn’t offer considerable advantages. Its two sackings, first by the Heruli in 267 and later by Alaric’s Visigoths in 396, despoiled and hurt it. Synesius of Cyrene, a 4th-c. bishop and philosopher, wrote that Athens in his time was famous only for its honey. The only area Athens still excelled in was learning and education. The old veneer wouldn’t die so easily — in fact, there was a considerable revival after the 4th c. The leading center was the Academy, the prytaneum of Neoplatonism. Promising young students still came to the city to study philosophy and rhetoric; the list of alumni includes Emperor Julian (r. 361–363) and the eminent Church Fathers Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. Empress Aelia Eudocia, who was a native of Athens originally named Athenais, was also noted for her erudition — her poetry knits together Christianity and the Greek civilization. In 529, Justinian I (r. 527–565) closed the Academy of Athens. Athens was affected by the fall of the Greco-Roman cities and the other developments that are considered to have marked the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the Middle ages. It was threatened more than once by the Slavs and the Arab pirates, but wasn’t lost (though it was possibly sacked once by the Slavs). The biggest part of its medium-sized population were farmers https://www.quora.com/What-was-Athens-like-during-the-Byzantine-empire
athens
- Athens had lost most of its material wealth and splendor by the late 4th c. AD. That can be attributed both to systemic and to incidental factors. The major late antique and medieval trade networks largely bypassed the city, its fertile lands were not extended enough to give it any prominence in the agrarian society that was the Byzantine Empire, and strategically it didn’t offer considerable advantages. Its two sackings, first by the Heruli in 267 and later by Alaric’s Visigoths in 396, despoiled and hurt it. Synesius of Cyrene, a 4th-c. bishop and philosopher, wrote that Athens in his time was famous only for its honey. The only area Athens still excelled in was learning and education. The old veneer wouldn’t die so easily — in fact, there was a considerable revival after the 4th c. The leading center was the Academy, the prytaneum of Neoplatonism. Promising young students still came to the city to study philosophy and rhetoric; the list of alumni includes Emperor Julian (r. 361–363) and the eminent Church Fathers Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. Empress Aelia Eudocia, who was a native of Athens originally named Athenais, was also noted for her erudition — her poetry knits together Christianity and the Greek civilization. In 529, Justinian I (r. 527–565) closed the Academy of Athens. Athens was affected by the fall of the Greco-Roman cities and the other developments that are considered to have marked the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the Middle ages. It was threatened more than once by the Slavs and the Arab pirates, but wasn’t lost (though it was possibly sacked once by the Slavs). The biggest part of its medium-sized population were farmers https://www.quora.com/What-was-Athens-like-during-the-Byzantine-empire
greeks
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Byzantine-population-Greek-in-majority
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-become-more-Greek-than-Roman
- https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Greeks-get-credit-for-the-Byzantine-Empire-when-we-clearly-know-that-it-was-the-Roman-Empire
- *********https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-aristocracy-that-were-not-captured-flee-to-at-the-fall-of-the-Byzantine-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/If-the-Greeks-called-themselves-Romans-during-the-Eastern-Roman-rule-why-did-they-not-call-themselves-as-Athenian-Spartan-Macedonian-but-Greek-in-general-during-the-Classical-age
- *********https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-aristocracy-that-were-not-captured-flee-to-at-the-fall-of-the-Byzantine-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/If-the-Greeks-called-themselves-Romans-during-the-Eastern-Roman-rule-why-did-they-not-call-themselves-as-Athenian-Spartan-Macedonian-but-Greek-in-general-during-the-Classical-age
- vs latin people
- https://www.quora.com/How-devastating-was-the-4th-crusade-to-the-Byzantine-empire The sack in itself was incredibly brutal, and the pillaging of one of Christendom’s holiest cities was perceived with outrage from both the Greeks and the Latins. The atrocities committed during the sack — the massacre of thousands of Greeks, raping of nuns, execution of monks, desecration of tombs, and rampant pillaging of the city would devastate Constantinople. Europe’s wealthiest city went into rapid decline after that, reversed only when the Turks took the city in 1453. The sack was the culmination of centuries of tensions between Latins and Greeks, stretching from the iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian, increased by the crowning of Charlemagne, exacerbated by the Great Schism of 1054, aggravated by the Norman conquest of Byzantine Italy, and deeply intensified under the Komnenoi dynasty. For all of their skill, the Komnenoi grew increasingly reliant on Latin merchants under Manuel Komnenos. Although Manuel’s pro-Latin approach warmed relations between Western Europe and the Empire, it also earned the ire of much of the lower classes. This culminated in the Massacre of the Latins in 1185, where a mob spurred on by Isaac II Angelos slaughtered some 20,000 Latin merchants and their families. The city’s sacking was very devastating, and the Empire lost its monopoly over silk trade. But the sack was not even the worst part: that would be the Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae (Partition of the lands of the Empire of Romania). The former Imperial lands were divied up by Frankish barons thus ushering in a period commonly referred to as the Frankokratia (Frankocracy). Various Latin-controlled states were formed; a Catholic Emperor of Constantinople was crowned that year by a Latin Patriarch, while Southern Greece and Thessaly was divided up by Latin noblemen.
how was the empire called by people during its time
- https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-did-people-stop-referring-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-as-the-Roman-Empire It didn’t take very long into the Middle Ages for people in western Europe to talk about that part of the empire as “the Greeks” rather than something with “Rome” in it. People in the east, though, up to and including late Medieval Turks, called it “Rum.” Of course, people didn’t start calling it the Byzantine empire until after it had fallen.
- https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-did-people-stop-referring-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-as-the-Roman-Empire It didn’t take very long into the Middle Ages for people in western Europe to talk about that part of the empire as “the Greeks” rather than something with “Rome” in it. People in the east, though, up to and including late Medieval Turks, called it “Rum.” Of course, people didn’t start calling it the Byzantine empire until after it had fallen.
vikings
- Starting from 9th century, Byzantine Emperors started to recruit Norsemen as Varangian Guards. It was a prestigous job for Norsemen and over time they forgot about the harsh land over the ocean. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Vikings-abandon-their-North-American-colonies-and-never-return-again
anglo saxon
- https://www.quora.com/After-the-Norman-conquest-of-England-in-1066-a-fleet-of-235-ships-of-Anglo-Saxon-nobility-apparently-fled-the-country-and-sailed-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-What-became-of-them-and-their-descendants-What-do-we-know-of
- https://www.quora.com/After-the-Norman-conquest-of-England-in-1066-a-fleet-of-235-ships-of-Anglo-Saxon-nobility-apparently-fled-the-country-and-sailed-to-the-Byzantine-Empire-What-became-of-them-and-their-descendants-What-do-we-know-of
normandy
- A number of wars between the Normans and the Byzantine Empire were fought from c. 1040 until 1185, when the last Norman invasion of the Byzantine Empire was defeated. At the end of the conflict, neither the Normans nor the Byzantines could boast much power; by the mid-13th century exhaustive fighting with other powers had weakened both, leading to the Byzantines losing Asia Minor to the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century, and the Normans losing Sicily to the Hohenstaufen, who in turn were succeeded by the Angevins.
franks
- https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Byzantines-take-issue-with-the-Holy-Roman-Empire-calling-their-country-Roman
italy
- https://www.quora.com/What-was-Italy-like-during-the-Byzantine-Empire
- https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-lose-Italy
lemnos
- https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-people-of-Lemnos-maintain-their-Roman-identity-until-1912-Is-there-anything-Byzantine-in-the-islands-culture-or-dialect
- The Romans effectively took over Greece in the second century BC. The Greeks were politically Roman from more or less that point on, even after the western half of the empire fell and their lost their connection to Rome itself, through their conquest by the Ottomans. By that time, the idea of being Roman had become part of how they identified themselves, as part of a political legacy as well as being Christian as opposed to Muslim, what with Christianity being a major prop of late Roman/Byzantine ideology. Many continued to call themselves Romans, as they had for centuries (indeed, Greeks/Hellenes was at one point in the Middle Ages used to mean the last of the pagans worshiping the old gods in the predominantly Christian Byzantine empire), to distinguish themselves from the Turks. So, then, there was little about the people of Lemnos which we distant westerners would regard as being even remotely Roman. They spoke Greek rather than Latin, had diets, architecture, and clothing resembling that of their Turkish and Greek neighbors, were Orthodox Christians rather than Roman-style pagans, and so on. They identified as Roman, but far from being a pocket of ancient Roman culture, as we might incorrectly conclude from use of that name, it was an idea of Roman-ness which had been through a long and elaborate evolution to the point where it was a name which had little or nothing to do with ancient Rome and everything to do with a people who adopted that name and kept it while their culture changed enormously.https://www.quora.com/The-island-of-Lemnos-is-often-cited-as-possessing-the-last-Roman-as-in-the-empire-population-as-late-as-1912-Is-this-really-the-case-or-just-anecdotal-If-so-how-is-this-possible
avars
- The Avars were a semi-nomadic confederation of tribes that occupied various areas in Central Europe from about 550 to 800. They first entered into relations with the Byzantine Empire in 557, at which time they were occupying the Northern Caucasus region and were on the move down towards the Danube River delta. They, along with the Slavs, were fleeing the expansion of the mighty Gokturks, who had successfully formed a Eurasian empire that stretched from China to the Black Sea.The Avars and East Romans had a relationship similar to the ones that the Germanic confederations once had with the united Roman Empire. Sometimes, they were peaceful partners in trade. Sometimes, they were vicious enemies. Generally, the “peaceful partners” thing happened when the East Romans were at peace and thus too powerful to risk attacking head-on. When the East Roman Empire was embroiled in war with Persia or in civil strife, the Avars often swooped across the river to take what they could. The Avars subjugated the Slavic, Bulgar, and Germanic tribes in Pannonia and in the Carpathian region, creating a state not unlike the Hunnic confederation that had existed a century and a half earlier. Their disruptive gravity forced another tribe, the Lombards, into Italy, where in 568, they took advantage of weakened Roman authorities and quickly established holdings in Northern and Southern Italy. In that same year, the Avars sacked Roman holdings in Dalmatia, demanding tribute payments in return for withdrawal.https://www.quora.com/What-were-relations-between-the-Avars-and-the-Byzantines-like note the painting - the avar looks like red indianwallachians, moldovans
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-Byzantines-think-about-Wallachians-and-Moldavians-as-some-of-them-considered-themselves-Romans
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-Byzantines-think-about-Wallachians-and-Moldavians-as-some-of-them-considered-themselves-Romans
ottomans
- https://www.quora.com/If-the-Byzantines-had-to-pay-tribute-to-the-Ottoman-Empire-for-Constantinople-why-did-Mehmed-II-invade-the-city-in-1453 the Byzantines had been able to buy off the Ottomans back in 1424 by paying them a tribute of 300,000 silver coins per year in return for not being conquered. In February 1451 the 19-year old Mehmed II became Ottoman sultan, consolidating his power by having his own baby brother murdered. One possible other rival claimant to the throne lay beyond his reach, however: his uncle Orhan, who was living in Constantinople in the power of Emperor Constantine XI. Mehmed dealt with this potential threat by agreeing to pay Constantine an annual sum of money in return for him keeping Prince Orhan safely locked up and out of trouble. However, shortly afterwards, while Mehmed was off dealing with a war against the Karamanids on his eastern frontier, Emperor Constantine decided that it was a good idea to threaten the Sultan and demand more money from him. Unless Mehmed paid him twice as much as he was currently paying, Constantine warned, he would release Orhan from captivity. The Sultan's uncle would then, it was hinted, raise an army and foment a civil war for rulership over the Ottomans. Mehmed did not reply immediately to this demand, but his response soon became obvious. In March 1452 he began the construction of a fortress overlooking the Bosporus, able to block the straits and prevent any outside aid reaching Constantinople. In June 1452 an alarmed Emperor Constantine, perhaps realising he had overplayed his hand, sent emissaries to Sultan Mehmed asking for peace.
- the Byzantines achieved few successes in battle against the Ottomans; most uninspiringly of all, the Byzantine houses of Palaiologos and Kantakouzenos fell into a state of perpetual civil war through the 14th century. These civil wars were fought over control of the regency of the emperor John V Palaiologos (r. 1341–76, 1379–90, 1390–91), and were not only devastating but also involved the interference of Ottomans eager to take advantage of Byzantium’s state of internal turmoil. John V, who ruled intermittently as one Byzantine ruler was overthrown after another, presided over the aforementioned Ottoman conquests of Gallipoli and Thrace. Learning the hard way that Byzantine forces by themselves stood little chance in the long-term against the Ottomans, John appealed to the kingdom of Hungary and those of Western Europe for help, attempting to convince the Pope to organize a crusade and even converting to Catholicism. However, nothing came of these efforts. Time had been wasted as the Ottomans drew closer to Constantinople. It was under this distressing backdrop that John decided he was no longer interested in fighting a cliff of an uphill battle anymore. Whereas once he had given his daughter’s hand in marriage to the sultan Orhan, affirming his superiority over the Turkish ruler, by 1371 he was lowering himself to becoming the vassal of Orhan’s son and successor, Murad I (r. 1362–1389). Payment was steep, and took the form of both a whopping amount of money and the supply of troops to Murad, but besides a brief interruption in which Murad supported John’s opponent in yet another civil war, John accepted these duties and relations between the Byzantines and Ottomans stabilized for a period of time. With that, from 1371–1394, Byzantium held onto its existence as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Now, this question assumes that this fate was a choice extended to the Byzantines by the Ottomans. However, given their empire’s devastated state in the late 14th century, not only did the Byzantines have little choice in the matter, they themselves were the ones who had to seek such a status from the Ottomans.https://www.quora.com/There-was-at-one-time-an-offer-from-the-Ottomans-to-make-the-Byzantines-into-a-vassal-state-with-limited-autonomy-Is-this-trueseljuks
- https://www.quora.com/What-if-the-Byzantine-Empire-accepted-the-peace-treaty-by-the-Seljuks-after-ManzikertThe peace treaty involved the payment of a lot of gold, the surrender of various fortresses (such as Manzikert), as well as a few cities, like Antioch, if I recall correctly.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can easily see that the peace treaty was by far the better deal for the Romans. In our timeline they lost pretty much all of Anatolia in the twenty years that followed Manzikert.
turks- A common misunderstanding regarding the Turkification of Anatolia is that the Turks simply ‘invaded’ Anatolia and disregarded the promise that Romanus Diogenes extracted from Alp Arslan. On the contrary; they were invited in as mercenaries by Byzantine noblemen of all sides who needed skillful troops to serve in their armies. The founder of the Sultanate of Rum, Suleiman, founded his state by joining the Byzantine civil war and serving as a mercenary for first Nikephoros Botaneiates (who allowed him and his people to settle on the Asian side of the Bosphorus in exchange for defending Nicaea) and then Nikephoros Melissenos, who opened the gates of Nicaea for him and gave him control of Bithynia. But the Turks were also playing the long game - they garrisoned the cities granted to them by rebellious Byzantine noblemen, making them Turkish strongholds. The inherent political instability of the Empire opened the way for individual lords, concentrated on their goal of securing the throne, ignored the Turkish threat. Meanwhile, the Anatolian military aristocracy had essentially become a paper tiger as Anatolian nobles began to oppress their peasants — preventing them from actually putting up any effective resistance to the Turks.https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-Byzantines-need-to-do-to-not-fall-victim-to-the-Turks
arabs
- Digenes Akrites (Greek: Διγενῆς Ἀκρίτης, pronounced [ðiʝeˈnis aˈkritis]), known in folksongs as Digenes Akritas (Διγενῆς Ἀκρίτας, [aˈkritas]) and also transliterated as Digenis Akritis, is the most famous of the Acritic Songs. The epic details the life of the hero, Basil (Βασίλειος), whose epithet Digenes Akritas ("Two Blood Border Lord" or "Twain-born Borderer") refers to his mixed Byzantine-Cappadocian Greek and Arab blood. The first part of the epic details the lives of his parents, how they met, and how his father, an Emir, converted to Christianity after abducting and marrying Digenes' mother. The remainder of the epic discusses, often from a first-person point of view, Basil's acts of heroism on the Byzantine border.
- The Byzantine-Arab conflicts that lasted from the 7th century to the early 11th century provide the context for Byzantine heroic poetry written in the vernacular Greek language. The Akritai of the Byzantine Empire of this period were a military class responsible for safeguarding the frontier regions of the imperial territory from external enemies and freebooting adventurers who operated on the fringes of the empire. The work comprises two parts. In the first, the "Lay of the Emir", which bears more obviously the characteristics of epic poetry, an Arab emir invades Cappadocia and carries off the daughter of a Byzantine general. The emir agrees to convert to Christianity for the sake of the daughter and resettle in Romania (Ρωμανία, the lands of the Ρωμηοί (Romioi) or mediaeval and early modern Greeks) together with his people. The issue of their union is a son, Digenes Akritas. The second part of the work relates the development of the young hero and his superhuman feats of bravery and strength. As a boy, he goes hunting with his father and kills two bears unarmed, strangling the first to death and breaking the second one's spine. He also tears a hind in half with his bare hands, and slays a lion in the same manner. Like his father, he carries off the daughter of another Byzantine general and then marries her; he kills a dragon; he takes on the so-called apelatai (ἀπελάται), a group of bandits, and then defeats their three leaders in single combat. No one, not even the amazingly strong female warrior Maximu, with whom he commits the sin of adultery, can match him. Having defeated all his enemies Digenes builds a luxurious palace by the Euphrates, where he ends his days peacefully. Cypriot legend has it that he grabbed hold of the Pentadaktylos ("Five Fingers") mountain range north of Nicosia in order to leap to Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). The mountain range, as the name suggests, resembles five knuckles sprouting from the ground. The tale of Digenes continued to be read and enjoyed in later centuries, as the text survives in various versions dating to as late as the 17th century. The epic tale of Digenes Akritas corresponds in many ways to a cycle of much shorter Acritic songs, particularly from Asia Minor, Cyprus and Crete, some of which survive until the present day. In the later tradition Digenes is eventually defeated only by Death, in the figure of Thanatos/Charon, after fierce single combat on "the marble threshing floors". Thanatos had reportedly already wrestled with Heracles. The Greek-Canadian composer Christos Hatzis has used this text as the basis for a portion of his "Constantinople". The story of Digenes Akritas, defeated by Death personally, was used as a basis of a Russian bylina (a folk ballad) about Anika the Warrior.
egypt
- https://www.quora.com/In-what-ways-was-the-Byzantine-Empire-impacted-after-losing-Egypt-during-the-Early-Middle-Ages Egypt was a massive source of fertile farmland. The floodplains of the Nile River provided rich soil and natural irrigation far beyond what could be artificially reproduced in basically any other area in the world. The Romans and later the Byzantines used the massive grain exports from the province of Egypt (and other North African provinces) to feed hundreds of thousands of citizens in their urban centers. The reliability of Egypt’s food production and how important it was to urbanization all across the Mediterranean cannot possibly be overstated. Without the grain, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn’t be able to live in cities, and without large prosperous cities, economic development starts to stagnate.Egypt was also a powerhouse in its own right; it was the richest province aside from Italy, had the second largest city in the whole Empire (Alexandria), and was a massive bastion of trade. Because trade routes over water were so much cheaper than land routes, the ocean routes that made up the “Silk Road” flowed entirely through Egypt and the Red Sea. Silk, spices, precious metals, it all went through the waterways of the Nile.Because of the volume of trade that flowed through the province, Egypt also became the largest producer of ceramic amphorae, jars that held all manner of produce. Millions of these ceramic jars were the lifeblood for trade across all of Europe.When Egypt and the other provinces of North Africa were lost to the Arabs, it was a nearly fatal blow. The effects of the lack of grain were felt almost immediately; slowly but steadily, many city-dwellers left the urban areas for rural lands where they could find more reliable food supplies. The volume of trade decreased substantially with the trade networks from Egypt cut off, the levels of economic development fell sharply, and the Byzantine Empire was permanently weakened.The heights of prosperity that the Roman world produced were predicated on the movement of people and resources between various regions. When the efforts of a whole continent are directed toward optimizing the advancement of civilization, the achievements that can be produced are shocking. Once those plugs are pulled, however, and “less advanced” is the default stage of development, the speed at which the fall comes is more shocking still.I find this quote from Robin Pearson, host of the History of Byzantium podcast, to be quite poignant.Imagine you're a peasant living in Constantinople. You hear about Heraclius’ losses to the Arabs in Syria, but you're not really sure where that is. For you, life continues as normal. The races continue to run. But one day, you show up at the grain market, and get told that there is no bread today. And that there will never be bread. This is the day that you realize— the Roman Empire is falling.
persians
- https://www.quora.com/In-what-ways-was-the-Byzantine-Empire-impacted-after-losing-Egypt-during-the-Early-Middle-Ages Egypt was a massive source of fertile farmland. The floodplains of the Nile River provided rich soil and natural irrigation far beyond what could be artificially reproduced in basically any other area in the world. The Romans and later the Byzantines used the massive grain exports from the province of Egypt (and other North African provinces) to feed hundreds of thousands of citizens in their urban centers. The reliability of Egypt’s food production and how important it was to urbanization all across the Mediterranean cannot possibly be overstated. Without the grain, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn’t be able to live in cities, and without large prosperous cities, economic development starts to stagnate.Egypt was also a powerhouse in its own right; it was the richest province aside from Italy, had the second largest city in the whole Empire (Alexandria), and was a massive bastion of trade. Because trade routes over water were so much cheaper than land routes, the ocean routes that made up the “Silk Road” flowed entirely through Egypt and the Red Sea. Silk, spices, precious metals, it all went through the waterways of the Nile.Because of the volume of trade that flowed through the province, Egypt also became the largest producer of ceramic amphorae, jars that held all manner of produce. Millions of these ceramic jars were the lifeblood for trade across all of Europe.When Egypt and the other provinces of North Africa were lost to the Arabs, it was a nearly fatal blow. The effects of the lack of grain were felt almost immediately; slowly but steadily, many city-dwellers left the urban areas for rural lands where they could find more reliable food supplies. The volume of trade decreased substantially with the trade networks from Egypt cut off, the levels of economic development fell sharply, and the Byzantine Empire was permanently weakened.The heights of prosperity that the Roman world produced were predicated on the movement of people and resources between various regions. When the efforts of a whole continent are directed toward optimizing the advancement of civilization, the achievements that can be produced are shocking. Once those plugs are pulled, however, and “less advanced” is the default stage of development, the speed at which the fall comes is more shocking still.I find this quote from Robin Pearson, host of the History of Byzantium podcast, to be quite poignant.Imagine you're a peasant living in Constantinople. You hear about Heraclius’ losses to the Arabs in Syria, but you're not really sure where that is. For you, life continues as normal. The races continue to run. But one day, you show up at the grain market, and get told that there is no bread today. And that there will never be bread. This is the day that you realize— the Roman Empire is falling.
persians
- 9th-century Iranian aristocrat, who would flee west to Rome and became a prominent Imperial commander in service of the Amorian dynasty. Born in western Iran, the Greek sources indicate that his birth name was Nasir (ناصر) and that he was a dehqan, a member of the local land-owning Iranian aristocracy. His early life is quite obscure, but he was a Khurramite: a (now-extinct) Islamic sect whose teachings were modeled off of the Mazdakite branch of Zoroastrianism. The term Khurramite seems to have a blanket one, used by the Abbasid Caliphate to designate all branches of the Mazdakite sect & its offshoots. It seems to have functioned as a sort of a local Sufism in rural northwest Iran, adopted mainly by peasants in the region.In 755 AD, the Persian general ‘Abu Muslim played a critical role in the overthrow of the last Umayyad Caliph and the establishment of the Abbasid dynasty in its place. He was, however, viewed as a threat by the new Caliphs and summarily killed — creating widespread resentment in Iran, where he was greatly popular. 60 years later, the Iranian dehqan Babak Khorramdin - claiming descent from Abu Muslim - rebelled against the Abbasids by taking leadership of the local Khurramites, promising the overthrow of the Arabs. The revolt lasted for over twenty years, and relied on a core of Khurramite peasant-soldiers who were centered in the mountains of modern-day Kurdistan.In 833, however, the Khurramites were defeated in battle near the Zagros Mountains. Nasir crossed Armenia into Byzantine territory, where he obtained the protection of the Roman Emperor Theophilos of the Amorian dynasty. He converted to Christianity, was raised to the patriciate, and took the new name Theophobos (God-fearing). He was then employed as a loyal ward of the Emperor and wed to a member of the extended Imperial clan, while many other Khurramites married native Roman women. In 837, Theophobos was sent east to fight the Abbasids with many of his Khurramite soldiers. He fought in Mesopotamia alongside the Upper Euphrates, and his armies razed the city of Zapetra (birthplace of the Abbasid Caliph) & took Melitene. With the final suppression of the Khurramite revolt, an extra 16,000 Khurramites fled west and became employed in Imperial service. They formed the core of the Persian turma, a cavalry unit under the personal command of Theophobos that was renowned for its military flexibility.The Caliph Al-Muta’sim launched a retaliatory invasion the following year, destroying the birthplace of the Amorian dynasty. A second Abbasid army was sent as well, where Theophobos & the Emperor Theophilos fought them at Anzen. A disastrous defeat occurred for the Byzantines, and according to later historians it was rumoured that Theophilos was dead. Apparently, Theophobos was proclaimed Emperor by his troops (in a supposedly Zoroastrian ritual) — although he would reject this, and assisted Theophilus in suppressing the subsequent revolt.According to Islamic sources, a year or two later Theophobos was killed in battle against the Arabs. According to the Byzantines, however, as the Emperor Theophilus was on his deathbed Theophobos decided to ally himself with the Iconophiles (an opposing faction of the Emperor). Hearing this, the sickly Emperor ordered his brother-in-law Petronas to execute Theophobos — clearing the succession for his own son, the infant Michael III. Twenty-five years later, the Amorian dynasty came to an end with the assassination of Michael by his own lieutenant Basil — thus paving the way for the rise of the Macedonian rulers. https://www.quora.com/Where-there-any-notable-Persians-in-the-Roman-Empire-for-example-like-an-exiled-noble-becoming-a-Roman-general-or-something-else, note also the Statue of Babak Khorramdin in Azerbaijan; ‘Babak’ was a name meaning “Young Father” that belonged to the first Sasanian ruler while ‘Khorramdin’ meant of “the joyous faith.”
armenians
armenians
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-so-many-Armenians-become-Byzantine-emperors-in-the-8th-10th-centuries-AD
mongols
- https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-Byzantine-empire-fall-to-the-Mongols After the Sultan of Rum and the Bulgar Czar had been reduced to vassalage, the former requested his new suzerain’s intervention in his favour in his dispute with the Paleologue Emperor, who had been holding his brother captive as a potential “pretender” to the sultanic office. That was all the excuse needed for the Mongols to wage war on the Romans, pillage the European heartland of the empire with Turkish and Bulgarian support, impose the aforementioned unequal treaties on the Basileus Michael VII, and win the hand of the latter’s illegitimate daughter Eufrosine for a Mongol magnate, Nogay Beg (the kingmaker behind the khan’s throne). All the above basically occured in relation to the “Golden Horde”, so-called, centre of Mongol power. The same year - after submission to the Khagan (AD 1265) - the famous “Maria e Mughliotissa” or Despina Khatun, a figure of some repute in Greece - was sent to marry the Mongol Il’Khan of Persia, Abaqa. Through these marriages, the Emperor was placed as father-in-law of the rulers of the 2/4ths of the Mongol empire that were in proximity to him and to the rear end of his regional rivals. The Megalokomnene dynasty ruling over the subsidiary empire at Trebizond would develop an even more long-standing relationship with the Borjigin Mongol dynasty, being “as famed for the beauty of their daughters as for the wealth of their dowries”.
historical reference
- maps
- **********https://www.quora.com/Was-Rome-the-strongest-empire-of-their-day-or-were-there-other-empires-that-rivaled-them note the names of nations/tribes bordering the empire
- https://www.quora.com/What-if-Charlemagne-s-empire-went-to-war-with-the-Byzantines-who-would-ve-won
- https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-Byzantine-Empire-viewed-by-its-neighbours
- https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Byzantines-ever-attempt-to-move-their-capital-to-Rome map of constantinople in 1260
- https://www.quora.com/Was-Constantinople-the-last-Byzantine-city-to-fall-and-if-not-which-city-was-it, also map of theodoro
- https://www.quora.com/How-long-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-prosper
- worth to note
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Byzantine-Empire-a-rump-state
- 特拉比松帝國The Empire of Trebizond or the Trapezuntine Empire was a monarchy and one of three successor rump states of the Byzantine Empire that flourished during the 13th through 15th centuries, consisting of the far northeastern corner of Anatolia (the Pontus) and the southern Crimea.The empire was formed in 1204 after the Georgian expeditionin Chaldia, commanded by Alexios Komnenos a few weeks before the sack of Constantinople. Alexios later declared himself Emperor and established himself in Trebizond (modern day Trabzon, Turkey). Alexios and David Komnenos, grandsons and last male descendants of deposed Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, pressed their claims as "Roman Emperors" against Byzantine Emperor Alexios V Doukas. The later Byzantine emperors, as well as Byzantine authors, such as George Pachymeres, Nicephorus Gregoras and to some extent Trapezuntines such as John Lazaropoulos and Basilios Bessarion, regarded the emperors of Trebizond as the “princes of the Lazes”, while the possession of these "princes" was also called Lazica, in other words, their state was known as the Principality of the Lazes.
- economist 11jul2020 "converting istanbul's hagia sophia" trabzon - once populated by greeks (known in english as trebizond), at least 5 former byzantine churches dedicated to hagia sophia (holy wisdom in greek) were converted to mosques since 2013
- This was the folly of Byzantium - they continued the legacy of Rome but in doing so they inadvertently remained stagnant while the rest of Europe moved on. Save for the odd spurts of reformation. While they were able to preserve a lot of Roman culture and knowledge that disappeared Western Europe. They didn’t realise their stagnation was a problem until the Turks were assaulting the walls of Justinian and Western Europe offered to help the beleaguered city by selling them these really exotic contraptions called “cannons”.https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-talk-about-Ancient-Romans-like-they-were-basically-all-the-same-but-the-civilization-lasted-almost-1000-years-Thats-like-saying-people-in-2016-and-1016-are-basically-the-same
- The Byzantine empire is the Roman Empire, and a direct continuation of the same. Once western Rome fell, the eastern emperor absorbed its position and titles, and continued to reign from Constantinople. Of the two halves of the empire, west and east, the east was more developed, more urban, more Christian (the faith of the empire as of 370), and better led. Critically, the east was luckier during the barbarian invasion of the fifth century. The vandals and visigoths went west. The Visigoths sacked Rome, not Constantinople.https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Byzantine-Empire-lasted-longer-than-the-Roman-Empire
- Well after the turbulent 5th century, where Rome was sacked several times, and most Romans took what they could and left, all that nice shiny shean was gone. The population was in decline, as many left the poor conditions for less populous towns and more rural areas. Rome was really a ‘figurehead’ city for its new Barbarian captor, Odoacer, who didn’t even use it as his capital. Everything not bolted to the ground had been taken, the maintenance of the great sites and public works had ceased, and it was no longer the major center of wealth, trade, and influence it had once been. Rome wouldn’t become a city of great importance again for several centuries, when the popularity of Catholicism made Rome, the home of the Vatican City, the religious capital of Europe.https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-city-of-Rome-like-in-500-AD
- https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Byzantines-stop-seeing-themselves-as-Roman-and-started-to-identify-as-Greek-and-what-caused-this-change As a matter of fact, we Hellenes/Greeks still call ourselves also Ρωμιοί (Rhomioi) or Ρωμιοσύνη (Rhomanitas=Greek people).
They are some of the most important/well known modern greek songs. - https://www.quora.com/Why-doesn-t-the-Byzantine-Empire-get-the-due-it-deserves-for-its-impact-on-world-history Europeans wanted themselves to be the “enlighted” lands, the core of Christianity, the rich ones and protagonists in world politics, the center of world attention. The Ottomans wanted them to be that big empire, in their view “the big daddy”, the dream of any nomad tribe. Thus everyone curses at what we know as the “Byzantine empire”, the part of the Roman empire that everyone met and became jealous and antagonistic to. In the end, both the west and the east got what they wanted, but with much blood on their hands, which they hate being reminded of and want to be forgotten. Turks want to believe that they brought “the light of Islam” in the imperial lands and saved the people from their decandence. In reality, the first centuries of Ottoman control was met with resistance and the resistance with brutality. The western countries claimed that the empire was decandent and it’s fall was a must to “give way” to “progression”. In reality the empire was already centuries ahead of them in science and technology, thus the phenomenical progression that European countries made in the first centuries after the fall of the empire, they were simply catching up, and now that the empire didn’t even exist, they eventually became more advanced, since there wasn’t competition any more.
- https://www.quora.com/If-the-Byzantine-Empire-had-lost-everything-except-Constantinople-to-the-Ottomans-why-was-it-such-a-shock-when-it-fell-in-1453The Byzantine Empire was indeed a ghost of itself in 1453 , not only deprived of its terratories but out of money too. The fall to the Ottomans was inevitable.The Pope and the Venicians tried to help by sending some troops and ships , only too late, and the city actually fell . The sock came a little later , when refugees arrived in the italian cities . Then ,two things happened : first , Italians ( mostly ) were terrified of the narrations of attrocities that had been done . The next one was that they realised that Byzantine Empire who was a mound between them and the Ottomans was lost . Now they had to face the aggresive newcomers themselves . So they did and they lost terratories and priviledges.
- https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Byzantines-of-the-post-4th-crusade-Byzantine-Empire-so-13th-15th-centuries-really-know-their-lineage-Did-they-understand-how-important-Rome-or-even-the-earlier-years-of-the-Byzantine-empire the 13th -15 century was actually a golden age for Byzantine learning. There were a small number of very well read officials in Constantinople. A significant amount of the Greek literature that survives today, survives because of the conscious effort made by these men to track down and copy manuscripts. They probably couldn’t read Latin, but they would be very familiar with works like Plutarch’s parallel lives covering the Roman Republic. And they most definitely read and copied the key histories of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, from Eusebius’ life of Constantine, through Procopius on Justinian and onto Theophanes Confessor, Anna Komnena and Michael Psellos. Eastern monks wrote multiple short histories of the world and so the educated, even if not very literary focused, probably read at least on of these. Many great monuments, like the equestrian statue of Justinian, still stood and the Imperial Mausolea of the Church of the Holy Apostles were still standing - even if the graves were looted of their decorations the great sarcophagi themselves remained and the 1–10% would be aware of which was which Emperor, and who that Emperor was. And finally many of the great families of this era, like the Palaiologos family themselves, acquired status under the Komnenoi. Thus these family themselves would be very aware of their illustrious ancestors.
- https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-Byzantines-need-to-do-to-not-fall-victim-to-the-Turks Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas explained in 963 the Byzantine view of their direct ancestry from Rome to the Latin ambassador Liutprand of Cremona:Hear then! The stupid silly pope does not know that the holy Constantine transferred hither the imperial scepter, the senate, and all the Roman knighthood, and left in Rome nothing but vile minions- fishers, namely, peddlers, bird catchers, bastards, plebeians, slaves.
- https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-city-of-Rome-react-to-the-news-that-Constantinople-had-been-conquered-by-the-Ottomans For Pope Nicholas, the news was both a crushing blow and a desperate inspiration. Constantinople, Nicholas resolved, had to be retaken; and to that end he sent couriers to all the major Italian states, ordering them to cease their wars and commit to a common cause against the Turks. A crusade was formally proclaimed by papal bull at the end of September. Yet despite a brief surge of enthusiasm (and a still briefer bout of fund-raising), these efforts came to nothing. Back in Rome, other reports had by now confirmed the truth of the Venetian missive: Constantinople was in the hands of the Turks, and the Sultan was contemplating an invasion of Italy (that threatened invasion, as it happened, only took place in 1480). Roman humanists turned their fertile pens to laments - and, somewhat later, to elaborations of the curious theory that the Turks were actually distant descendants of the Trojans, and that their conquest of Constantinople represented a long-deferred revenge on the Greeks.
- https://www.quora.com/Did-Medieval-Western-Europe-recognize-the-Byzantine-Empire-as-the-continuation-of-the-Roman-Empire
- **********https://www.quora.com/What-could-the-byzantine-empire-have-done-to-survive-longer note the map showing per capita income of provinces, there is a "africa "province in north africa
legacy
- official rites, crown rituals
- 宣誓的誓詞內容古今不同，以英女王伊利沙伯二世的加冕誓詞為例，大概意思是︰「承諾會實行公正的統治，在法律之下維護基督教聯合王國。」宣誓形式受到拜占庭的影響，拜占庭的君主自8世紀便有宣誓禮（可以是文字或是宣讀的形式），內容主要是承諾會執行慈善及公正的統治。在英格蘭，宣誓禮代表着國王是經人民和上帝的同意才就職，起初只是一個諾言--國王負起保衛人民和教堂的責任，並會公平地統治王國。到了9世紀，當加冕典禮定制時，這份諾言亦被加入，正式定為誓詞，分為三部分︰一、保障使基督徒及教堂和平；二、阻止偷盜以及所有錯誤的行為，不論做的人屬於那個階層；三、執行公正及慈悲的統治。誓詞內容一直演變，但大抵也遵照以上三個原則。受膏油禮的作法，是由大主教把膏油塗在國王的手掌、胸前、前額。此禮起源自5世紀末西羅馬帝國覆亡後。當時一般相信，教宗會在審判之日代表世俗君主面對上帝，於是教宗就自稱為基督的代理人，有權向國王授職。教會將授職、 塗聖油、上帝的恩惠三者連結起來，確立了神職人員向國王塗油的膏油禮，並一直延續至今。皇冠的樣式繁多，例如伊利沙伯二世的加冕皇冠是一頂紫色、有軟墊的帽子，四邊輔以銀、寶石等裝飾，四邊各有一條銀拱帶延伸到頂部，而頂部則有十字架裝飾。皇冠這東西起源自4世紀的君士坦丁大帝，用以彰顯皇帝的君權和作為基督地上代理人的權力，皇冠用作加冕則始於拜占庭的里奧一世。在英格蘭，皇冠的最初樣式比較接近頭盔，也有採用類似黃金製、小圈形式的皇冠，後來受到拜占庭影響，漸漸採用封邊的圓形皇冠。權杖是頂部有十字架裝飾的金屬長棍，象徵着王室的指揮權力，另一方面也提醒君主要公正統治。權杖可以想像成牧羊人的曲杖，意味着君主有如牧羊人一樣帶領人民。至於起源方面，則可以追溯到古埃及和近東的人採用權杖作為皇權的象徵物品。在英格蘭最初的加冕典禮，權杖已是必備之物，受到拜占庭的影響，英王的權杖也在頂部加上了十字架。十字聖球是一個頂部有十字架裝飾的金色圓球，象徵羅馬的統治遍及世界。在英格蘭，最初出現圓球的記錄是懺悔者愛德華的印章，當時所顯示的是愛德華手執沒有十字架的圓球。據說十字聖球正式用於加冕典禮始於15世紀，但直至亨利八世的加冕禮（1509年），才有正式的文獻記載。http://pdf.wenweipo.com/2019/09/09/a26-0909.pdf
- walls
- https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Ottomans-not-reuse-the-Byzantine-Walls-of-Constantinople-or-improve-them
- literature
- https://www.quora.com/Is-Gondor-based-on-the-Byzantine-Empire
- usa
- https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-history-of-the-Byzantine-Empire-taught-in-many-schools If we are teaching to an American public, it would make sense to trace America’s history from Western Europe as opposed to Eastern Europe, as the Western European states were the ones that dominated the world and helped create the nation of America. States like the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire are not as relevant to American history as the Norman invasion of England or the reign of Elizabeth I. There are more degrees of separation, and in an American school education, there is only so much that can be covered. Our curriculums usually prefer to focus material that is more relevant to America.
- greece
- https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Greece-try-to-restore-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-after-WWI-What-wouldve-happened-if-it-succeeded-in-doing-so Greece tried to retake Constantinople (essential for a revival of the former Eastern Roman Empire) and expand into Asia Minor, but they were defeated by the Turkish nationalists. Also worth noting that Greeks believe the Eastern Roman Empire was a Greek state. King Constantine I was reinstated as King of Greece in 1920, after the death of his son then King Alexander and after Venizelos was defeated in the 1920 elections. The supporters of Constantine referred to him as ‘Constantine XII’ and viewed him as the successor to the last Roman Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. There was also a Greek saying throughout history under Ottoman subjugation that Constantinople would be recovered by a King of the same name. So yes, there was initial enthusiasm for the Megali Idea (Greater Greece) and revival of the borders of the former Empire to some extent, but nobody wanted to rename Greece the ‘Eastern Roman Empire’, maybe the Hellenic Empire. By this point Greece was firmly a Greek nation-state.
- cyprus
- byzantine museum in lefkosia
- galata village, troodos - church of archangelos michael/panagia theotokos (timber-roofed, post byzantine style of early 16thc); church of agios sozomenos (frescoes of post byzantine style); church of agia paraskevi (frescoes dating back to 1514)
- agios nikolos tis stegis church - kakopetria village - frescoes dating from 11th to 17th c
- panagia podithou church, galata village - frescoes are of italo-byzantine style
- agios ioannis lampadistis church, kalopanagiotis village - byzantine museum, latin chapel contains most complete series of italo-byzantine frescoes in cyprus
- israel
- 以色列古物管理局（IAA）日前公布，考古學家在亞夫內（Yavne）一個正進行大型挖掘工程的工業區，發現一塊距今已達1,600年、可追溯至拜占庭時期的馬賽克鑲嵌畫地磚，圖案色彩仍清晰可辨，令人驚嘆。這亦是首次在亞夫內發現彩色馬賽克地磚。https://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/china_world/20210501/00180_039.html
No comments:
Post a Comment