Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
The greatest Byzantine emperor
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Who was it?
Would it be Justinian, Heraclius, one of the two Basils, or Alexius Comnenus? -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
I'm quite impressed with the Macedonian dynasty, personally....
Basil I did quite a bit to start the reconquest of territories lost under previous dynasties. And then, of course, his descendant Basil II, the Bulgar-slayer, who pushed the empire's fronties westwards once more.
Heraclius had a great start to his career, but a lot of his work was undone towards the end, when he lost a lot of his conquests. -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
Quite interesting thread as I have always stated my interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine as named by French enlightment writers - not so fond of Eastern Romans, anyway we have stuck to that name).
True that Heraclius (early 7th century), Basil Bulgaroktonos (late 10th century) and Alexios Komninos (early 11th century) are of the most well known Emperors - though for the last I have to say that his son John Komnenos was a much better Emperor. But while all of them offered a lot to the Empire, ironically all of them also did things that caused harm.
Heraclius is a very important Emperor in the Byzantine history since himself being Greek (or I think a Hellenised Armenian - too many of them in the Empire, too many of them Emperors!) - though christian but always a conscious Greek - is the one that definitely gave to the Empire its Greek nature by changining several earlier Roman customs and of course by establishing Greek as the official language (Latin was only taught as a second language based on the tradition of the Empire). When he rose to the throne, he replaced a highly incapable Emperor named Fokas, a simple centurion that rose due to circumstances to the throne but managed since his first year of reign due to his violence against heretics and non-christians and his re-introduction of older Roman military traditions (cutting of noses, blinding of eyes, general torture etc.) to alienate such a large part of the population that Persians had swept through Minor Asia to reach outside Konstantinople. So Heraclius had a hard job to do and he did it expertly being himself a weathered general and administrator of the Empire. He managed not only to push back the Persians but also to enter their territory and sack their capital where he also retrieved a wooden ite that was tought a Holy Cross (though wrongly this is thought as the first Holy War - no matter how religious was Heraclius, this was not a Holy War in the proper sense). However, the rapid re-taking of the Empire's lands invaded by the Persians and the enterring in their own territory extended too much the ressources of the Empire and made it vulnerable to all its frontiers. Also, many specialists say that the muslim religion was not only lucky to have arrived at that moment but actually was an invention to counter-attack the expansion of the Romans in the middle East taking from the only ressources that were not till then touched (Arabs were divided tribes that were not belonging either to Persians or Romans thus untouched by the Roman-Persian wars, thus having their forces intact). Hence, by the end of Heraclius reign, the Empire was found once again struggling on the defensive.
Basil - his ancestor again probably a Hellenised Armenian brought up as a kid in the palace - rose up all the ranks of the military and quite meritocratically and that made him not only a popular general, but also a very capable one leading on his own the army to a long series of victories against Saracens, Arabs and above all against the second most formidable army back then, the Bulgarians (yes, you would not have imagined but had the Bulgarians back then turned their attention elsewhere than Konstantinople they would have had a real Empire on their own - an army combining the Byzantine complex tactics and weaponry with the Vicking barbarity). True that Basil had extended the frontiers of his Empire to the maximum lines possible based on the always ridiculously small Byzantine army (standing army was less than the 1/10th size of the older Roman army!!!). However there are still some questions - bad tongues say that he could intervene earlier to face the Bulgarian raid that was destroying Greece but since Greece is a mountainous peninsula with not so many roads to the north, it was much more convenient to let them loot, then meet them up in their return, crush them and get their loot and give half of it back to the people to play the saviour but also hold the other half for the Imperial Treasury. I am not sure on that, but what is certainly sure is that his punishment of the Bulgarians (blinding 99 and half-bliding the 100th to lead them back to Bulgaria, i.e. modern lands of FYROM) was not at all any barbaric treatment of POWs since 1) these Bulgarians had commited the worse of attrocities (actually the victims were dissapointed by such a "light" punishment) 2) for Basil, Bulgarians were not any foreign army invading, but actually citizens of the Empire (i.e. regarded as terrorists), hence he merely applied the old traditional Roman law for treason, blinding. The trick was successful as Bulgarians never "revolted" again. What he did though that was definitely bad, was that he 1) repopulated Greece with Greek populations of South Italy (an interesting choice - repeatedly Emperors repopulated Greece after raids from other Greek habitated territories but when repopulating say modern day Bulgaria or Roumania they were using other random populations, interesting) which was of course the definitive blow for the fate of Greeks in South Italy and west Sicily that had withstood the Germanics and the Saracens - after that complete demise came to that anyway traditionally overlooked Byzantine land and the road was open to any invader, namely the Normands - then 2) he was the first - correct me if I am wrong - that provided the first tax-reductions for North Italian cities trading through the Empire with the East, obviously conceding to Byzantine aristocrats and plutocrats that had found thus a nice way of tax evasion: North Italic cities like Venice and Genova had become the fiscal paradise for Byzantine rich people and some say (not certain) that major Italic families like the Medici originated from Konstantinople (very probable - certain if we take into account intermarriages). In that sense, having the later knowledge that the tax-allowances to North Italic cities was the most major cause of the long demise of Byzantium (despite it was getting richer and richer), it seems that ironically Basil was the one that expanded the Empire but also made the first step for its future demise.
I will not comment on Alexios Komninos, I'd much rather comment on his son, John. I generally do not like the Komneni dynasty, it is the dynasty that sealed the Empire's fate and it is mainly thanx to John Komnenos that the dynasty is seen as a major one and as the last strong point of the Empire. What is was certainly - and not many people are aware of this (and that is why they cannot understand why this Empire failed) is that uder the Komneni the Empire reached its richest point (and not under Basil and his extended Empire!). I do not like the Komneni dynasty because I see them as the culmnination of what followed Basil's legacy. It is known that Byzantium was an Empire riddled with opposing interests - this was afterall The Empire, not just any state (just take into account that even Arabs, the only other huge Empire and civilisation in those times, they always looked up to Byzantines, the opposite did not seem to be true). Most of Byzantine enemies like Bulgarians and Saracens and Crusaders were actually too often led or guided by Byzantine traitors (and that is why they had so much success). One of the major opposing interests were those of military people (more popular among average citizens) and traditional aristocrats (more popular among aristocrats and plutocrats). Aristocrats thrived when the army was less powerfull and when the Empire's frontiers were protected more due to strategic alliances and paying off potential enemies which was much more cheap than paying for an army to protect all of those 1000s of kilometers of frontier against the 100s of potential enemies that the Empire had. Hence, what they despised especially were Emperors like the 'Macedonians' (actually originating from modern day Eastern Thrace and probably of Armenian origins) even if these protected well and expanded the Empire. But plutocrats did not gain much out of that expansion as they were taxed too much. Hence what followed Basil's death was a 50 years struggle for power from the side of plutocrats and also aristocrat landowners which rapidly tore the fabric of the Empire, over-taxed average citizens and farmers, gave ridiculous tax allowances for Italians to establish their commerces in the Empire, brought a demise to the navy and army and it was only luck that the first random enemy did not invade the Empire before the Seljuks who were also mislead on the Empire's military capacity (thinking it was in the same level as Basil's times!). Again, due to circumstances, another military man rose up to the throne, Romanos and this time it was the aristocratic Doukas family from which the Komneni dynasty rose, that betrayed the Emperor to the Seljuks after repeated treasons (even the treason of mercenaries like Frankish knights and Kuman Turkish archers as well as the mysterious dissapearence of general Tarchaniotis with half of the army could potentially be attributed to that) despite Romanos still beating the Turkish in Matzikert. The civil war organised by the Doukas that followed against the few Romanos faithfull as well as other opponents was the main reason that 20 years later Seljuks established in Eastern-central Minor Asia. And it was due to the Alexios Komnenos that the presence of the Seljuks there was established which was not only not at all detrimental to the interests of plutocrats but actually beneficial since Seljuks did not have organised states that taxed commerce but largely left unhindered all commerce from Middle East passing to the Empire and from there to Europe. And in that line, Italians played the carriers, something that gave birth to their fleets that later dominated the Mediterranean. And Byzantines did nothing but gained most of the money - thus their uppermost point in financial terms was reached under the Komneni and only a few years before final collapse!!! On the top of that, Alexios Komninos had managed for the first time of the Imperial history to set up a whole family-cracy, manning all main posts with family members and friends and tearing down the whatever
meritocracy was existing there before. Hence, it was not the best but those that assured the family's interests that remained to the throne (actually ALL emperors after Alexios and even up to the 2nd fall of Konstanople to Ottomans were his descendants). Nontheless, John Komnenos is the only Komnenos Emperor that distinguished himself as being a really capable Emperor, a really sober, anti-flashy, workaholic, military capable Emperor that managed to reverse the flow of Seljuks in Minor Asia and almost throw them out of Minor Asia, then invade Palestine leading a Byzantine-Crusader army where he did not proceed seeing that Crusaders were not so anxious to fight muslims but to protect only their own feuds in ther region fearing they would become not only nominal but also direct vassals to the Empire. On the other hand, John had to deal with a lot of stupid issues such as Italic piracy that started in order to convince him accept the treaties his own father had signed with them (tax-evasion issue) which he was forced to accept since he did not have the time to built a new nacy (his smart father Alexios thought it smart not to renew the navy but to give the responsibility to Italians - navy normally had to be renewed every 20 years), and he had also to fight off the Serbian rebellion then - having married a Hungarian princess - stupidly he intervened in a Hungarian succession issue and he had also to fight Hungarian invaders before turning his attention to the Seljuks. It goes without saying that had he not all that stupid opposition, he would had done much more to re-affirm the Empire's frontiers, though what he did was not bad at all, at his reign the Empire was considered as The Empire, perhaps more than even Basil's time, despite having control over less lands - it was the money that counted afterall! Most notably John, unlike his father or descendants was the only meritocrat of the Komneni having consistently avoided to put into positions members of his family placing rather individuals that were known to be able to do some work - which was reflected in his success as an Emperor.
Therefore, long story... short... difficult to chose out of the three... different times, different challenged... in a span of 500 years... I would go for Basil not so much on his military achievements but on his social policies, then on John for being the bright excemption to the dynasty that condamned the Empire and gave it as a present to the Italians (ironically due to his work the dynasty is remembered today as the one that "prolonged the power of Byzantium" which is not at all true, only John did something) and last but not least I would name Heraclius: yes he defended the Empire and took to the offensive but he over-did it rendering the Empire so weak as not to be able to defend Egypt, such a rich part of it from the first random army, the muslims, that appeared. -
Message 4
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
I was hoping to get an input from you on this subject, Nik....
I've just finished reading J.J. Norwich's 'History of Byzantium, and I found it a fascinating read. It is indeed a shame that the perception of the Byzantine Empire (as named by the French, as you point out) should be one of cloak-and-dagger politics, while it seems that the politics of the time were no different from what existed in Western Europe! It is indeed a pity that Edward Gibbon should've chosen to paint the Eastern Empire in that light....
I must admit, I didn't take to the Comneni either, so I was surprised to read that some historians had a great impression of Alexius. Personally, I thought Basil II Bulgaroctonos was an outstanding ruler. In addition to his much-heralded victory against the Bulgars, I understand he also defeated and re-conquered territory from the Fatimids. He was a brilliant general, and yet seemed to be not one for appearances. State ceremony and dressing up didn't seem to be his first love! Curiously, he didn't take a wife, or have children, and maybe that contributed in no small way to the problems that followed.
As you've clearly pointed out, the achievements of Heraclius were rolled back by the time of his death, so that dents his claim to greatness. But what about Justinian? Yes, he was probably more Latin than Greek - he seemed to have waged a futile war against Greekness - but he did well as a lawgiver and an emperor who presided over large-scale conquests in the Mediterranean.
But what about Basil I? He reconquered parts of Italy, and got the Macedonian dynasty off to a good start, after the losses under the Amorians. That said, do you think Michael III got a bad rap? Was he really the Drunkard he was made out to be?
And where does Michael Paleologus fit into the scheme of things? He must get an honorary mention for giving the Byzantine Empire a new lease of life, after the shameful sacking by the Fourth Crusade. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
Taking the dates 330 - 1204 (I personally do not accept the 1204 - 1453 as Byzantine period, this is more of a city-state period for the whole region), traditionally for western scholars Justinian was the greatest (for eastern ones he was only remembered for paying Artemios and Isidoros to design and construct the Agia Sofia church), for eastern scholars it was Basil or Heraclius (for western scholars remembered only for their resistance to the Empire's invaders). I think I do not even need to state why, preferences are quite obvious.
But what you stated about Basil Bulgaroktonos is quite true, he was a true "peoples' Emperor", people associated with him - he might had taken the throne due to inheritence but but he had worked all his life, learned the miitary leader's duties, learned the administrator's duties (a weak point of other Macedonian Emperors) and then devoted himself to the Empire - and it is true, for himself he gathered nothing, he dealt with rebellions, defended the Empire and then expanded the Empire with a long series of wars while protecting the common peoples' fortunes (something absolutely amazing!) suppressing the power of church people and nepotic aristocracy (the two-headed gangraine of the Empire) and giving at the end a rich treasury (amazing for the money he had to spend on continuous wars). Really we have a lot to learn from this excellent leader and rightfully he may be claimed to be the greatest of all the Byzantine Emperors.
His ancestor Basil the I was also a very popular Emperor, a "people's kid", a common citizen that rose to the throne having worked hard all his life (and of course using a bit of the usual violent politics, such as killing the previous Emperor), he was the one to start the re-rise of the Empire (though already a cultural re-energisation was already on in the 9th century where most of the Empires' scientists and thinkers lived and taught.. unfortunatelhy things largely unknown to us now) - Basil though has to be remembered since in his days what is known as Roman law was completed. Yes, he was on the overall a very good Emperor, a remarkable one, even better since his line gave Basil the II. And of course these "Macedonians" were not Macedonians but of Armenian origins (and remained always bonded with their Armenian heritage one way or another) who lived in Thrace, Macedonia back then was a "theme" containing modern Greek, Bulgarian and Turkish lands called Thrace and actually no part of the real Macedonian region thus you may understand the ridiculity of FYROMian salad history that did not resist to make yet another irrelevant claim... sorry to comment them again but cannot resist the temptation... ).
Michael "o methysos" (the drunkard) was not as bad as later propagandists portrayed him (Basil I had to justify his crime of murdering him). Actually despite having risen to the throne as a kid which means a lot of troubles with his mother and aristocrat mentors and patriarchs above his head (that could drive crazy any guy) he proved to be a sober administrator that redressed somehow the Empire and rendered a quite rich treasury while maintained a reasonable army. It was obvious that there were powers above him that rendered his job difficult: any other Emperor would had divorced infertile wife Eudokia Dekapolitissa and marry the mistress Eudokia Ingerina (he seemed to like much this name "Eudokia", today it is a very grandmotherish name) but he was afraid of the political consequences thus he invented the plan to let Basil the I marry his mistress and raise his illegitimate son, a nice plan which sealed his fate when Basil had him killed when he felt favour fell more to another "kouropalatis" (child of the palace - what funny names Byzantines gave to people!!). Thus unfortunately for him, Michael remained in the memory of people more as a drunkard and womaniser than a sober Emperor, the one that christianised Slavs (Kyrilos and Methodios worked in his times).
The Palaiologoi line, descendants of the Komnenoi anyway, were noteworthy Emperors but mostly as overly educated rulers. They were Emperors only in title, hardly ruled anything more than city-states and most of them including Michael Palaiologus did not avoid internal conflicts at the very end while at the same time crusaders and muslim overrun the lands of the ancient Empire. In fact, their name "Palaiologos" (speak of the past) is quite fitting as the last imperial line of the Empire: them Emperors of a non-existing Empire, a small relic of a glorious past bygone 1 century before them. -
Message 6
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
Very interesting, Nik....
I must admit, I have a soft spot for Michael Paleologus. I find the Fourth Crusade's sacking of Constantinople so disappointing, since both the Crusaders and the Byzantines were supposed to be Christian, and the Crusades were supposed to be religious campaigns against the Muslims. It just exposed the hypocrisy of the times....
The rule of Constantinople by the Latins seems to have been pretty bad, and when Michael re-conquered the city, so much damage had been done to its infrastructure, it seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong! I found it interesting to read about the race between Michael of Nicaea and Michael of Epirus to see who would win the race to Constantinople. It just seemed to be a matter of time before the Crusader-occupiers would fall. I suppose it could be argued that Michael Paleologus was forced to have discussions with the Pope about unifying the church, because the Byzantine Empire was in a much weaker position, thanks to the 1204 Crusade.
I'm pleased to hear your assessment of Michael 'the Drunkard'. Somerset Fry, in his '1000 Great Lives', also believed that Michael got a bad rap, and was a much better ruler than he was made out to be.
Now, here's my question: if Basil's wife Eudokia was the mother of Michael's illegitimate child (Alexander, was it?), then could it not also be plausible that Leo was his illegitimate son also? After all, it does seem that Leo and Basil did not see eye to eye, and there could be a reason for that. And if Leo was Michael's son, wouldn't that dynasty be the Amorian, rather than the Macedonian or the Armenian? -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
The 4th Crusade ending in sacking Constantinople cannot be seen as dissapointing from the western-catholic side, no, it was a huge success as it cleared out the Eastern Roman Empire and moved for the first time the weight of European affairs more north and more west than Greek lands and/or the city of Rome forming of course the world we now live in.
And it was not as accidental as people may think when reading only the details... in fact it was something North Italians were thinking for a long time and even planning. It was more than a century that North Italians had effectively been the Empire's navy and transported its commerce. The Eastern Roman Empire contrary to the earlier Roman Empire was a naval Empire. Without ships and control of at least the Eastern Mediterranean it was reduced to nothing. You only need to see the map that you cannot rule lands like Greece and Minor Asia without ships. In the years following Basil II's death there was a systematic deconstruction of the Empire, of the army and above all of the navy by plutocrat aristocrats and the church that found it convenient to use Italians for commercial transportation. It was mainly Romanos, a military commander who rose by marriage to the throne that tried to change this path but was betrayed during campaign and right after his victory in Matzikert (I always stress that Matzikert and the later Myriokefalon battles were Byzantine victories to dissolve the age-old myths of them being "catastrophic defeats", they were not - so as to emphasise to the real causes of the Empire's collapse that the "standard history" seems not so willing to let us know). Alexios Komnenos with his deals with Italians simply placed the gravestone on the Byzantine navy. In his time the Byzantine navy, commercial and military were simply the Venecian and Genovese ships. The two Italian cities were the fiscal paradise of overly rich Byzantine families and it seems that the obvious dissapearence of quite many well known Byzantine families that were present for more than 300 years in Byzantine politics quite coincides with the rise of Italian families of no past history - afterall both Greeks and Italians back then were Romans and Greek and Latin was used interchangeably by both since the times of the older Roman Empire so that was no weird phenomenon. Unfortunately the good politics of John Komnenos, the only truly remarkable Emperor of the Komnenoi was not continued by his descendants (though Manuel Komnenos tried with some success to re-build a new Byzantine navy) nor did they stop the Latinisation of the Byzantine Empire with then a 1/4 of Konstantinople actually being Italians to the point that even the infamous orthodox-catholic clashes of the mob were not exactly as orthodox-catholic as people might think - another proof that being christian or muslim, orthodox or catholic meant little in terms of the stance people would keep, down to the basics we talk only of interests.
In fact, Italians installed in Konstantinople empowered by the tax-free allowances, had their own part of the town, they ruled with their own mob and while they had complexes of inferiority to the the culturally superior Greeks they increasingly had more money than them (apart of course the overly rich Byzantine plutocracy, here I compare only the mid-higher classes people) so they tried to look down on them in other ways (which of course gave birth to the hatred of Greek orthodox against those "tacky Latin catholics"), and at the end Italians were so comfortably installed for good there that they even felt the freedom to fight with each other and clash:
The famous incident some 20 years before 1204 where "20,000 catholics were slaughtered by the orthodox mob" used in the past as an excuse in the past to justify the violence and barbarity of the 4th Crusade was not exactly like that: in fact, precisely it was the slaughter of 20,000 Venicians (catholics) by the Genovese (catholics) and orthodox mob which came as a response to an earlier (not so widely spoken) slaughter of maybe double the number of Genovese and above all orthodox people by the Venician mob. Simply commercial antagonism of Italian cities overly heated and finding an outlet to violence in the Byzantine capital were both cities had as aforementioned sizeable communities - I also get the impression that Venicians were intermingling more with upper Byzantine aristocrats while Genovese were intermingling more with the orthodox of middle classes of the city and that is why orthodox obviously suffered the violence of Venicians and later avenged the slaughter of Genovese (whivh included more orthodox of course!) - this view of mine coincides also with the obvious support of Byzantine aristocracy for Venicians throughout all these events.
Thus, who could be surprised when the 4th Crusade commenced from Venice? Was it accidental that the Komnenoi fought for the throne and Alexios Aggelos called them in? Really it is too bad that we have been left with the named of a few wannabe emperors that hide behind the depth of the political and commercial games and interests at stake to the point that at the end we have been left on the one hand with historians like Gibbon that think the Byzantine Empire was a boring story of a powerless Empire struggling through the time (?!) or the Turkish who think they themselves beat the Empire (?!) or the catholics who think they rose themselves by destorying the Empire. It was nothing like that, in fact - and as it not so rarely happens - it was the very same Byzantines (at least the small upper part of them) that had moved their interests elsewhere and found it convenient to clear the ground and change things. The funny thing is that to the very bitter end and even after 1204, there was still time for the Byzantines to re-make an Empire and - the minimum - speaking of Greeks (the main powerhouse of the Empire) to make something else, at least form powerfull states that would take over Italian ones, but no, truth is that once the bulk of commerce and decision centers leave a place and go elsewhere they do not return just like that in a span of 2-3 decades, not even a century. In fact, what I believe is that the gravestone of the "Byzantines" (who could still be re-born even after 1453 - there was nothing fatalistic in that) was actually the Portuguese sailing round Africa to India and the Spanish discovering America. International commerce did not even need to pass from the Middle East and Eastern Europe, thus it was just convenient for everyone but the locals to let things like that (Ottomans controling the Persian Golf found it much more dificult to go to muslim Indians and Indonesians than Portuguese or Dutch if you get my point). It also goes without saying that any early collapse of the Ottoman Empire (which could really happen any time contrary to common thought) would mean that international commerce could (possibly always) restart via the usual paths of Persian golf and Eastern Mediterranean and that would have an immense impact on the colonisation of the world and the development of the American continent: it would not stop of course a lot of things in process but then really things like Dutch carrying stuff from Indonesia would be practically non-existing... (unless anyone would want to pay products 4-5 times more expensively). -
Message 8
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
yes, Nik, I read your very informative posts on the massacres in Constantinople on another thread, and I didn't realise that there was so much Latin-Greek and Venice-Genoa tensions within the city itself. I also didn't realise that so many of the Byzantine elite made their homes in the cities of Venice and Genoa, though I should have, because, after all, when Constantinople finally fell in 1453, a lot of Byzantine art, thinking, etc, found its way to Italy, and played a major role in the Renaissance.
What you say about the Byzantine fleet is crucial, because my understanding is that many years after Matzikert, the Empire still controlled the sea waves, which is one of the main reasons why Constantinople was impregnable for so long. It does seem a pity that later Emperors chose to rely on the Italian city-states for their naval support, instead of strengthening their own navy. I suppose, in the end, that was the death-knell of the Empire.
But while 1204 could be seen as a victory for western Europe, wasn't it also a problem for them? After all, didn't the fall of Constantinople lead to the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, and wars between the Turks and the Austro-Hungarian Empire? For so long, the Byzantine Empire served as a buffer between the Turks and western Europe, didn't it? -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
Hmmm the Byzantine Empire never served as a buffer between central-western Europe and Turks. It served as a buffer between c.w. Europe and Arabs earlier. Turks were never a big problem until 1204. In fact they seem to had been beneficial to Byzantine plutocrats based in Constantinople and especially to those having their money in Venice and Genova since Turks on the one hand controlled the eastern-central Minor Asia (thus pushing down the powerful Armenian and Kappadocian landowners that so often had given influential generals and Emperors - hence clearing off a great number of political opponents) while they taxed much less than the Byzantine state the commerce that was uninterruptedly continuing from there... add that to the tax free allowance of Italian states and then you just understand how much these Byzantine plutocrats gained and why the Emire was much richer from the anyway very rich state that Basil had given it 150 years earlier.
-
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
The Ottoman Empire never really bothered the westerners as much as westernerns were pretending to bother them - it was actually the best thing that happened to them. In so many centuries they were far from being capable to control more than 70% of the European lands. The bulk of the mountainous regions were loosely or not at all controlled, there were regions that never muslims set their foot on. Venitians and Genovese came in and left the Empire on will, held islands in the Aegean, held half of Peloponese, held cities in Epirus and generally did whatever they wanted - all that in the Ottoman heyday. Even the attack against Vienna would not be so much of a problem for other Europeans, especially those that despised the Austrians. Afterall the Ottomans had never showed any special military capability, they only brought some threat due to their immense numbers. Had Ottomans succeed in Vienna others would briefly prepare a new crusade and crush them badly - especially in the sea Ottomans would suffer badly (the Ottoman navy back then were the "leventes", i.e. Greeks muslimified or not who fought only at will and only when there was promise of profit, defending the Empire it was not exaclty a priority). The capabilities of the Empire were very early evident to the western Europeans when Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English were circumnavigating half the globe to rich muslim kingdoms in India and Indonesia and Ottomans were unable to do so despite having control of the Persian Golf (you understand I hope the amazing absurdity of the situation!).
-
Message 11
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Nik, your posts have given me a lot of food for thought, and has helped to question some of the myths I held to be truths in my mind....
Yes, it does seem curious that the Ottomans never really seemed to have tried to utilise their control of the Persian Gulf to explore possible naval routes to the Far East. Maybe they didn't feel the need to do so, because they controlled the spice trade through Constantinople. Maybe the Portuguese were moved to travel around Africa, to escape the exacting taxes and/or duties the Turks imposed on the spice route travelling through their realm.
But didn't the Turks build up their fleet to a pretty strong level after the 1453 fall of Constantinople? Or was the achievements of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 over-hyped?
As an aside, I see that Trebizond survived the fall of Constantinople, and continued to survive for a little longer. I must confess, I know little about that offshoot from the Byzantine Empire. Was it ruled by one of the former regal families? Was it the Comneni or the Ducas or the Lascarids? -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Actually the kingdom of Trapezounta was the one that claimed the despot the more close to the pre-1204 Imperial family - it was the grandsom of Manuel Komnenos, Alexios Komnenos that went there and declared himself "Emperor of Romans" (a title that later his descendants of course amended since Konstantinople was freed by the neighbouring despotate of Nicea). Note on the side, that the Komnenoi family were actually closely linked to the Doukes and back then they called them Komnenodoukes (quite true as their kids intermarried), strangely at these times other large Byzantine families somehow dissapear (like the Skleroi etc.) and this coincides (accidentally or not) with the opening of the Byzantine aristocracy to the European aristocracies (mainly of north Italy but then also to Russia, Serbia, Hungary, Georgian, France, Germany and so on...).
I think Trapezounta lasted a decade more than Konstantinople - but was not of course the only land that one way or another avoided the Ottoman rule for long. Venecians held islands for long, Rhodes under the Crusaders lasted till well into 1500s, southern Peloponese (the famous Mani) was conquered only in mid-1600s, the Ionian islands while just some kms of the mainland never saw an Ottoman and remained under Venetian control till 1800s (then passed briefly to independent, French, Russian, English, then joined Greece) while of course a long list of mountainous villages repelled all localised Ottoman efforts of controlling their regions (Souli in Epirus, Sfakia in Crete while Mani remaind half-independent etc.).
Ottomans were indeed over-hyped in the 15th-16th centuries. And still are over-hyped when we talk about that era (however, they are also at the same time over-bashed too for the 19th-20th century, e.g. the British found it hard to beat Ottomans in WWI).
Ottomans never really conquered the Byzantine Empire and really did not even conquer the fragmented pieces: they spread over them (despite having most of Minor Asia, they had not achieved full control, while in Europe they came as mercenaries not as conquerors and remained for , step by step and in a time measured in several centuries!
Some people say that is was that step by step approach of the Ottomans that made their Empire last long. As I have presented it above, I have a different view, in fact under more "normal circumstances" (i.e. say a tranposed discovery of America or a delayed colonisation of America, say in the 1700s in case American natives did not die at a rate of 90% from diseases), the east-west trade would still be the most important and its bulk would still pass from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean thus Ottomans would have disintegrated by late 1600s maximum, probably due to Italian attacks, successful local Greek rebellions and in 1700s a Russian intervention. What happened was that British, French and Austrians run too many times to save Ottomans from total conquest by Russians (and thus total dissapearence from history as back then a complete notion of a turkish nation did not exist, that was created in early 20th century not surprisingly by a non-turkish, Kemal).
Still even in that hypothetic 1400-1600 span, such an Empire would again be an achievement for Ottomans who managed to collate most of the territories and expand more not so much due to their armies, a brief "collage" of the most disparate people (whose only a very small minority were tribes related to turkic tribes - usually them taking the lowly jobs), an army that back in Mohamed the conqueror's times was 60% christiand and only 40% muslim (!), while the navy was almost completely run by Byzantine collaborators and manned mainly by the Greek "leventes", people who were there only for the money and loot. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Well I did not expand very accurately the above. I wanted to say that even if the Ottoman Empire lasted its more natural 2-centuries period maximoum (if was not for the convenience of the westerners who tried really a lot to maintain it till the 20th century), that would be again an achievement if taking account that the region had been so much fragmented in previous centuries that it was virtually impossible to rule all these land together under 1 leadership.
As I said it was not the Ottoman army that achieved all that, in fact Seljuks and Ottomans took some 500 years to establish the Ottoman Empire despite the fact that out of these, the 250 years (1204-1500) there was no Empire there just powerless, virtually defenseless states, often more close to anarchy in most places. Of course Ottomans had suffered a brutal Mongol raid (an army of Mongols and real Turkic tribes) and that delayed them, still even after that and their
The way Ottomans managed all that success was by their stubborn attitude to consider the conquest of Konstantinople and the christian lands of the west as their only reason of existence. Ottomans were no nation. They were not anymore Turks despite on paper deriving from Turkic tribes and of course speaking Turkic (the only language allowed among their leadership). Most of their army were local Minor Asian men muslimified or not (they were not fanatical on that!). They had one target set and that was to be achieved step by step in the sense "first you start eating and then appetite comes...". In 1100 when Seljuks had enterred in Minor Asia they were far from imagining they would get to Konstantinople while they tried it briefly testing their power - Seljuk leaders were mostly interested in curving their own little feuds in Minor Asia in the same way Crusader leaders were mostly interested in creating little feuds in Middle East. When Ottomans rose to power though, the task seemed more easy and thus their target was set permanently.
A lot to that played the fact that no matter if Ottomans were muslim, most of their hierarchy were actually... half-diriving from Byzantine nobles either by noblemen simply joining forces with Ottomans (changing on paper religion) or by Ottoman noblemen (often the aforementioned Byzantines!) asking the hands of Byzantine noblewomen. Hence, Ottomans in a sense felt that they had a link there, that their place would be naturally in Konstantinople. It sounds crazy but one has to understand that it was by propaganda that Ottomans spread : they had often good contacts with the local christians, claiming (and not without base) that their rule was much more benevolent than the barbaric rule of catholic crusaders (whose acts had disgusted the local orthodox population).
Hence from a serious-maybe, always under control and not overwhelming problem of Seljuks prior to 1204, in post-1204, the problem became unsolvable: the local orthodox christian population had been reduced by catholic slaughters, more wars continued among the catholic and orthodox despotates (and even catholic-catholic, orthodox-orthodox) which was continuously reducing the population and its will to fight anymore, Konstantinople even after its reconquest in 1262 it was a fantom of its own past: a mere 50,000 people lived in a city with the capacity of 500,000 only inside the walls (!) up to 1 million overall (as it had been prior to 1204). Yet Ottomans took their time and did not even conquer the lands by conquest, but by their simple presence - in European side they came as... mercenaries.
From there on the success of the Ottomans was to be able to keep down the bulk of the people they conquested. They used both the "good" and the "bad" ways. Good ways were accepting christians in the army and some positions and of course giving them the choice of changing religion and getting really good positions. Dig the past of most 15th-16th leading Ottoman figures, military men like Hayredin Barbarossa (Greek from father and mother) or architects like Sinan (Armenian), they were all christians - I am talking about the vast majority: one has to understand that the mass of Turks had no knowledge of architecture or ships and really none of them showed any interest, their culture was like that and that what they passed also to the muslimified populations - note that as soon as the Ottoman population increased and the rate of muslimifications decreased (thus those of muslimified ancestry became 3rd & 4th generation) somehow Ottomans did not produce anymore "great leaders" and "architects" and "scientists"... that is a common secret of anyone studying Ottoman history and an amazing fact that explains why in 20th century Ottoman Empire was the only Empire whose desintegration meant that the ruling class was more backwards, poor, uneducated and barbaric than the ruled classes. Foreigners noted that ALL subordinate nations despite wars, relative poverty and difficulties were doing much much better on all sectors than the ex-ruling class, the then Turkish. -
Message 14
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
My apologies for jumping blindly into this discussion, but it's truly amazing that the Byzantine Empire managed to survive at all in the post-Justinian age. It was a series of one inept ruler after another subject to an extremely corrupt beuacrocy, a receding tax base as territories were lost, and religious problems that I needn't mention further. Thus one could say that there really wasn't a great ruler in Byzantine history. Although Justinian tried to streamline the administration of the Byzantine Empire his policies ultimately failed as did his attempts to regain the west. Moreover no successive emperors were comparable to earlier rulers such as Augustus, the Antonines or Diocletian. Byzantine History is marked by the ineptitudes of the Church and the incompetance of it's rulers.
-
Message 15
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Just one inept ruler after another. It's amazing the Byzantine Empire was able to limp on for so long. Its history is marked by the incompetance of its rulers and the ineptitudes of the Church.
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Heraclius, Basil I, Basil Bulgaroktonos, Ioannis Komninos are not good for you? And they were not better than Justinian who nearly wrecked the Empire with his chimeric dreams?
You views remind me a bit Gibbon's view of the Byzantines and unfortunately it is a very established view of this Empire but really far away from reality and you an understand it for 1 simple reason - that the Byzantine Empire survived for so long in a time possible the most difficult for any European (mass movements of people, massive increase of population among northern tribes mainly Germanics and Slavs and relative decrease of population in the Mediterranean populations (especially Greece-Minor Asia), massive movements of fully armed people, terrible raids, rise of islam etc. etc.)... in fact Byzantines had faced so many external threats in any of their centuries (i.e. in 100) that Romans had faced in 400 years of Empire and even that comparison is unfair to Byzantines. For it was easy for Romans to fight off a few Germanics dressed in hides fighting "epic-style" with a total army rising to an average of 500,000 (at times 700,000) 'legionaires' but how you compare to Byzantines having an average total army of 80,000 fighting say Bulgarians - a formidable army combining most of Byzantine weaponry and tactics (properly and fully armed) with Vicking/Mongol-like ferocity and barbarity rising to more than 100,000... all that while you face the Arabic Empire? Romans had never found themselves in such situations and I sincirely doubt they would stand more than 2-3 decades under such circumstances (Romans they had no proper navy, they would just be erased - Byzantines - themselves largely Greek populations - were a naval Empire).
As for leaders why you think all that line of Emperors after Justinian were crap? This is again another "western" approach on Byzantium. Is it because Justinian was the only one that cared to do something in the west and that others did not find it interesting? This is totally wrong.
In fact while Justinian was an important Emperor in the sense that he did some reforms on legislation and he did building projects in Konstantinople and elswhere (including famous church Agia Sofia, the mother of all cathedrals), the fact that he spend all the Empires' ressources in regaining some western parts of the older Empire meant that he became one of the most inept Byzantine Emperors ever. When he left the throne, there was no army, there were no money, administration even in the east was shaken - this guy chasing chimeric dreams about recreating the older Roman Empire while chasing off any remaining Greek non-christian culture (like criminal figure Theodosios a century earlier ) he was not even possible to grasp the message of the times, that these were not times for Roman-like Empires deploying millions of soldiers and being able to exploit hides-cald naif barbarians unable to fight or do anythin about it.
The bulk of following Emperors really showed to be in the spirit of the times. Military was reformed (including the excellent thematic system yielded control over the same amount of lands using the 1/8th of the army Romans needed - of course that was thanks to the superior trainign, tactics and technology that Byzantines developed and formalised in... military universities (and it was not Justinian that did all that). What we know as Roman law was not thanks to Justinian (while he did a lot of reforms) but thanks to the Leontian Emperors.
The Church on the other hand is another issue not well understood. In fact Byzantine Empire was not any theocracy as people love to say, actually it was the only christian state where the political leader was above the religious leader. In the west Pope was above everyone and claimed being "unmistakeable". In the east, the Patriarch was nominated by the Emperor and was under his command - much more practical for propaganda purposes.
Byzantine politics were complicated, very complicated but then whatever negative is said, it is true that more American presidents were murdered in 200 years of American history in relative comparison to Emperors murdered/deposed in 1000 years of Eastern Roman history. And it was not only the church, it was also the military (especially the thematic system in the east), it was the rich merchants and ship owners, the land aristocracy, the professional syndicates - direct ancestors of modern syndicates, professional organisms as well as free-masonry (so it was something between these 3) and the list becomes endless.
We are not even close to be in position to have a glimpse of what culture they had been. One thing is for sure : we had heard about how great was Babylon and Ninevi then about Persepolis and Ekvatana, then about cities like Athens, Ephesos or Alexandria then about Rome but really we have never heard as much as we have heard for Konstantinople summarised in the well known Russian saying "We have visited all cities of all nations and religions around the world, that is the only city that God seems to be living among people", explaining why all that endless list of attackers really wanted to set their foot in it, including Arabs, having an amazing culture, amazing riches, amazing science, and 4 times the size of Byzantium they should not have cared all (but they did! they did because they felt being behind it).
When studying the Byzantine Empire you just have to avoid looking into the maps showing limits and such... all that is bullswaste... I have seen Bulgarian medieval maps showing the places Bulgarians raided (in really different times) as if it was part of any great Bulgarian Empire together with comments "Byzantines paid tax to Bulgarians" which back then meant nothing close to that since Bulgarians together with their kings (the title of "king" for Byzantines was lower than even mid-range administrators of the Empire, a common point of friction with the foreigners) were merely subjects of the Empire bribed in order not to cause trouble because sending an army to keep them down costed more - as simple as that (some serious risk analysis and cost-effective solutions there!). Byzantine Empire have to be seen as an Empire of "control" not an Empire limited by "lands and borders", and that is what they did for 1000 years there.
The above was something that Justinian was really far from comprehending. In fact just one more Emperor like Justinian and there would be no Empire left. Luckily even some of the worst Emperors that followed (like Maurice who was very cost-minded) were not like him. -
Message 17
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
I agree, Nik....
yankee, it does seem that you are engaging in the broad generalisations that Edward Gibbon was guilty of, and those stereotypes still exist today, apparently. My views of the Byzantine Empire changed when I read John Norwich's work, and I recommend that you read it as a starting point. -
Message 18
Posted by Zama (U14312920) on Monday, 25th January 2010
Heraclius - did an astounding job in keeping the empire on the map. Rebuilding the military from almost scratch, fending off the Avars and finally defeating the Persians.
Leo III - would make today's spin doctors look like amateurs. Held the Constantinople against it's greatest seige in 717/8. An immense, disciplined and well led Arab army beseiged the walls backed by 1500 ships. He convinced them to burn their food supplies and then convinced the Romans bitter enemies - the Bulgars to fight the Arabs. When yet more Arab ships arrived he contrived to have the mainly Christian crews to desert and reveal the location of the fleet. Imperial ships caused huge damage with Greek Fire. The Arabs were highly determined, motivated and capable but finally had to give up. The emperor had deceived them all along. The defeat was so decisive the Arabs never tried to take the city again. With any other emperor would the city have survived? Like Heraclius, he kept the empire on the map
Nicephorus & John Zsmiskes - two brilliant soldier emperors who raised the military prowess of Byzantium to great heights. Highly motivated and trained soldiers with a deadly cavalry arm.
Basil II - built on the success of the 2 above and brought Byzantium to it's height. Territorially huge, well managed - what leader in modern times could rescind taxation for 2 years!! - almost unbroken military success and a very full treasury.
Byzantium seems to have many more good or great emperors than bad. Some had uneventful reigns but were nevertheless very competent (Theophilus). Others just had all the odds against them (Manuel II) but did the very best possible in the circumstances.
The great pity is that Basil II was followed by nearly all the bad emperors at once!
Any of the best emperors would have reversed the Manikert defeat with ease. -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Very interesting post Zama. Indeed Leo's handling of the Arab siege crisis was exemplary - the City (Polis, as was and is Constantinople widely known) was saved really at the last moment, or I dare say a moment after the last moment! It must had been really a clash of titans.
As for the post-Basil II era, you are right: this is exactly the most critical era for the Byzantine Empire. In reality when Basil II died, he had unfortunately not only left a very strong Empire and a very rich one but also 2 negative heritances:
1) in his late years he had conceded to the demands of the Byzantine plutocracy to involve the North Italic cities in the protection (at first...) of the Adriatic sea as a means of reducing the expenses of the Buyzantine Imperial fleet.
2) having spent all his life in campaign he created no family and left no sons - and (since in Byzantine politics, there were was no law of family inheritence - just anyone could become an Emperor) he had named noone capable enough to be heir to the throne
This was the right opportunity that the Byzantinne plutocrats waited. For so long (more than a century) they were subject to the will of Emperors that came from the military ranks (many of them of Armenian origins - note this, it is not accidental with what followed...). Now it was their chance. Plutocrats had every interest to ensure that no "strong Emperor" of the likes of Basil II or Leo or Heraclius would rise to the throne, in order that they can rule in the back and make money unhindered. And that is what they did.
Of course, it was not an easy game as various political fractions including the military people (usually representing the average citizen rather than the rich ones) fought for political suspremacy - but this time there was somethig different: plutocrats had taken on their side a large part of the church and especially the monasteries. And it is the church and the monasteries that they will become the left side of the clamp that gripped the Empire. For 50 years, Byzantine plutocrats de-localised (does it reminds you of anything in modern times?) local Byzantine production elsewhere, and above all they practically shut the maritime industry as they had placed all their relevant investments in the North Italic cities, namely Venice and Genova. What we see between 1017 and 1070 is an almost complete dissappearence of the Byzantine fleet as only a very small part of the initial fleet was ever rebuilt locally. Having lost the capacity to built fleets Byzantines had already lost their Empire themselves! For Byzantine plutocrats there was no issue as they were making immense fortunes out of using the Italian ships almost and later completely tax-free while local Byzantines had to pay enormous taxes that deliberately were driving them out of business. The few had doubles, tripled and quadrapled their already immense fortunes while the average Byzantines and even the mid-range rich industrialists were impoverished often to desperate levels.
Konstantinople itself was starting to change radically. It was already an international city were all people of the Empire inluding a lot out of the Empire, were living but of course there was always a predominant Greek population. However, from the 1050s and onwards there will be an increasing North Italian population that will latinise considerably the city. Note that all Italians in the city enjoy tax-freedom to the extend that even Greeks had started to change nationality and get enlisted as Italians in a hope to save their falling businesses - let alone the animosity that all this unfair competition created. Just to understand this, by 1100, the 1/5th of the city was Italian (25%!) and by 1150 the 1/4th was Italian and the 1/3rd was Italian & Italian-affiliated to the extend that the contemporary power struggles were not anymore between endo-Byzantine fractions (say aristocrats vs. military people or Greeks (represented by iconophiles) vs. Kappadocian & Armenian (represented by iconoclasts) etc.) but between Venecians and Genovese!!! The huge riots of the 1180s (said to be a precursor to the Venecian/Frankish raid and conquest of the Empire on 1204) that are often said to be a massive pogro m organised by the orthodox against catholics were in fact a pongrom organised by Genovese against Venitians only that Genovese were very much affiliated with local orthodox people of middle class while Venitians were only affiliated with the high-end Byzantine plutocracy and only case as a response to earlier pongroms organised by the Venitians against the Genovese (and of course the orthodox stock affiliated to them).
The above should not however hide the great picture: that the Empire continued to the richest and most influential structure in the Mediterranean (no matter if the Arabic states controlled 3 times more the surface). In fact, the Empire riched its richest point in the times of the Komneni only that the riches were going into the pockets of the few - and no matter if Asia Minor had already been invaded (in fact that was beneficial to the plutocrats).
In the middle of all these grave issues, the initial attack of the Seljuks was a minor issue. It was one of the usual, Byzantines had faced 10 times more dangerous enemies. In fact the whole history of the Turks invading Minor Asia is really badly transferred into our days as if it was something "expected", "long-awaited", "natutal outcome" etc.
On the contrary, it had been actually the most unatural outcome - and one only needs to count how much time had to pass since the apparition of Turks in 1071 till 1453 and what had to happen (i.e. the dissolution, conquest and complete destruction of the Byzantine Empire and the implosion of the local populations torn of centuries of civil strife...) for Turks to finally prevail... not to mention that in Europe they eve had to enter first as mercenaries (i.e. as workers not as conquerors) before assuming indirectly power for themselves, pretty much feudally and not in any organised manner, let alone that important chunks of the Empire, mountainous or islands, were conquered well after the heyday of the Ottoman Empire and the start of the collapse out of the loss of interest of catholic "conquestadors".
Note at the end that the very battle of Matzikert was actually an easy Byzantine victory and that despite the continuous treason of parts of the Byzantine army (mainly the various mercenaries). The only thing that happened was that a member of the family of Doukes - affiliated to the Komneni (actually both were 1 extended family, the main representatives of the Italian investing Byzantine plutocrats resenting the come-back of the military people under Emperor Romanos who rose via a political marriage to the throne)... well yes, this Doukas guy, decided it was smart to betray the Emperor and knowing the Emperor was in front chasing the fleeing Turks he ordered his cavalry to abandon him, thus leaving the Emperor alone in the dusk-night with not a lot more than 3000 foot soldiers!!!! Seljuks had already lost the battle, but when they saw the relatively small detachement wandering alone they decided to strike a last blow in the typical Mongolic strategy. They easily encircled them and beat them. However, they had lost the battle of Matzikert, they had lost the fortress, they had lost the whole area, they had lost their basis to raid and in the following weeks the Byzantine army (not yet aware of the fate of the Emperor, as the Doukes had not declared anything yet!) went on to clear all other Seljuk positions in the greater area. Albeit, after the battle, the Seljuks found out that they had captured the Emperor. For their (rather primitive) military standards this equalled to victory but then smart Arlp Arslan did not order any celebration but... prayers to thank Allah for this "present"! Arslan was an excellent polititian, he jumped to the occasion, declared victory on the basis of the capture of the Emperor and traided him.
For Byzantines normally there would not be an issue. All they had to do is to declare Romanos a void Emperor on the basis of any justification (and they could easily find), then elect a new Emperor and let Romanos in his fate. Seljuks had lost and were in no position to ask any lands or whatever, their only trading card was the Emperor. However, what followed was the most inexplicable: the Doukes-Komneni did not rise up directly to the throne but went on to do a 10 year civil war against all political enemies.
The "linear thought" is that they (i.e. Alexios Comnenos) could't rise directly to the throne since there was still strong opposition from the military people who were still faithful to Romanos (indeed, a "could-be" good Emperor of the likes of Heraclius) and in general to people belonging to the side of Romanos.
However, permit me to have a different view:
I think the Doukes-Komneni had already to a large extend the upper-hand to take the throne. The treason of the battle of Matzikert had circulated a lot in Constantinople but had not fully catch up so it would be easy to brand Romanos a failure and rise up as Emperors that will restore the blackened, out of this event, name of the Empire. Indeed they could rise independently of the existing opposition. However, that was not the will of Doukes-Komneni.
The will of Doukes-Komneni (and all the political fractions represented by them) was to prevail once and for all - to give a fatal blow to the fractions represented by military people. The fact that they indirectly (of course indirectly!) permitted the discussion of paying the ransom to the Seljuks to have Romanos back was above all to belittle and ridicule to the maximum point not just Romanos but the whole fraction he represented. By subsequently going on a civil war they had the chance to clear off the whole Byzantine administration out of potentially dangerous to their plans elements. When Alexios rises to the throne 10 years after, Byzantine politics are not the same anymore. The future "Byzantine political frictions" as aforementioned will be along the lines of... Venice vs. Genova!!!!
And it is outstanding to note that all along the 10 years civil war the Seljuks were out of Minor Asia. It is blatant! Especially if we count Matzikert as a victory of theirs!!! They actually return to Minor Asia only about 17-18 years after the battle of Matzikert and neartly 8 years after the taking of the throne by Alexius. The fact that most Komneni Emperors did not seem very pressed to push the Seljuks back combined with the fact that the Komneni represented (even when some of them at the end did not like it a lot and tried to revert the flow, albeit late!) the investors to North Italy, should tell us a lot. Just for the record... 100 years later the second (again indecisive) battle came only after a Byzantine campaign to Egypt which is equal to going from Paris to Berlin via Australia.... -
Message 20
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010
in 628 Heraclius merged two empires to one and ordered Greek/Koine/byzantine version as the state administrative one.
The Arab peninsula now came under direct Bysantine rule, the vulgate-Bible and even the greek septuagint was replaced by a shorter version from Ephraim of Nisibis(dd 371 ad.)
and was renamed as Koran.
In 930 ad, Al Tabari, a hack-printer from Mecca(= Macrobia magna.)reprinted the greek original Koran into modern Kufish Arabian and in the frontispice wrote a white lie, that " Mohammad" from the start in 630 ad, had ordered it to be written in (Modern!) Arabic only
But, ala, his knowledge of Koine-greek was ample but poor, so he made several translation mistakes that became dogma after 930 ad.
The now well-known, german phillologist nicknamed "Luxenburg" found that these 72 white eyed heaven maidens were actually the 72 Vine-hills that Julius Caesar had promised his veteran soldiers to live off, after their army pension.
Conclusion:
Islam is just an early offshoot from christianity written and taken from a bible copendium that was writtenin 371 by Ephraim of Nisibis before Bishop Basil the Great invented the Holy trinity(in 379 ad.)
consequently the later devellopped Holy trinity( to appease both One-God Donatists and Two-God Arrianists.)was regarded as a not allowed neologism into the(New!) religion of Allah(= derived from Baal-Athe or Ballat.)
Ballat or Baal-Athe means white elephant Lord of the City of Aden.
I have written a larger more detailled Paper about this Heraklios=Mohammad, discovery, in 2006 to 120 science sections of periodical magazines/newspapers, but they all refused to publish it.
Since then several Arabs or Egyptians have written ficticious biographies of Mohammad as an original arab Lawgiver!
The main reason for the rejection of my pitched article was that
My article did not match the Formal formula for publishing articles. So be it: no skin of my back!
Sincerely prof Muster from Rotterdam Holland -
Message 21
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Thursday, 18th March 2010
Re: messages 19 and 20.
Medina aan de Waal
Hello Prof Muster,
How nice to meet a compatriot from Rabat aan de Rotte, and not a moment too soon, I might add.
You seem to have studied the issue rather thoroughly. However, there are some formal issues I like to bring to your attention.
First, it is probably not a good idea to use this thread. If I understand you correctly your main theme is the origin of the Qur’an. I feel that you are better served by starting a new thread in the history hub, because the owner of this thread, shivfan, might rightfully object.
Then I don’t think it is wise to write it down the way you have done. I like an intellectual fight anytime, but you seem to have lost the purpose of these boards: they are about history. If you go on like this the mods will pull the plug.
They might do so anyway, because they are loath to let theological issues be discussed on these boards.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 22
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Sunday, 21st March 2010
If you go on like this the mods will pull the plug.
They might do so anyway, because they are loath to let theological issues be discussed on these boards.Β
Only if it means upsetting muslims. -
Message 23
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Tuesday, 23rd March 2010
My sincere Appologies for butting in oncemore into the height of your Bysantium Empire conversation!
I recall that in 1220 so after the Latin Empire's start a disbanded troop of Turkish auxillaries occupied a destroied village at the Dardanelles that was previously abandonned by it's bysantine inhabitants after a violent Eartyh quake.
FROM THEREON THEY INVITED OTHER TURKISH( AXILLARIES?)to live within the Bysantine Theme at the Dardanelles.
Another time I think in 1260 ? the souvernity of Anatolia was temporarily under autonomy from an Arab Sheihk that was allowed to raise taxes for theEmperor( his father in law.)
Addendum/ Errata:
DID AL TABARI re-WRITE TEH KORAN ?
Al TABARI an persian writer who died in Baghdad, that wrote a chronicle of Kings & Apostles ( 839 - 923 ad.)
was my prime suspect of re-writing the Koran.
Yet, It is a mystery to me why he exhanced the Name Constantinopolis for Mecca/(=Macrobia.)chieftown of the Sabaeans( from/of Aden./Hadramaut) in 500 ad. -
Message 24
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 24th March 2010
Muster, if you're that keen to discuss who wrote the Koran, please start a new thread on the subject....
We could have the same discussion about who actually wrote the Bible, because I really don't believe that the apostle John wrote either his Gospel or Revelations, for that matter. But that's not what this thread is about - it's about who is the greatest Byzantine emperor. -
Message 25
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Wednesday, 24th March 2010
The greatest Byzantine Emperor?
With all due respect to those who think otherwise I would prefer to call him, or ,'them' Roman Emperors , rather than Byzantine!
I think the greatest, if not the most successful one was Constantine Palaiologos, the Last Emperor of the Romans!
Constantine Xl. -
Message 26
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 1st April 2010
No I am not digressing from this Topic( April 2010)
But it's your own fault , you should have mentioned the LATE Byzantine Empire,
Because as the replies indicate the majority thinks the Early Byzantine Emperors were futile.
Yes this distinction is neccesary!
The historical term:"Byzantine or early-Byzantine"
is misleading and became overlooked, than granted
Up to 628 ad, this was the ( eastern-part) of the Roman Empire that only lost it's western halve
defacto, and not dejure when Magister-Equitum Odoacre,
returned the imperial insignia from Child-Emperor Romulus-Augustulus back to Constantinople, and called himself King of all the Germans in Rome.
As late as 520-540 ad the Eastern Emperor Maurice/Mauritius was powerfull enough to grant the military title of : Comes-Bellorum, to an obscure military Chief in North-Belgiujm called Arthurus.
Who was a bordergeneral that later used the Title Imperator Britanorum, and held the Saxons back,
not in Cornwallis/ Britain but in Belgium his territory was named ARTOIS and hid father was
named" King" Siagrius or King Pendragon.
Justinian may have been a great Emperor, but he exiled all his subjects that did not adher to the orthgodox christian religion.
The socalled THOMAS-Apostle was Thomas Indicopleutes an NESTORIAN bishop, ONK THAT WROTE AN ESCAPE-ROUTE FOR THE THOMAS-CRISTIANS named:
the Peripuls Mare Erytraeum, which today is our only source of Red-Sea/Indian Ocean harbours-gazzetteer around 600 ad.
In 605 ad the aforesaid emperor Maurice or Mauritius who was originally a court-general
organized a state coupe in (neo/sassanid)Persia
that brought his friend KOZRUSH-2 on the persia throne.
Yet despite good advice he organized a battle against Avars at Sebastopolis or something and lost it, he did not dare to come home and tell of his defeat.
So an army general named Phocas took over the empire's reign, but had his predesessor murdered
this was a pretext for KOZRUSH-2 to harrass the Last emperor of the(E-)Roman empire, from 605 until 628 ad when the Persians got tired of warring the Roman Empire.
KOZRUSH-2 was put aside and his 10 year old son/successor declare the New-Emperor Heraclius/Heraklios as his legal Fosterfather,
thus if not defact then certainly dejure,
"uniting" the (E-)Roman-empire with the (neo-)Persian Empire and it's arab dependancies!)
This was the Rise and origin of the BYZANTINE-epoch. This Byzantine Empire was a precursor that resembled the Austrian-Hongarian Double Monarchy.)
The Roman Court in 628 relized or liked to think that in an EMPIRE THAT SPOKE THREE DISTINCT LANGUAGES lATIN, PERSIAN AND ARABIC. State gouvernment would be costly issuing triplical orders on Papyrus, so Heraclius ordered that
from 628/630 onward all official papers were to be written in GREEK only.
The fact was that the knowledge and actual USE of the Greek/Koine Lingua Franka language extended along the same coast-route as described in the
periplus mare Erytraeum(= Indian Ocean/Mare Arabe.)
So if you think that I diverted from your Topic, Syffian, of the for the GREATEST Byzantine Emperor, how then is THIS for digression ?
Emperor Heraclius, afterwards re-named himself Basilieos Heraklios was the only EARLY-Byzantine
Emperor that held sway over a DUA-Empire of Constantinople Persia; Egypt; Ethiopia and Araby.
(if one doesn't count the( Co-)regency of his four sons as co-Augustii.)
After his death in 641 ad this vast/dual empire fell apart because the Ghassanids and Lakhmids that formed the majority of Arabic-territory
DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS 4 SONS AS THE NEW-CO-EMPERORS,
But instead the Mutemwiya Arab Tribe, wanted to usurpe the title of:" Great AUGUSTUS "for themnselves, and in a civil war conquerred the former Empire !by laying siege to Mecca & Byzance
(Only by a miracle 4 Sieges of Byzance were repelled by the fourshort-lived) Augustii-sons.)
So since 640-41 we have the strange political situation here, that mainly the9CHRISTIAN-) Arabs rejected Byzantine hegemony because, THEY WERE FORCED TO TALK KOINE GREEK, but at the same time, wanted to usurp the Title" AUGUSTUS-of-Byzantium "
Unfortunately the intended New-(Joint-)Emperor of Byzantium, the now 25 year old Perian imcumbent-King resigend to a younger brother Jazdergid-3 and became a Chinese general in former persian territory!( my apoligies I forget his-ironic- greek sounding name NIKEAS or something!
So as playing up to this TOPIC's title, in my humble view, the greatest Byzantine Emperor, even the First and the LAST was Basileios Heraklios( a capable but a tragic figure, born in Cartage: 570 ad.)
History repeats itself unchecked:628 ad 2003 ad.
Who can deny, that former US-Pres.Bush 2003 insurgent action, into Irak, does ressemble Heraklios surge of Persia ?
Poor King KUSRUSH-2 can be equalled with Ex-Pres.Saddam who also was hanged ignobly witout a lengthy justice-trial, by his own kingsmen ?!
Didn't Pres Woodrow Wilson at the inauguration of the (ptresent)United Nations Charter,in 1919, mention the famous words:
" Those who forget the lessons of your own violent history, are bound to re-live them !"
This only goes to show that the World would be a better place if 'wrongdoers', ar exiled and not executed, so that later they can testify to their faults for education of later generations!
Sincerely ,
'Prof. Muster '
Univ.of Rotterdam Holland/ Netherlands
I hope that I have been forgiven to comply with this Topic in such (unwanted?) detaill?THANK YOU ! -
Message 27
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 1st April 2010
Difficult:
Depends in which time epoch one would ask this question !
Obviously towards 1425 and 1453 the previous POPE was not impressed with Byzance as a (ortho-)christian-bufferstate against islam as a military menace !
Even when the Knight Templars chief residence of Rhodes( under Byzantine hegemony) was attacked by the Fatamids in 1520,( Soleiman the Magnificient clearly awestern trade-menacing Potentate.) no help was forthcomming from the Pope
Even the Indian Maharajas were but cannonfodder for the proud but poor Portuguese, that bombarded christian towns in the Arab Empire as well
Can late medieval Europe answer this question, in view of their rivalry with Venice and Genoa over the relic-territories of a virtually non existent Byzantine peninsula? -
Message 28
Posted by Zama (U14312920) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
This was the right opportunity that the Byzantinne plutocrats waited. For so long (more than a century) they were subject to the will of Emperors that came from the military ranks (many of them of Armenian origins - note this, it is not accidental with what followed...). Now it was their chance. Plutocrats had every interest to ensure that no "strong Emperor" of the likes of Basil II or Leo or Heraclius would rise to the throne, in order that they can rule in the back and make money unhindered. And that is what they did.
Yes Nick, that's what happened in a nutshell.
These people essentially wrecked the Empire that was by far the strongest state in Europe and the Mediterranean littoral c1025, courtesy of the Macedonian Dynasty.
You are also right that Alexius came to the throne of a very different Empire to that of Basil II only half a century earlier. Compared to Basil's tough, well trained and motivated army of citizens (plus a terrifying cavalry) he had mainly mercenaries - rarely a good thing.
I agree with others here that really we should use the word Roman Empire. That is what the people who lived in it called themselves. This Byzantine thing is a 19th century invention by academics. -
Message 29
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
That's an interesting point, Zama....
I was reading something recently about Michael Palaeologus of Nicaea taking Constantinople, and becoming emperor Michael VIII of a reunited Byzantine Empire, if you'll forgive me using this term out of habit, being old and stuck in my ways as I am.
But even then, when he made the prgamatic decision to try to get Papal support from Rome by discussing a potential union of the churches, recognising the authority of Rome, he encountered so much resistance in Constantinople. That seemed to indicate to me that his power was diminished within his own empire, when compared to the power the emperors wielded in the Macedonian dynasty. This was even when, in hindsight, we look back and realise that Michael VIII really didn't have much of a choice but to look for such a union, given the weakened state of the Byzantine empire, and the growing strength of her enemies. And yet, the other powerful figures in Constantinople refused to see the situation thru Michael's pragmatic eyes....
Talking about the Macedonian dynasty, I found it interesting to consider that the great emperors of that dynasty might not have been Macedonian after all, and may really have been Amorian. Of course, the dynasty before that was the Amorian dynasty, and the last emperor of that dynasty was Michael III, known as the Drunkard. Was he really an alcoholic, or was that a Richard III style blackening of the name?
Anyway, Michael III forced Basil, his Macedonian chamberlain, to marry the emperor's mistress, and their son Leo is reputedly the son of Michael and his mistress, not Basil himself, according to some sources. How reliable is that speculation? Is Leo the son of Basil, or Michael? Or am I harping on about something that's really a minor snippet of history? -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Re26: Quite interesting Prof. I am very interested in your perspective over the events around Heraclius rise to the throne and his campaigns against the Sassanids, however I quite lose your assertion over the origins of the islamic religion, not that I think that the Koran was written earlier than the 9th-10th B.C. century but then I cannot follow all the logic down to Al-Tabarri.
Re27: Zama, note that Alexios was a Komnenian. While he is considered the first of the Komnenian dynasty, actually he is the second Komnenian in throne, there was Isaak Komnenos who had briefly ruled 30 years earlier around the late 1050s. From there one, the family, of Pamphlagonian ancestry, was related to the Doukes, also of Pamphlagonian ancestry so that all political enemies called them as 1 family, the Komnenodoukes, which I also use since it is exact. You have always to keep in mind that irrespective to what the Komnenodoukes represented themselves and what they tried to do and most importantly irrespective of the fact that they were rich landowners in northern Minor Asia, they were simply a front face of a specific part of the Byzantine plutocrats, i.e. those who invested in North Italian cities. In this you have to add that since early on members of the Komnenodoukes family had served as Katepano in South Italy and from there on they had a full network of the the whole peninsula, becoming the middle men of all that delocalisation of the shipping industry from Constantinople to Venice and Genova (i.e. 2 cities just outside the Imperial reach, i.e. a sort of fiscal paradises...).
From there on, there are other interesting things about the Komnenodoukes: they were the first dynasty that actively intermarried with foreign royal families. Basil II was the first to do so but then he was only sending nephews, nieces and distant cousins to marry to eastern and western European royalties, not the opposite. Komnenodoukes though had been accepting importing wifes from western and eastern kingdoms thus becoming themselves an increasingly mixed dynasty, first of its kind in the Eastern Roman timeline.
Another interesting thing is that Alexius made so much clearence in the political life of the Empire that the Komnenodoukes dynasty remained the last one to govern, and the most long-lived one, though the 1204 end of the Empire (all 3 of the subsequent Greek states, were organised by members of the Komnenodoukes family - Ioannis Laskaris organiser of the despotate of Nicea was not one but his wife was a Komnenodouka too while Despotates of Epirus and of Pontus were founded by Komnenodoukes). Note that both the families of the Angeloi and Palaiologoi the latter 2 dynasties were simply branches of the Komnenodoukes family albeit both of them were simply mixes of foreign intermarriage - perhaps explaining partly their petty views over the state of the lands of the old Empire which they viewed no more than a personal feud. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Re29:
"""I was reading something recently about Michael Palaeologus of Nicaea taking Constantinople, and becoming emperor Michael VIII of a reunited Byzantine Empire, if you'll forgive me using this term out of habit, being old and stuck in my ways as I am."""
This happened in 1262 if I remember well when Nicean general Alexios Stratigopoulos (i.e. his sirname means "son of a general"... hehe!) was returning to Nicea from a campaign to Thrace against the Despotate of Epirus (oh yes... Greek states were nothing else than feuds fighting each other more often than they were fighting the catholics of the muslims). He passed near Constantinople and he saw that the city was virtually defenseless since the catholic crusaders had sent all of their army in north Minor Asia to fight some petty feud with the recent established Turkish sultanates (equally organised as petty feuds fighting also each other as often as fighting catholics and orthodox). So he just enterred the city virtually without resistance and re-conqured it in the name of "Romans", hence the Palaiologoi rose up to the throne as continuation of the Imperial line. It goes without saying that the other despotates did not like it that much and did not accept any authority, hence the Palaiologoi ruled nothing much more than bits and parts of Minor Asia, Constantinople and bits and parts of Aegean and Greek mainland. They still had a fantastic chance to re-establish the Empire had the other despotates allied in the common cause but nothing like that happened and the region continued to immerse itself in a chaotic fighting where everyone was enemy of everyone regardless of nation or religion. In Greek history books at school that was called as belated Feudalism and I think the term is quite correct.
So the term Imperial by then was merely a relic of times. It was more to state a continuum between the previous Empire that was solved
"""But even then, when he made the pragmatic decision to try to get Papal support from Rome by discussing a potential union of the churches, recognising the authority of Rome, he encountered so much resistance in Constantinople."""
One has to see this issue in depth. Hatred between Latin and Greeks had deeper roots down to the initial tensions in the 8th and 9th century when the Latins were not at all pleased by the lack of solidarity of the Eastern Romans in their problem with Lombards (hence the alliance to Franks) but back then it was more the Latins hating the Greeks and thus they called them not the Roman Empire but the Empire of Greeks which was not an insult of course in itself (nothign to do with the previous pagans vs. christians thing) but it aimed at discrediting the Eastern Roman Empire. However, from the 11th century onwards there was a rising anti-Latin feeling among Greeks born out of the tax-free aids towards Latin people by the Greek state - to understand this one must imagine how would say Londoners view the installation of 100,000s of Chinese in London enjoying complete tax-free regimes over their businesses while local business being double taxed. Already there were Greeks vs. Latins clashes in Constantinople including 2 pongroms (one of Latins against Greeks and one of Greeks against Latins) prior to 1204 which was of course the final hit between the two.
From there on any reconciliation was impossible. The amount of massacre & destruction that catholics had perpetrated in the Aegean region cannot be told - let us say they had obliterrated the whole region. There could be no reconciliation, people if having to chose between allying to Pope and to the Sultan they would chose the Sultan (and in many occasions, that is what happened of course - mind you, all these islamifications of christians in Minor Asia were not all of the forced). This is a tradition that comes down to our times: the ultra-fanatic orthodox (do not be fooled by the "fanatic", has nothing particularly violent connotation in it... its more of just being overzealous/overreligious) consider Pope to be no better than the anti-christ, hence whenever Pope visits Greece you have these old-calendar followers who say "Pope out of Greece".
"""That seemed to indicate to me that his power was diminished within his own empire, when compared to the power the emperors wielded in the Macedonian dynasty."""
As said, an Emperor without Empire and without any army to enforce an Empire, has nothing much to do.
"""This was even when, in hindsight, we look back and realise that Michael VIII really didn't have much of a choice but to look for such a union, given the weakened state of the Byzantine empire, and the growing strength of her enemies."""
The reality is somehow different. He had the option to rally all christian populations of the Balkans in a new unity in front of the common enemy but he was not up to the task like most of his predecessors. Ottoman Turks, just like Seljuks were a relatively easy opponent proved by the fact that they progressed only as far as they would meet no serious resistance. It was the civil strife and the inbetween wars of the christian feuds and little kingodoms that brought the population to dispair and hit their will to resist to the Turks threat. Note that Michael's predecessor had introduced the Turks as mercenaries in Europe in his fight against the Serbian king (showing to you, how really Turks found themselves in Europe, i.e. as workers, not as conquerors). The threat could be still faced, and faced relatively easily if there was any notion of unity. But there wasn't. There wasn't even within the same nation, let alone among different christian nations.
"""And yet, the other powerful figures in Constantinople refused to see the situation thru Michael's pragmatic eyes...."""
I might caricaturise it but as I see, none was willing to see the situation in anyone's eye. All that mattered was who would be the next feudal leader.
"""Talking about the Macedonian dynasty, I found it interesting to consider that the great emperors of that dynasty might not have been Macedonian after all, and may really have been Amorian."""
Amorian or Armenian? I thought of them as more Armenians though there was also an issue of the sucessor of Basil I who could be a kid of the previous Emperor...
Anyway, the "Macedonian" nickname refered to the Makedonikon theme named after Macedonia but in reality being simply the theme just west of Constantinople, i.e. containing Thrace. The theme in real Macedonia was actually called Theme of Thessaloniki while the rest of Greece was divided in 3 and later more themes sometimes down to single islands (Crete, Cephalonia etc.) while Rhodes and other islands were together with south Minor Asia up to Attaleia in the theme of the Karavisians (the ship owners...). In the same context while Thrace was under a theme termed Macedonikon, while Macedonia was under the theme of Thessaloniki, the theme of the Thraecians was actually a theme in central-western Minor Asia!!!
Quite complex!
Well it was not that complex. The administration had used random names in order to avoid coinciding names with historical people for fear of waking up long asleep nationalisms and regionalisms. One cannot avoid that a particularly regionalist nation like the Armenians had found itself with a theme of Armenians (roughly falling in a part of the lands Armenians habitated) - and this is not coincidential as the themes were organised by people of Armenian origins (most Byzantine military people where from east Minor Asia), but then soon, the Armenian theme became the first to be broken down to three other themes with very neutral names. Quite normal if one takes into consideration that there was always the danger of theme generals trying to establish their own states.
"""Of course, the dynasty before that was the Amorian dynasty, and the last emperor of that dynasty was Michael III, known as the Drunkard. Was he really an alcoholic, or was that a Richard III style blackening of the name?"""
Most probably the second. You know, these Eastern Romans were reknowned for their humour, they would just call any impossible names their Emperors. Another was called the Khazar-faced (given that Khazars were a barbaric mongolic tribe... i.e. they were calling him "the mongol").
"""Anyway, Michael III forced Basil, his Macedonian chamberlain, to marry the emperor's mistress, and their son Leo is reputedly the son of Michael and his mistress, not Basil himself, according to some sources."""
Yes, I see you know the story.
"""How reliable is that speculation? Is Leo the son of Basil, or Michael? Or am I harping on about something that's really a minor snippet of history?"""
Due to my Greek origins and education I am inherently uninterested in royal lineages and it makes no difference. However, to answer the question I really do find it plausible that Michael rose Basil to the throne with the promise of giving the sequence to his illegitimate son. It was a means of avoiding to hurt his wife's powerfull family feelings.
However you have to take into account that the Imperial throne was by no means the priviledge of any particular family; this was a state where even simply soldiers could rise up to the throne and it happened more than once, hence such questions were of no more importance for Eastern Romans other than being the "Brazilian soap opera of the times", they quite amused them. -
Message 32
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Very interesting, Nik....
Thanks for that. -
Message 33
Posted by Terry (U14552846) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Very interesting read here guys.
From my point of view I play in a historical game called The Glory of Kings, which starts in 1700 onwards. In this game (game 3) it is 1736 and I as the Russian Tsar, Peter the Great have manage to recapture all the old Eatern Roaman Empire and made peace with the Old Believers. I have been crowned Peter 1, Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople.
There is a new player (playes the Pope) who is keen to reunite the orthodox faith with the Roman Catholic and referes to us as the Byzantine Empire, as mentioned this is not its real name.
All the above has given me great reference for arguing back and dealing with a potential threat from the Pope towards me and the Orthodox faith.
BTW this is not some computer generated console game but a paper game paid for by us the players.
this is a sample of a newspaper from a game (game 2 1735) unfortunatly there is not a version online at pesent for my game. But it is very interesting. This is not a recruitment or advertisment merely me saying thanks for the info in this thread and passing on my reason for being on this thread. I will keep watching it from now on. -
Message 34
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Interesting game Terry. I am not into such games (the closest I have played to it is... Sid Meiers' Civilisation II & III... well...) but really these are interesting mind-demanding games not really so different to chess.
Mind you, in that game of yourse both you and your co-players deal with basic geostrategic questions that occupied the great Empires of the last 300 years.
More specifically on the 18th Russian intermingling in Mediterranean affairs:
The love story between Russians and Greeks in the early 10th century when they did an attack to Constantinople (back then still a loose bunch of Scandinavian Varangians & Slavs, mostly the second in majority), lost terribly and from there on they declared their admiration for the Empire becoming christians aligned to the Patriarch, sending a guard of 6,000 troops for the Emperor (the famous Varangian guard), and their aristocrats intermingling with Byzantine aristocrats including at some point in late 10th or I think early 11th century Emperor's Basil II niece marrying the Russian prince so from there on Russian Imperial family would consider themselves also as relatives of Eastern Romans even more when further such marriages took place in the following centuries. Note that due to that contact Russia in the 12th century was along with Serbia and Bulgaria - both satelite kingdoms of the Byzantine Empire - the most progressive European state. So much was the difference that when a Russian princess was sent to marry a prince in France, when she arrived she suffered the same cultural shock that a Greek princess had suffered when she got married in the Holy German royal family (they were both educated, took baths everyday, and ate on the table, in a flat plate using a small trident-like metal tool... weird things even for men, let alone for women!).
Now from the 12th century onwards the orthodox Russians and Eastern Romans somehow followed parallel lifes:
- Greeks fell to the barbaric catholic crusaders while Russians (of the Novgorod state) fought hard not to fall to the barbaric catholic Teutonic knights.
- Greeks fell to the muslim Ottomans while Russians lost half of their country including their capital Kiev to the Golden Horde of Mongols a part of whom became islamic and who ruled the regions of Ukraine as slavemasters (Ukraina in Russian means "border lands": back then there was no Ukrainian nation or something, it was all about a nuance of Slavic tribes ranging from Polish in the west to Russian in the east).
Hence somehow the Russians who remained faithful to their connection to the Patriarch of Konstantinople (note that orthodox patriarchs are "legally" of equal standing, unlike catholics that accept Pope as leader - something that suited Imperial Russians of course), they saw themselves as the only orthodox people remaining free and since they had to fight similar enemies like the "catholic German raiders of the Baltics" and the "muslim Turkomongols slavemasters of Ukraine" they developed this notion of "keeping the light on", of "continuing the fight", of "being the sole free survivors" and of course of "having the moral duty to free all orthodox people".
It goes withoutsaying that the Russian Imperial family had cultivated it since the beginning, first not so much for pushing Russians to aid other orthodox - far from it! - but to inspire Russians continue the fight for survival against the catholics and the Mongols that endagered their survival. The Tzars having some ancient partial roots to ancient Eastern Roman Imperial lines they claimed to be the new Romans and Moscow to be the 3rd Rome!
And it worked. Russians fought and step by step beat their enemies and by the times of Peter in late 17th early 18th century they were on the offensive first in the east clearing the Mongols and pushing their boundaries easily on sparsely habitated lands east to the... Pacific and then in the more populated south where they beat the Ottoman supported Turkomongol slave merchants of of Ukraine starting already to hit directly the Ottoman Empire.
The first Russo-Ottoman war occured in late 17th century if I remember correctly and was lost but from there on the Russians would go on to win every single war they did against the Ottomans.
And there is the huge question. If talking about Minor Asia, the 50% of the population was christian and if in Greece and the rest of the Balkans nearly the 75% of the population was christian with muslims being restricted in the administrative centers only going out only with the militia to collect taxes, and if Russian Empire being orthodox was so popular, and if Russians beat so easily the Ottomans even without any other help from christian Ottoman subjects - then how on earth Russians had not conquered the Ottoman Empire.
Well that is a core question that is really misunderstood by practically every single interlocutor I have ever talked, let alone people who do not know history. -
Message 35
Posted by Terry (U14552846) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Nik,
this game contains about 20 players in all the different nations/states of the world, although China is too big to play so you can play a warlord.
But I find the history fasinating, the more I dig into the more i want to learn.
I have already used the "3rd Rome" line to great success and at the moment I am planting seeds of doubt in the Popes head about the Holy Roman Emperor who in this game is a Protestant! I intend to try and get him to accept me as The Roman Emperor. As I keep saying the Holy Roman Emperor is neither Holy, Roman or an Emperor!
At the moment a new Caliphate player has arrived and ruffled Spains and Portugals feathers, but is being very nice to me :D
Any way your information is very useful and added to my little store of knowledge, if you want to know more you can always email me -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hehe Terry I guess in your game, there is no player who managed to control the high seas. Hence, you were left quite unhindered to get as a Russian/NewRoman access to the Mediterranean. Normally now it should be you that dictate the game.
In reality Russians - and above all the enslaved christian nations - were not so lucky. The Ottoman Empire could had been cleared at latest by mid-18th century or at latest during Orloff's war in 1760s when Russians had destroyed most of Ottoman fleet all while Greeks were doing a huge revolution (which is not discussed so much today for obvious political reasons / the Greek state gained independence practically as a British protectorate, condamned since its creation).
And there were many other chances to do, like the following Greek revolution (known simply as Greek revolution of 1821), when Russians massacred all Ottoman armies from Ukraine down to Romania, Bulgaria and Eastern Thrace and had reached 40km outside Konstantinople (or Istanbul as Turks funnily called it => Eis tin Polin = means "to the city"!!!) while the Sultan was already escaping the city (in majority populated by Greeks).
So it was again and again and yet again the threat of England against waging total war against Russia the thing that stopped Russia. Mind you, one reason Britain supported the creation of Germany was to aid in the creation of another force that could contain Russia.
Mind you, note that every major enemy of the British somehow failed to do the obvious (i.e. invade the relatively small island of Britain) and found himself fighting in the depths of Russia impossible wars. That should tell you a lot.
Of course in your game there is no powerful England or any other naval nation with colonies in China and India to care whether you control the east-west trade cos if you see your map you have practically cut the world in two. All commercial traderoutes pass via your lands. -
Message 37
Posted by Terry (U14552846) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
In game it is 1736 April, turns are a month at a time.
England is quite strong and asking for an alliance with me !
My neice through marriage is the Archduchess Maria Theresa and I have Goeorgia and Bulgaria as allies as Orthodox Kings. I have Spain as a signed Ally as well. People are very wary of Imperial Russia in this game, I have a vast treasury and a large army and navy which has helped keep all the big boys quiet.
But it was not all like that when I took over it was a mess and at war with the Caliphate who had all of Greece. " years later I had it all and he was bankrupt, there is more than one way to win a war. Spies and money helped a lot
I really enjoyed unravalling the mystery of the Old Believers and getting Constantinople back into shape.
As a footnote I have rebuilt the Great Palace, forced venice to had back the Horses of St Mark and get the council of Patriarchs to meet there. Still more to do as they say :D -
Message 38
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th July 2010
"""""years later I had it all and he was bankrupt, there is more than one way to win a war. Spies and money helped a lot smiley
I really enjoyed unravalling the mystery of the Old Believers and getting Constantinople back into shape.
As a footnote I have rebuilt the Great Palace, forced venice to had back the Horses of St Mark and get the council of Patriarchs to meet there. Still more to do as they say :D"""""
Hehe... not even Poutin would ever dare dream of so much success! Quite expertly played! -
Message 39
Posted by Terry (U14552846) on Friday, 16th July 2010
thank you.
But the period is fasinating. I did not even know that Orthodox christian are in fact Catholics and that they consider RC to be heretics! But they do not say that too loud :D
When I started researching this I was amazed by what had actually happened, I used to be interested poland (still am) but this is just am amazing time line and on recent trip to Egypy was amazed to find graffiti on the temple walls from Roman times!
Poutin would love too but I am afraid the days of mass invasions are over, the populance of olden times simply took it as read that when the army was beat or the king surrendered/died in battle they pledged loyality to the new boss. Now they take up arms and fight back from the rocks and bushes... some poeople just have no honor! -
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 19th July 2010
Re39:
"""But the period is fasinating. I did not even know that Orthodox christian are in fact Catholics and that they consider RC to be heretics! But they do not say that too loud :D"""
Terry, let me say first that though baptized as an orthodox christian personally I am not so much of a christian. However based on historic record there can be distinguished the following points:
1) The New Testament was written in Greek Koini, the kind of Greek spoken in 1st A.D. century which basically is understood by modern day Greeks with little effort. Latin versions are later translations (the first full translations of them appeared much later).
2) Latin translations are known to have discrepancies from the Greek original as this was recognised in the early ecoumenical conventions that defined the basic christian beliefs organising what was back then the Orthodox (i.e. correct belief) Catholic (applying to everyone) Ecoumenical (i.e. of all the world) Christian Church.
3) The main dogmatic difference is the "filioque" article which is known to have arose from bad translations, including St. Augustine's works. According to original text, God is one, he has 3 faces: the undefined uknown original called "father", the "son", Christ being the human form appearing on earth, Holy Spirit being his essense revealed in non-human form and as such the latter comes after the "father", not the "son". Catholics say that it may take order from the "son" too which according to logic is both true and false but according to text is wrong: it is true since "father", "son", "spirit" are 1 thus any can follow any other, but false since seen from a more logical perspective it annulated the notion of the original form "father" and giving the other two a separate existence thus speaking of at least 2 Gods.
4) 3 being quite mind blowing rhetoric detail isn't it? Well yes. In fact this purely philosophical question existed for centuries before becoming a cheap excuse for the dissolution of the orthodox catholic church. It had been only the diverging political paths of Pope and Emperor (Patriarch, contrary to Pope, was more than not subject to Eastern Roman state) that led to the final Schism of 1054 - and even that was not seen back then any more than cheap rhetorics: the final Schism occured in 1204 and the dissolution of the Empire by the western crusaders.
5) Another more "practical" difference is that catholics accept the notion of Purgatory, orthodox believe in permanent hell and permanent paradise. However unlike catholics, orthodox rarely brandhished "hell" as a menace. Catholics had a more muslim-like approach on heaven and hell with nice gardens on the one side and fire-pits and wips on the other while orthodox had the notion of paradise being "becoming same with God" and hell "remaining different from God" with not much of further details on what that meant. It pays to take into picture that Greek people have absolutely no mention of heaven and hell in their medieval christianic tradition and that there is not a single folk song that talks about it with their totality speaking about the black dressed Charon with his scythe taking souls down to the underworld, Hades.
6) From there on, apart filioque and purgatory, the differences between catholic and orthodox are purely political and of tradition.
"""When I started researching this I was amazed by what had actually happened, I used to be interested poland (still am) but this is just am amazing time line and on recent trip to Egypy was amazed to find graffiti on the temple walls from Roman times!"""
Indeed amazing! I have heard there are even more old graffitis than these, there are graffitis of Greek mercenaries of the Egyptian army (before Egypt fell to the Medians), i.e. written in mid-archaic times (650 B.C.).
"""Poutin would love too but I am afraid the days of mass invasions are over, the populance of olden times simply took it as read that when the army was beat or the king surrendered/died in battle they pledged loyality to the new boss. Now they take up arms and fight back from the rocks and bushes... some poeople just have no honor!"""
Hmmm... going even deeper you will find out that back then as today 9 out of 10 wars (or should I say 99 out of 100) were done for control of ressources & traderoutes and that one way or another it passed from mass invasions. E.g. in US they might not see it like that but their intervention in Iraq, Serbia, Afganistan and again in Iraq were all mass invasions of sovereign contries. US did not do all that to deal with minor players like Serbian, Arabs or Afganis but to deal and try contain major players like Russia, China and India. Traderoutes and ressources. -
Message 41
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
IF memory serves right it was in 1205 after another coastal earthquake that, Turkish(Ottoman?)
veteran-mecenary soldiers of some bysantine emperor demanded settlement space but did not get it so,
in all due respect they occupied a derelict site at IZMIR/ Hamadan, left by it's former christian inhabitants and rebuilrt that city.
This is the first instance of Turkish citizens in Byzance. Lateron after a draught, from Turkestan other families would follow.
In 1500 with Suleiman the Great the Ottoman empire of the atima tribe was established until 1918. am I generally right ? -
Message 42
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
Sorry to butt in,
but on the topic-subject of Who would have been the gretest Byzantine Emperor,except Basil-the Great,
I vote for Emperor Heraclios, who after a 20 years long Struggle( dd. 610-629 )finally succeded to enlarge the Bysantine Empire from Constantinople till the Persian border with India( dd 628-641 )
Almost by coincidence the East-Roman Empire got in posession of the Persian Empire as a somewhat earlier copy, of the Austrian Hungarian 'Double-Monarchy.( 1805-1916.)
When Emp. Heraclius took over from his predecessor Phocas( 604-610.)on behest of the Prime minister Priscus ( who as a Senatorial magistrate, feared the disdain of the common rank-General Phocas,
The Persians, who under Mauritius had pledged an eternal Truth between Romans & (Neo-)Perrsians/Sassanids,
decided that with Phocas death, Heraclis should be punished for beheadding ex-Emp.Mauritius and occupied, 80 % of the east-Roman Empire, which took Emp. Heraclis 20 years ( 610-628.)to re-occupy.
Afterwards Heraclius decided that the NEW combination, Roman & Sassanid empires should revert to a New Language the Bysantine Koine Greek, which was the unofficial language anyway.
New -gold-Coins were issued with Heraclius re-naming himself Heraklios, but on his new gold coins he did not put his portrait.
On one side was printed the Cross with four Arms on a pedestal called the ' Tetra-Grammaton-Cross,
and on the other coin-side was engraved a huge letter 'H'with a 'Maltheser-'Cross on top.
But THIS 'H' was executed as a (byzantine-)Capital Greek 'H'
which resembled rather more to the latin Capital ' M '
Thus Heraklios' arab subjects the Lakhmids and Ghassanids named that coin after the Huge-seemingly- latin-capital letter' M ' ( the actual ' latin 'H ' surmounted by a small Cross above the middle bar suggesting, with poor immage quality, that, it was a Latin letter' M '.
Thus the name of that coin a golden Dragme, became in koine-Greek; ' Moha-M'.in other words Mohammad. The rest is history.
So my vote for most famous if not best byzantine emperor is Heraklios( 628-641.)
I made that discovery in 2006 but no History magazine nor 120 newspapers were intrested in publishing my'short-paper.
Sincerely,
Prof MUSTER. -
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
Hi Prof. Your perspective on Heraclius both triggering the hellinisation of the Eastern Roman Empire (that today we call wrongly Byzantine) as well as the birt of islam is quite intriguiing but frankly it is the first time I hear it thus permit me to maintain a basic disbelief. Yet, since I too have some notion of islamic religion being born right through those tumultuous times of the clash between the hellenic-hellenised Eastern Romans and Persian Sasanides and that there must be some link, even an indirect one, I will keep your theory aside and cross check it whenever I fall into info on the period.
Now, while I know that sometimes Byzantine writing styles made H resemble a narrow M, as I see in wikipedia nomismatics, the M letter was also found on bronze coins called nummi and these were edited before Heraclius (M in the Greek numerical system of the times was 40).
However, based on your theory, Heraclius must had been a very fateful Emperor having given birth to the future greatest enemy of his Empire right during beating the till then main enemy. -
Message 44
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
in my view, a Bysantine King who makes peace is a greater King that one who makes war, Heraklios did both.
Which -ironically-earned him the Scorn of his part-time mercenary-Arab subjects
The Sassanids were perpetual enemies to the east Roman Empire
However when the Sassanid King Koshrush-2 was enthroned by the help of an expeditionary Roman army send or perhaps even headed by the E-Roman Emp Maurice in 590 ad.
he was so gratefull that he signed an Edict of 'perpetual peace with Constantinople( that was to last only 10-years.)
In 604 Maurice against the wishes of his court general mounted another expedition force against the Slaves and lost the battle, causing many (part-time-)soldiers of noble birth to perish and their families to mourn.
Consequently he got frightened and hit from his own court in some obscure village from which he refused to return.
There was no successor , because the Crown-prince waws killed in that battle and another son had ignobly fled his post before the onslaught.
So a general from the ranks named PHOCAS took over the Empire by decree( dd 604-610 ad.)And dragged the ex-emperor to the court where he was beheadded for not winning that particulary battle which looked like an easy one, but Mauricius although a former general himself after 20 years in office now lacked battle experience as became
forseeable.
Fweigning to avence the Emp.Maurice and his family, the Friend of the Romans Koshrush-2 now invaded Turkey to oudst the new Emp. Phokas, and rule for himself in Constantinople.
Phokas was a fighting general and mannaged to keep the Sassanid army at bay for 6 years.
However for posterity and a Dynasty he needed to marry his daughter with the Head of the ruling Classes a certain Count PRISCUS.
As son in Law of the emperor Phokas, Priscus had wall papers made with him as'vive-Emperor' which vexed Phocas so much that Priscus feared to be jailed for blasphemy.
In secret Priscus appealed for an obscure general from carthago named Heraclius to come to Constantinople, dethrone Phocas and set himself up as puppet-Emperor for Priscus as his co-adjutor
So Heraclius went with a small fleet of 10 ships to Constantinopolis disembarked posing as a foreign-Tourist visiting the Palace-guardens, but was seized and jailed as an usurper by Phokas.
Priscus then just got back from his honeymoon and hurried to free Heraclius and his mother and had him installed as the new Emperor while beheading Phocas for beheading Maurice, both without a Trial
Emp.Phocas last words were: 'I dare you to see to it, that you lead this empire better than I did'.
However for a repet6ance of another Emperor beheadding, Koshrush-2 now really got angry, and his general occupied 2/3 of the E.Roman Empire for a good 20 years having to battle for his status-quo, without Heraclius being able to better that situation, just as Emp.Phocas predicted.
However the other generals in King Koshrush-2 court objected to the drain of manpower and Hanged the Sassanid King( much after the way ex-Pres./Caliph of Baghdad,Saddam Husain was hanged.)
Who, incidentally could have saved himself from death-penalty by declaring it abolished in his power of temporary Caliph!)
The court of Sassanid-Persia, now turned over the governance of 'Persia' to Heraclius and declared him Ruler and Fosterfather of the Sassanid crownprince, named Nicias.
Conclusion, after 20-fighting years, the Sassanid- Enemy kingdom fell into the lap of Heraclius in the end, without battle. The year: 628 ad.
Hench forward Heraclius now had to rule two completely differend Kindoms one Christian the other Zoastrian. with 2 Coinage systems. and ofcourse two languages.
However with the then Patriarch of Constantinopolis SERGIUS he devised a new Coinage-system baseed on the East-Roman DENARIUS, and a new trade Language the Byzantine version of the Koine-Greek that happened to be the 2nd laguage of both the E.Roman & Sassanid Empires. So far so good.
When starting as newlyfledged Emperor in 610 ad, Heraclius was only master of Greece and Constantinopolis while Turkey, Egypt Araby, and Palestine/Judea was occupied by the ' Persians'.
18/20 years later and a name change, Heraklios got it back and additionally the whole of 'Persia' to the India border also.
Both empires were weakend in military sence so this Peace by contract came at the right time.
in 641 however the Arabs ho were now Bysantine subjects came in revolt simply only because the Lahmids and Ghassanis prof.mercenary soldiers, who were paid to clash with each other after each agricultural season now had the same King as their ruler and borderprotection-tribute ceased.
To provoke the new King Heraklios the former Arab soldiers tried to lay siege to Constantinople several times( almost annually.)( untill 1453.) and occupied the whole New-Byzantine Empire in the Process, while, demanding their usual borderguarding fees.
In 641 ad the Basileios-Heraklios died from a cavalry-soldier's illnes of the intestines, having been battling, constantly in a horse saddle for 20 Years.
His dynasty comprized 10 successors with various successes against the ever attacking Arab expeditionary armies. until it expired in 750 ad.
In Persia King Dastargid-3 ( a brother of Crownprince Nicias,)was Emp. Heraklios last representative before the Muslim conquest by other Abbasid-'Caliphs'
Today when asking any moslim why the Bysantines were so easily conquerred the statuary answer is" because the E.Romans & Persians were such a weakened nation. Which is a warmonger -statement.
Heraklios ended centuries of war & Feud between 2 great Nations, and the Arab subjects cursed him for that! They called him a -weak-(?) peace-monger.
In religious prospect, Christ and Ahuramazda did not match, so Heraklios sought a mid-way inbetween middle-road to solve the religious differences.
Since Heraklios originated from Cartage some of the Punic religion appealed to him where POSEIDON was the chief-God. not Moloch the child-eater.
In Araby/ Arabia- Foelix, Lord BAAL was Poseidon
( a Sea-Elephant God(= greek Sea-Elephant ='Hippo-Campos')whose capital City was Aden and thus -sea-God Poseidon was named in arabic,' Baal-Athe'
( only his wife Amphitrite was re-named Ballat.)
Anyway Baal-Athe was shortened to 'ALLAH'
The decree to merge the religions of 'Persia' Araby and Rome' was named the" EXTASIS" and it was expositioned in greek-capitals, on a Stone tablett, in the main Church: Hagia-Sophia in Constantinopolis.
So, in essence Emperor Heraklios, made peace between two Nations ended civil strive, and the Muslims called him a weak-Emperor.
Yet unwittingly, without knowing it the modern Muslims rever that weak-Empereor Heraklios as their greates Prophet' Mohammad' the Big- Man or rather from the 'M' on the reverse of his coins the 'Big- eM'.
Recently several numismatists have descoverred that inbetween the last Coins of Basileios Heraklios and the First Coin of the 5-th Caliph( dd 750 ad.)
there exist no muslim coins of the first 4 Caliphs.
Heraclius, in 625 ad asked Kushrush-2 in a polite letter to King Kushrush-2 for a Peace-treaty ending hostilities, Kushrush however answered that he only would make peace if Heraclius, would embrace Zoastrianism ( Which he wouldn't.)
This Letter was interpreted as Mohammad(= Heraklios!)asking the'Sassanid-King to embrace the new, Muslim Faith.)the only( Faked!) Copy of this letter is displayed in the Antiques-Museum in Amman/ Jordan
The 4 First 'Caliphs' were:
Ali, Abu-Bakr, Othman I forget the others.
They were named' Caliph' in Araby because their real titles were: Co-Emperors with Heraklios as his 4 Sons.
The ten socalled wifes of Mohammad were the City-Godesses of 10 Sassanid Capitals that Heraklios besieged. Every battle of Mohammad can be synchronized with the same Battles of Emp.Heraclius. Heraclius married his wife Martina
who served as his second in command on Horseback
She was his niece in the Arab/Muslim version:Chaditia.
FACT: Heraklios ordered that the official language for the 'Double-Monarchy' would be Koine/Bysantine GREEK (but the peace-strikken-Arab-veterans prevented that outcome.)
Never-the-less, from 628-928 or 630 untill 930 ad
the Koran was written in Bysantine Greek, only after 930, the Modern-Arabic'Kufic' version of Al-Tabari was employed stating in the frontispice, that Mohammad himself had decreed that arabic(Kufic?!) was the only language in which it was to be written.
Although' BUSH is, in Iraki state-politics, the criminal' He must be Mohammad resurected, because
he did the same as Emp.Heraclius/Heraklios did:
Occupy Iraq, only it did not take the US-coalission-Army 20 years but 20 days.
There must be a lot of Heraklios's'DNA' in former US-Pres BUSH ! -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Thanks very much for the feedback Prof. THis is quite fascinating info but then again I really have to do some research (not that I am any professional or specialist) and come back on that. But it might give me some direction where to look at.
I have had already the notion of the Koran being written later. I also had the notion that islam's supposed birth falls exactly in the period between the last Romano-Sassanid war. I also had read about the implication of Lakhmids and Gassanid Syrian Arab tribes that were implicated in these wars - however had the notion that they had actually remained christian for long and fought on Byzantines' side against muslims.
Now you propose a whole different view according to which these 2 tribes actually where the ones that rebelled and tried to take over things in the Empire and were later described as the "muslims" that attacked Konstantinople.
This needs a lot of search. For instance, it is known that Arabs sieged Constantinople with ships. The Syrian tribes were not so much into navy - yet nothing can be excluded, as part of the Byzantine flotte could had gone their side, a possibility that happened in the muslim raids in eastern Sicily 200 years later (muslims came led by aristocrat Byzantine traitors).
However, what I found interesting is your view about Lakhmids and Gassanids becoming... unemployed after the end of the Romano-persian wars. And since they are a key factor in the border protection they might had been a factor why Arabs progressed so far into the Eastern Roman territory and why right after that Eastern Romans developed the theme politico-military organisation. -
Message 46
Posted by Terry (U14552846) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
very intersting read and some of what you have said i had looked up ands was aware. In the game the current Papacy player has written to the council of Patriarchs trying to bring them back under his wing and thus make him self head of all the orthodox and catholics in the known world!
How this will pan out I have no idea but suspect it will fall flat on its face as he has conviently forgotten the 4th crusade and the subsequnet actions against the east half. He also seems to think it is all our fault for the split and that we should be the ones to ask to come back! -
Message 47
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Terry, since in this game you are head of Tcharist Russia you have absolutely no benefits to have Pope gaining weight over the Moscow Patriarch and of course not the Konstantinople or Jerusalem historic patriarchates. You have to play along the lines that the church is not a state, nor a human constitution and that the religion belongs to none. Patriarchs are there for the running of the church, not for organising a kind of civil service the Vatican has organised. Unlike human constructions, the church thus, not only does not need to have one leader but having as a head, Christ himself, will be commiting hybris if accepting one man as a head of it, like catholics have done.
Do that and every effort of the Pope is bound to fail. Hehe! -
Message 48
Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
Justinian (although I would classify him as more of a Roman Emperor).
-
Message 49
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 30th July 2010
Dear NIK & EQUES,
Justinian has ordered the Nestorians out of the East Roman Empire, on pennalty of death if they did not leave before 565 ad.
Isabella & Ferdinant issued a similar decree if the Jews did not leave Spain before 1490 ad.
Maybe there seems to be a sequence, every 500 years or so, when large indigenous groups of people are expelled ?
500-1000-1500-2000
Like: 565 the Nestorians from Constantinople
1200 the Gnosis/ Albigenzes from the Provence,
1490 the Jews from Spain & Portugal, 1940-45 jews from Germany.
About the Koran index
The only reason that the Muslims do not recognize the 'Holy'Trinity is because Heraclios wanted to shorten the bible/Koran, so that when published
it could be cheaper than issueing all of it.
So as basic Koran-edition, he used the Syrian/Greek shorter-Bible-version named the ' PESHITTA' redigated by Bishop Ephraim the Syriac, from NISSIBIS in 371 ad.
Since the 'Holy' Trinity was only added to the Christian Believe, in 379 ad by the ingenuity of Bishop Basil the Great from Caesarea ibn cappadocia to cement a bond, between 1 God nature and 2God-Nature Status worshippers( eg. the North African Donatists and the East-European Arrians/Nestorians.)by superceding both with a ficticious 3-rd nature of God(= Caesar!)
The East-Roman/Muslims were not aware of such a personal-construction, and confused the' Holy-Spirit' with IBLIS the Devil.
Further confusion about the 'holy-'Trinity of Catholism, evolved as the 3 'Devils' with various translated names, per personified by 3 marble Pillars at which, the gathered Muslims were to throw pebbles each Year.
after the Byzantine Church separated over the Holy celibate Question with Pope Hildebrand about the Celibacy in 1053 ad. and another trifle in 1265.
The Bishop of the Nestorians under purge by Justinian, named Kosmas Indico-pleutes, re-wrote the originally Latin' Peripulus-de-Mare-Erytraeum' into koine-Greek, for an escape route-by sea, for left-over Nestorians for a safe-haven, all the way to Madras in East-India.
This rather obscured the original Latin version of 500 years earlier along which route Odysseus took to Escheria in Aden. -
Message 50
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
[b]3 Byzantine generals[/b] who's birth and death dates overlap are candidates for the'Prophet' Mohammad
1) Prophet-Mohammad, supposedly was born in 570 the day/year of the White-Elephant( with which the abyssinian-general Abraham used in the Ethiopian Siege of Mekka.)and died in 632 or 636 after the battle of yarmuk(israel.)
2) Emperor Heraclius/Heraklios, was born in Carthage in 575 and died in Constantinopolis in 641 ad.
3)Khalid ibn Walid, arab general born in 592 died 642. He was general under the Caliphs Abu Bakr/ Umar/Utman but these were 3 sons of Heraklios who had a Co-regency with their father as co-Augustii
If Khalid ibn Walid, performed military deeds of conquest during the reign of Emperor Heraclius inbetween 610-630, supposedly as a muslim general,
than this should be impossible,
sinds the socalled Muslim Faith was instituted by Heraklios through Patriarch Sergius, not earlier than 930 ad
by the religious decree called the' EKTASE-Tablet'
Is it by mistake or oversight that in the Wikipaedia article on general Khalid ibn Walid,
Emperor Heraclius continues to be named Heraclius even when he -officially- changed his name to Basileios Heraklios in 630 ad. ?
My impression is that the 3 first Caliphs recognized the hegemony of Emp. Heraclius nominally and thus during that time,
the arab general Khalid ibn Walid, must have been a byzantine-employed general working for the Byzantines before 630 ad, and suddenly against the Byzantines after 630 ad.
or else,
Khalid ibn Walid was Mohammad himself under a pseudonym.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.