Constantius III

Cheers

What is this title, king of Anavrea?

Was it ever practical?

Was it even possible?

Could it have held together?

Would it have gotten anywhere without Belisarus?

My feeling is that there were a succession of conspiracies, or interrelated ones against Augustus, or more specifically with a goal of returning to a Republican form of government. The succession of Tiberius leads to a succession of emperors- but I dont think that this was clear at the time. It's clear to me that Augustus and Livia wanted the princeps to continue, to create a dynasty. 

This is a bit of a historical rabbit hole for me so if anyone has an interest or thoughts on the subject, sources about the figures mentioned, thatd be great! 

via New Historian

A3TG

The Byzantine Empire was one of the most powerful military, economic and cultural forces in Europe for much of the Middle Ages. That is not to say that the Byzantine Empire was not without rivals. Bulgaria was a newly-Christianised entity in the late ninth century. The Byzantine Empire, as the heart of Eastern Christianity, claimed religious supremacy over the powerful Bulgarian state. Hostilities broke out between the two powers, reaching a peak in 912 when the Bulgarian tsar, Simeon I, besieged Constantinople, the Byzantine capital.

New research has traced the troubled diplomatic relationship between these two powerful states. Writing in the most recent edition of History Compass, Ian Mladjov, from the Department of History, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, noted that “when it comes to diplomatic relations, the phrase ‘too close for comfort’ perfectly describes the relationship between the medieval Byzantine and Bulgarian states in the Balkan peninsula.”

Honestly, I can't find evidence anywhere Icaria was conquered. I went Island by Island for when the East Roman Empire was conquered, but can't find any evidence Turks even showed up till a century after Trebazon fell, and that was by a Turkish tax collector who was quickly hanged, and this book focusing on it's history shows instead of thriving, they more or less devolved.

I recall them having built towers to fight off the Venetians, and the link given to the Knights of St. John looks rather loose and unconvincing that they held any control over them other than some trade contacts.

So what do we do with trying to trace the collapse of the Roman Empire, territory by territory, when it's last remaining holding just.... hid really really well, but kept independence, and just.... went badly downhill?

The Persians certainly remained problematic for centuries, on and off. And they were descended and or associated with the older Parthians and Seleucids. The western folks just really have never learned how to get along with those neighbors even yet.

The Turks, Seljuk and Ottoman, certainly offered threat in the later years of the Byzantine era.

The Vandals were often ignored as they built themselves kingdoms in Spain and then North Africa--until they could no longer be ignored.

The Goths--were convenient--until they were no longer convenient.

Which is a worse threat--the enemy who simmers waiting behind his borders, until time comes again to wage battle and war, like the Persians, or the enemy who is at first welcomed, tolerated but then needs to be obliterated, like the Ostrogoths and then the Lombards thereafter?

The chapter is quite long and contains many good and interesting points. For example on pp. 85 Steinacher discussed the questoin of "how Roman were Franks, Alamanns, Goths and Vandals". Steinacher stresses the point that these Germanic groups formed in exact correspondents to Roman provinces. Thus, the Franks formed opposite the Germania inferior, the Alamanni opposite the upper Germanic province, the Vandals opposite the Pannonian provinces and the Goths opposite the Black Sea provinces. Steinacher states that this is no coincidence and suggests that these names were useful categories from the Roman perspective. Thus, when Romans refered to Franks, anybody knew that they meant barbarians boardering the lower Rhine frontier and so on.

In this interpretation, it is clear why Roman authors speak of the gens Gothicae as a collective term, that included both Germanic and non-Germanic groups. Thus, Sarmatians, Bastarni, Carpi, Alani, Huns, Rugi, and others were all called Gothi by the Romans. At times Romans used an even broader classification, calling all eastern barbarians Scythians and all western barbarians Celts. Clearly, such categorising by the Romans was not deliberate or planned, but developed naturally out of the need to name groups that were perceived in a geographical contexts. While the names are Germanic they were probably not used by the Germanic and non-Germanic groups in the same way as the Romans did. However, at the end the Roman persistent use of the terms prevailed, which led to the formation or at least our perception of such large tribal confederations as Franci, Alamanni, Gothi and Vandali.

...this is an excerpt from a Germanic reading group post... found it highly interesting especially for late antiquity experts like sonic

i thought on my comeback i give you experts something to ponder about...

My question; was there a correlation bewteen the fall of Constantinopel and the Renaissance? Was there an influx of greek (romanoi) intelligenzia to northern Italy that had something to do with it? Wasnt ancient greek all but forgotten by the 13th century in science/art and literature and had a revival because of the final Fall of Constantinople?

cheers

viggen

First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade.

For his religious policy, there was nothing good about it. While Justinian's religious laws were largely continuations of what had been happening for the last century and a half, his quest for a monolithic Orthodox empire succeeded in just about pissing off everybody, both East and West. One of Rome's great strengths had been its ability to absorb and tolerate different peoples and religions, thus promoting loyalty. By the end of his reign, Justinian had estranged most of the empire's religious minorities through his harsh religious laws, thus taking away this social glue. This is a reason why Monophysites and Jews were so receptive to the Persians when they briefly conquered large stretches of the empire. Later, it is believed by some that it is this belief that the government in Constantinople had become too tyrannical that caused many Byzantines to put up no resistance to the Muslim armies, and sometimes even welcoming them.

When it came to other policies, I don't think that Justininian was all that competent there as well. Buildings like the Hagia Sophia might look pretty, but the massive amount of money and resources poured into them could have been used for more practical matters. Moreover, during the Nika Riots, he showed an absolute lack of nerve initially, and would have left the city to anarchy if his wife hadn't had more balls than he.

The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.

Anyone agree or disagree?

a) 286: Diocletian appoints a co-emperor to rule one half of the Roman Empire

c. 330: Constantine makes Nova Roma/Byzantium/Constantinople the new capital, thus shifting the cultural and economic centers to the eastern regions of the Roman Empire.

c) 395: the death of Theodosius the Great, the last emperor to rule over a unified empire. (it was after his death that many of the Eastern emperors began ignoring the western half altogether.

d) 476/480: Romulus Augustus deposed in 476; Julius Nepos, last western emperor legitimately recognized by the eastern empire dies in 480.

e) 565: Justinian the Great dies. Not long after his death, many of the western provinces he reconquered fall back into the hands of the Germanic barbarians in the west.

f) 610: Heracleus becomes emperor. He makes Greek (already the dominant language in the east) the official language of the empire.

g) era of Charlemagne: circa 800, the pope crowns him Roman Emperor. As a result the eastern roman empire begins to be referenced as byzantine, not roman, by inhabitants of western europe.

I confess I'm intrigued. Thoughts, anyone?

...so in 700AD i assume they felt very different to the Anglo/Saxons, but did they had any Roman traditions left?

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda

The Suda or Souda (Greek: Σοῦδα) is a massive 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia of the ancient Mediterranean world, formerly attributed to an author called Suidas. It is an encyclopedic lexicon, written in Greek, with 30,000 entries, many drawing from ancient sources that have since been lost, and often derived from medieval Christian compilers. The derivation is probably[1] from the Byzantine Greek word souda, meaning "fortress" or "stronghold," with the alternate name, Suidas, stemming from an error made by Eustathius, who mistook the title for the proper name of the author.

From: Suda On Line: Byzantine Lexicography:

http://www.stoa.org/sol/

The Suda is a massive 10th century Byzantine Greek historical encyclopedia of the ancient Mediterranean world, derived from the scholia to critical editions of canonical works and from compilations by yet earlier authors. The purpose of the Suda On Line is to open up this stronghold of information by means of a freely accessible, keyword-searchable, XML-encoded database with translations, annotations, bibliography, and automatically generated links to a number of other important electronic resources. To date over 170 scholars have contributed to the project from eighteen countries and four continents. Of the 30,000-odd entries in the lexicon, over 25,000 have been translated as of this date, and more translations are submitted every day. Although our work is not done, you can already browse and search our database of translated entries, and you can use the tools we offer to do things like search for Greek words in the entire text of the Suda. You are also welcome to apply to become a contributor yourself, either as a translator or as an editor (or both). More on that below. For more information about the project, you can read this article, originally published in Syllecta Classica 11 (2000) 178-190, as well as this article by Anne Mahoney. You can also read this brief history of the project.

From:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Suda

The Suda is somewhere between a grammatical dictionary and an encyclopedia in the modern sense. It explains the source, derivation, and meaning of words according to the philology

Philology

Philology considers both form and meaning in linguistic expression, combining linguistics and literary studies.Classical philology is the philology of the Greek, Latin and Sanskrit languages...

of its period, using such earlier authorities as Harpocration

Harpocration

Valerius Harpocration was a Greek grammarian of Alexandria, probably working in the 2nd century CE. He is possibly the Harpocration mentioned by Julius Capitolinus as the Greek tutor of Lucius Verus ; some authorities place him much later, on the ground that he borrowed from Athenaeus...

and Helladios. There is nothing especially important about this aspect of the work. It is the articles on literary history that are valuable. These entries supply details and quotations from authors whose works are otherwise lost. They use older scholia to the classics (Homer, Thucydides, Sophocles, etc.), and for later writers, Polybius

The three strikes ensured a perpetual animosity between the Irish and the English, which resulted in mix loyalties..... one to the true king over the waters, or to a upsurping, self gratifying parliment that did not represent any self respecting Irishman's interests. Given the huge catholic population immigrating out of the British Isles, and not just the 'Scots Irish' stereotype, to its most important colonies, and the pattern of colonial, overseas disenfranchisement effected from having to put down overseas revolts in Ireland still supporting the real government..... both protestant and catholics felt equally threatened by a more inhumane and alien crown. The colonies were of mix revolutionary heritage..... some accepted it with pride and heritage, others rejected it...... but both were denied its laurels and benifits.

You fast foreward, the illegentament movement, centered around the upsurper crown and rebel parliament lost the cream of its colonial stock, where much of its most british population was destined to be born in future years not under the Union Jack, but under the Anti-British Stars and Stripes. Ireland likewise left during the early twentieth century, unimpressed with the British Empire and its heathen kings. Even Hindu-Islamic India jumped ship, Gandhi noting that Hindus had no future in achieving position in the empire.

Had the Americans stayed, Africa and India would of had much more red on the maps at a earlier stage. British china would of been bigger. Napoleon would never of raised above corporal because the French revolution never would of occured in the manner it did, minus the precedent of the American, and England would of had a much larger recruiting pool to pull upon.

Even if the world wars had happened, England would of had direct access to americsn recruits, materials, and taxes early on.

The fact is, it didn't, hence why the british empire isn't around anymore. The added layer of irony, the zealot religion that turned brother against brother in the empire, the angelican church, is dying off alongside of english nationalism and historic role in the world. You look at America, its the opposite, still a vigorous nation capable of ideals and destiny, willing to lock horns with the problems of today and tomorrow.

An added insult, many in England are calling for the abolition of the monarchy, the people of England proper lack a local parliment like the rest of the UK has, all the while the lineage of the king over the waters is stable and secure.

The Glorious Revolution was the worst defeat the British ever experienced, as well as the most lasting and costly. As the English swirl down the drain towards extinction, gripping frantically at Socialism, Atheism, and Anti-Papism, outsiders in the free world must as themselves one question: Will the future Caliph of the British Isles learn from the mistakes of his predecessors in avoiding the march to a self inflicted oblivion, or will he and his people strive to live a better life, and learn from the mistakes of those forgotten people who once inhabited the Islamic Isles of the North? I hope America can develop as strong relations with the English Caliph as Saudi Arabia's king.

In my MA thesis, Eusebius