Byzantium

File: 1481597087302.jpg (15KB, 201x247px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 201x247px

There was a brief boom in the first couple of centuries after the Fall of Rome, and then they lingered for 800 years of uninteresting bullshit and Jewry, until the Otoomans outjewed them, and conquered them.

The end

File: constantinople.png (33KB, 186x128px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 186x128px

>>2149224
Crescent with Star were the ancient symbols of Constantinople. They are attributed to classical goddess Diana.

File: b0acf80da3c8e8edda166279826d39f2.jpg (119KB, 637x826px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 637x826px

>>2149224
what's going on in here?

>>2149240
Reminder that the 4th Crusade's detour into Constantinople, and the actions done therein, were not sanctioned, but actually condemned, by the Pope, and they were set into motion by a dastardly Greek who lied.

Also, even if it had been sanctioned, Greeks would have deserved it for the Massacre of the Latins.

The Greeks chose the Turks over Venice.

>>2149240
Reminder that no matter what google images tells you, that guy is Andrea Gritti, not Enrico Dandolo.

>>2149240

How can one blind old asshole cause this much damage?

File: EnricoDandolo.jpg (885KB, 733x900px) Image search: [Google]

885KB, 733x900px

>>2149261
Good art didn't exist when Enrico "Man"dolo lived, and that guy looks like a Doge.

Do not bully

>>2149224
Read John Norwich's three volume history of Byzantium. Hope you a Kindle though, good luck finding physical copies if you don't.

>>2149240
This guy is one of my favourite historical figures

>>2149277
This guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Gritti

>>2149277
Andrea Gritti?

>>2149232
>he doesn't know about the 10th century revival
kek
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/undergrad/modules/med/ME4852.htm

File: byzantine crown.jpg (72KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x478px

I love the byzantine crown jewels.

File: Enrico_Dandolo[1].jpg (37KB, 741x981px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 741x981px

>>2149273
>Good art didn't exist when Enrico "Man"dolo lived
True, but there are later paintings and engravings meant to depict him, like what you posted or pic related, so there's no need to usurp poor Gritti's face.

File: crown_side.jpg (97KB, 451x300px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 451x300px

So dignified.

File: 1a7d7251d43a796c133a81ca554babef.jpg (58KB, 500x557px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x557px

>>2149281
So basically it's fucking nothing?

>The tenth century witnessed the political and cultural revival of Byzantium following two centuries of dour military struggle, impoverishment and introspection
>>2149284
Byzantine cuties were made for Venetian Dick

>>2149279
>>2149280
Yeah, he is my favourite doge of Venice. He is resposible for Padua becoming a part of the Republic once again and he signed a treaty with a Spanish king which allowed Venice to stop fighting in the Italian wars.

>>2149285
But that picture is executed in High Renaissance Venetian Colore, making it Venetian to the core, and the austere face looks like it belongs to the Madman who leads a pillaging squad at 90.

>>2149291
Didn't he first lose everything that he later "gained"?

File: 1475305741773.jpg (94KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 607x608px

>>2149224
>No Ottoman garbage allowed.
You wouldn't dare utter that heretic phrase if the Sultan was still around, kaffir.

>>2149296
Well I do agree Gritti's portrait certainly does fit the image of Dandolo just as well. After all Gritti was a pretty similar character, both were multitalented diplomats/politicians/generals who achieved badass feats.

File: 1482247610115.png (2MB, 1489x1068px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1489x1068px

>>2149308
Saracens wouldn't be saying anything, if the Catholic Heretics had helped us, instead of chimping out in every Crusade

>>2149307
No? Mostly because he didn't really gain anything, he fought defensive wars only.
Padua wasn't a new conquest (first joined the republic in 1405), it had just been occupied by the enemy during the war of Cambrai.

>>2149310
Remember when the people of the Balkans and Central Europe launched a crusade to help you, and then you DIDNT JOIN THE FUCKING CRUSADE?

Remember when polish, hungarian, croatian, bohemian, lithuanian, wallachian, moldavian, bulgarian, teutonic, all of the germanics, and the papal armies came to help you, and you didn't join the effort, instead preferring to trade with the Ottomans, the enemy?

I do. I remember. Byzantium fell LAST, of all the christians in the area, and with the least fighting, to the last moment bribing and trading.
t. Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz

>>2149322
Well, you see, Byzantium is small, and if it sent armies out to fight, there'd be no one left at home to man the walls.

It was assumed that all the Slavs and Heretics would win, and Byzantium could just chill. You lost, so whatever.

t. Alexios Pappaouliou: King of the Greeks

>>2149332
The hungarian warlord took Nis and Sofia before the crusade even started, the ottomans were losing commanders left and right, and the byzantine were supporting them with supplies and trade instead of aiding the effort to expel them.

Perfidious byzo, pls go. Nobody wants you here.

>>2149224
History of the Byzantine state by George Ostrogorsky

File: basil2nd.jpg (96KB, 482x650px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 482x650px

>>2149284
>>2149288
What's a Bulgarian doing here? Can't you see that this is a thread about the Byzantines?

>>2149290
Yeah, it so much nothing that there a college course and books about it.
>Byzantium took advantage of a fragmented Muslim polity to push eastwards, seizing territory
LITERALLY NOTHING NEVERMIND THE REINSTALLATION OF CONTROL IN THE BALKANS LOL I LIKE MEMES

>>2149290
>By 1025, the date of Basil II's death, the Byzantine Empire stretched from Armenia in the east to Calabria in Southern Italy in the west.[93] Many successes had been achieved, ranging from the conquest of Bulgaria to the annexation of parts of Georgia and Armenia, and the reconquest of Crete, Cyprus, and the important city of Antioch. These were not temporary tactical gains but long-term reconquests.[86]

File: basil_bulgars.jpg (32KB, 507x549px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 507x549px

>>2149290
>Bulgarian resistance revived under the rule of the Cometopuli dynasty, but the new emperor Basil II (r. 976–1025) made the submission of the Bulgarians his primary goal.[99] Basil's first expedition against Bulgaria, however, resulted in a humiliating defeat at the Gates of Trajan. For the next few years, the emperor would be preoccupied with internal revolts in Anatolia, while the Bulgarians expanded their realm in the Balkans. The war dragged on for nearly twenty years. The Byzantine victories of Spercheios and Skopje decisively weakened the Bulgarian army, and in annual campaigns, Basil methodically reduced the Bulgarian strongholds.[99] At the Battle of Kleidion in 1014 the Bulgarians were annihilated: their army was captured, and it is said that 99 out of every 100 men were blinded, with the hundredth man left with one eye so he could lead his compatriots home. When Tsar Samuil saw the broken remains of his once formidable army, he died of shock. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered, and the country became part of the Empire.[99] This victory restored the Danube frontier, which had not been held since the days of the emperor Heraclius.[93]

>>2149399
Why do you feel the compulsion to cite later victories, as if they undo earlier defeats?
Nothing lasts forever, that doesn't mean it never happened.

I don't get 21 century nerds being salty about a long dead state enough to throw (alleged) crimes against humanity and genocide at memes, such hatred and bile.
You didn't even quote the bulgarian memes, you got the venetian ones. I guess all the citrus in your eyes blinded you.

>>2149411
I was referring to >>2149232
who stated that Byzantium lingered for 800 years which is factually wrong. I don't really care about what you read into my post beyond that statement since Byzantium is very far from being my major field of interest.

>>2149411
>>2149399
>>2149393
Death spasms

>>2149332

The level of entitlement in your posts made me glad it fell tbqh

>>2149420
You'd think after the first few centuries of spasms other states would've figured out what was up, yet it took until 1204 hmm

>>2149561
Not that I agree with the death spasm bullshit, but it's not like 1204 was the only example of the empire getting rekt by westerners, it was just the worst instance because of the city's sack. Venetians, normans and others already had been tearing the adriatic and aegean sides of the empire to shreds since the early 11th century after all, it just usually ended with the empire capitulating and paying a tribute rather than the capital getting sacked (which only happened because there was no money to pay tribute with)

A Greek Orthodox homosexual Byzantine Emperor and violent usurper was teaching a class on Manuel Komnenos, known heretic.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Manuel Komnenos as the most majestic Roman Emperor the world has ever known, even greater than Constantine the Great!".

At this moment a brave, chivalrous pro-Catholic Frankish Knight who had vanquished 1500 Muslims on a Crusade and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the Pope stood up and held up a fresh Septuagint.

"Who compiled this Bible, greek?".

The treacherous Emperor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "The Roman scribes, you stupid barbarian".

"Wrong. It's been 1,000 years since the Roman Empire fell. If it is 1,400 years old and Greece, as you say, is the home of the Romans, then why don't you possess the Eternal City of Rome itself".

The Emperor was visibly shaken, and dropped his gaudy icon and copy of Plutarch's Parallel Lives. He stormed out of the room crying those Greek crocodile tears. The same tears Greeks cry for the "disgraced Romans" when they jealously try to claw justly earned land from the deserving Crusaders. There is no doubt that at this point our Emperor wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and more strictly enforced the East-West Union as agreed upon at the Council of Florence. He wished so much that he had the Imperial Sword to kill himself from embarrassment, but he himself had pawned it off to the Venetians!

The students applauded and all joined the Holy Roman Empire that day and accepted Pope Eugene IV as Christ's Vicar on Earth. A double-headed eagle named "Church and State" flew into the room and perched atop the Imperial Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. Dies Irae was sung several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a church tithe across the country to renovate St. Peter's Basilica.

The Emperor lost Constantinople and was killed beneath its walls the next day.

>>2149284
>>2149288

That's Sviatoslav of Kiev. The Pechenegs killed him and made his head into a cup.

>>2149713
Thats a fake skull cup sold in Sofia.
Actual pecheneg and bulgarian skull cups were made of the top part of the skull, not the bottom, and were shallow bowls, as was fashionable at the time.

The implication of that replica being sold is that its from the roman emperor who died invading Bulgaria some time ago, since his head is said to have been used as a drinking vessel by the bulgarian leader, so he can inherit the emperor's wisdom.

>>2149585
>Normans
Got their asses kicked out of Greece in the end

>Venetians
Couldn't do jack shit by themselves

>>2149322

There was no Byzantine army at that stage. There was the capital garrison, and nothing else. Even that wasn't enough to properly defend the whole circuit. Of the 7,000 men who fought the Ottomans in 1453, 2,000 were Italians, and a significant number of the remaining 5,000 Greeks were peasants, monks, and servants.

Enrico Dandalo is directly responsible for the rise of the Ottoman Empire, and thus the Islamization of Europe, which continues to this day. But that doesn't matter, does it? So long as you can bash the Greeks for past failures, it doesn't matter that the Muslims are pushing against your borders, right?

And before you mention the Massacre of the Latins, let me point out to you the riot between the Venetians and the Genoese which burned down a large part of Constantinople in 1171. Emperor Manuel I responded by deporting all Venetians. The Venetians responded by declaring war, sending a fleet to attack Byzantine possessions in the Aegean. They overran Byzantine Ancona, and sponsored Serbian resistance groups in the Balkans. The Venetians got what they deserved.

t. Imperium Europa.

>>2149585

The Komenos dynasty is largely responsible for the decline of the Empire up til 1204 because they let the navy fall apart. After the key role the navy played in defeating the three sieges of the Constantinople during the Persian and Arab wars, you think they'd have realized its importance. The Komenoi focused only on the army, and even then, they did a half ass job. They entrusted the defense of the state to mercenaries and ignored the themes. A strong army supported by a strong navy would have been able to hold the coasts of Anatolia without much difficulty. Pushing into the interior was always going to be difficult, but it could be done. Had Manuel avoided the mistakes made by Romanos Diogenes at Manzikert by splitting his army up into three or four divisions and setting advance scouts, his army wouldn't have been caught by the Turks with its pants down and destroyed in a mountain pass.

>>2149240
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: The_Latin_Empire.png (125KB, 925x598px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 925x598px

>>2149224
why would you be a Byzaboo when a far superior Empire existed

>>2149238
no Ottoman shit please

Why did they have to nerf Cataphracts (and heavy cavalry/horse archers in general) into oblivion?

My inner min-maxer keeps going full NK-mode at the start and making the entirety of the Byzantine Empire Scottish, Italian, or Russian.

The first two because their retinues kick ass, the third because I like Russian portraits and having my character's title be "Tsar" makes my peepee feel good. And because their retinues are "OK."

>/his/ hating on the Eastern Roman Empire because they're cringy contrarians and Crusader LARPers

>>2150196
Greek "Empire" *

>>2150214
>Eastern
It was the Eastern part of the Roman Empire
>Roman
Greeks were considered Roman citizens, therefore Romans
>Empire
It was a centralized nation ruled by an Emperor, therefore an Empire

HREfags BTFO

>>2149393
>These were not temporary tactical gains but long-term reconquests.

Funny, considering the Norman and Seljuk invasions that followed right after.

>>2149774
>Of the 7,000 men who fought the Ottomans in 1453, 2,000 were Italians, and a significant number of the remaining 5,000 Greeks were peasants, monks, and servants.

As well as Ottoman Turks.

This board really shows its idiocy when you get meme posters like this >>2149232 trivialising hundreds of years of interesting history just because they don't like the nation the history involves.

>>2150250
I was surprised when I saw there were Ottomans who fought alongside the Byzantines in 1453. For what purpose?

>>2149240
Literally my grandfather...

t. Mehmet

>>2149310
Not to mention how Basil II backstabed F. Barbarossa during 3th crusade, fucking cunts attacked crusaders and worked together with Saladin. Shame

>>2150295
>calling the byzantine polity a 'nation'
>complaining about the low quality of other posters

kys

>>2150326
It was a general term, you nitpicking cretin. I'm not too concerned about semantics in a thread/post that doesn't otherwise concern it.

File: orthocucks.png (2MB, 1212x1564px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1212x1564px

>>2149224
It wasn't very glorious. Nearly a full 1000 years spent being beaten by Muslims or bribing Muslims not to beat them any more.

Even what might be called glorious (the brief reconquest of Italy&N.Africa) had disastrous long term effects.

File: Orthocucks will defend this.png (802KB, 1900x1364px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 1900x1364px

>>2149224

>>2150389
>general term
>nation in the medieval era

nope, you're an idiot

>>2150178
Ottomans stole it from the Byzzies you imbecile.

>>2150419
I am aware that the modern concept of nations didn't come into existence until the 18th/19th century or so. I used nation as a general term because:

1) The semantics used are irrelevant to the discussion at hand

2) It was the best fitting term that came to mind at the time, the term "polity" didn't come to mind and I wasn't exactly brainstorming for alternative words to use because everybody still understood what I was referring to and I didn't expect nit-picking autists to throw a tantrum because of the use of one word

3) I was in a hurry because I have better things to do than argue with autistic children on a website.

Not sure why I'm even responding in the first place, you're just baiting in the first place.

>>2150439
you're right, by pointing out your obnoxious hypocrisy i must have been baiting

whatever

>>2149224
Was the Byzantine Army particularly good? All I know is that they kept losing territory since the Roman Empire split.

File: 1452525865653.jpg (43KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x600px

>>2150479

>>2150479
Cataphracts used to kick ass until Paradox hit them with the nerf bat.

>>2149690
X/X would Deus vult

>>2150406

>mainly Sassanid losses

>>2150399

>city of several hundred thousand people
>multiple periods of cultural Renaissance

>>2150311

The Angeloi were utterly retarded.

>>2150300

The Byzantines often became involved in Ottoman civil wars. They would support whatever side promised them control over Greece. When their allies lost, they took them in.

>>2150167

>selling lead roof titles because the Pope hates you

>>2150399
You forgot the centuries of the pope sucking Frankish dick for the privledge of living in the medieval equivalent of a collapsed barn a.k.a. Rome. In 1054 the Pope was too embarrassed of being an unwashed barbarian cuck to personally tell the richest and most prestigious man in Europe he wasn't allowed in his church/pyramid scheme any more that he had to send a bitch to do it. Even then he was so scared of being excommunicated by the true Roman Empire he died before his bitch could return home.

>>2149224
first ruler of ottomans orhan was married to daughter of byzantium governor.

unlike popular opinion, ottomans and byzantium were not eternal enemies.

File: 51U2a5pn90L._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (55KB, 348x499px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 348x499px

What does /his/ think of this book? Thinking about getting it on pay day.

>>2150167
I was not aware people this legitimately delusional/retarded existed. I get that people don't like the Byzantines because of Gibbon/Because of bitterness at the fall, but how the hell can you pervert that disappointment into such a virulent hate as to favour the Latins.

File: index.png (4KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 195x258px

I'd like to implore everyone here to remember something; Byzantium/ The ERE, just like every other state had it's ups and downs. The vast majority of states throughout history have collapsed, and Byzantium is notable for lasting as long as it did. Many anti-byzantines here seem to think that the collapse of Byzantium was somehow fast, or pathetic. It is worth remembering that maintaining what was held was remarkable.

The central part of this entire debate, it seems, is in narrative. To those who happened to learn Byzantine history first empathized with the Byzantines first, and consider their narrative over others. As a result, they see the other states taking part as the villains in their story. On the other hand, many learned "Latin", Turkic/Ottoman or Venetian history first, and see those narratives as their own. The arguments between the sides are so emotionally charged because most of the participants empathized with their civilizations, almost identifying with the people they study, while those who have studied others do not have the same empathy or know the same aspects of the narrative.

The only reason any of you is arguing is because of how passionate you are about your own favoured people, culture or civilization, and that is a remarkable thing in itself. I think we're wasting our time arguing over which was the best, because at the end of the day both sides are far too entrenched to shift.

The narrative of history is massive and branching, and I'm sure we'd all be a lot wiser for contemplating all of it, empathizing with the general human story than with individual civilizations alone. Learning about civilizations, cultures, religions and people is like collecting the pages of the larger book, and it should be the aim of the historian to gather together and interpret as many pages as possible, not to argue aimlessly over which page is prettier. After all, the book is more beautiful than it's pages.

>>2149290
she is so fucking cute I want to fuck her rn

>>2150243
That was in reference to the campaigns against the Bulgar state, which wouldn't reestablish itself until the Angeloi dynasty. Basil II never "gained" land in Southern Italy or Anatolia, those lands were already in Byzantine hands before his reign.

File: ancient-greek-boy.jpg (96KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x768px

>>2149249
But the Frankish inhabitants of Constantinople deserved the Massacre of the Latins, in exchange for the Venetian Crusade of the 1120's.

File: cherub-pepe.jpg (33KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x281px

>>2150399
>Nearly a full 1000 years spent being beaten by Muslims or bribing Muslims not to beat them any more.

What is the Macedonian dynasty? What is the Komnenian Restoration?

The great Ottoman Empire will be built again, with all Europeans as it's slaves!

File: Doge of Venice.jpg (190KB, 1024x735px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1024x735px

>>2149249
A) The pope excommunicated the Crusaders for taking Zara not Constantinople
B) Yes, it was the fault of the Greeks because of the massacre
C) It was also because of retarded Greek politics concerning the emperor's son

so I agree basically.

Anybody who is white and doesn't suicide bomb for Allah is a dumbass. Ottoman is faith. Ottoman is love. RESTORING THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE SHALL BRING OUR SALVATION! SUPPORTING EUROPE WILL BRING OUR DAMNATION!

How about that Armenian Genocide, though? Best Ottoman action ever, am I right?

Damn the Entente to hell for destroying the glorious Ottoman Empire!

File: SiegeofAntioch.jpg (80KB, 300x446px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 300x446px

>>2149310
Remember when you promised to help the 1st Crusade kick the Arabs out then just kept your army behind theirs and tried to cut deals with the Turks behind their back and then when their leaders found out what you were doing and refused to give you Antioch back you chimped out on him and attacked the crusaders over the Turks?

File: USSR stamp.png (464KB, 402x557px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 402x557px

>>2149322
Remember when you asked the Pope for help, and instead of a competent army, all you received was a bunch of illiterate and disorganized rabble that proceeded to pillage your own countryside because they didn't even have an idea of how logistics worked, all the while hungrily eyeing your capital city like hungry dogs?

>>2150224
>It was a centralized nation ruled by an Emperor, therefore an Empire

The right proper definition of empire, before everyone and their dog started calling themselves one, was that it is THE ruling state.
So if you have two empires, none of them are actually empires.
There can only be ONE empire, which is THE empire, with THE emperor in charge. The rest are kings playing emperor.

And Byzantium was never such an empire.

>>2151751
Anyone? ;_;

>>2149224
I was a Byzaboo too, not anymore though, the magic is gone and I don't andmire any particular historical state anymore tbqh
Well outside of the US of course.

>>2153060
>book has multiple prints and editions
>author has published many books about the subject
>he is an active academic and teaching at a university

This is enough to justify owning it.
Keep in mind that the guy is also a historian of christianity, so the book won't be entirely "secular", so to speak.

>>2153077
It would be almost impossible to have an entirely "secular" history of a country who for 1000 years dealt extensively with its Religion.

It's an intrinsic part of Byzantium. The notion itself is ridiculous

>>2153107
It was a state. It was a trade union. It was an army and a navy. It was plenty of things other than a religion.
You can make a book about the ERE without dedicating 80% of it to christianity.

File: 113.png (186KB, 330x310px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 330x310px

>>2149690
I'm laughing.

File: 1475281330681.jpg (114KB, 772x712px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 772x712px

>>2153113
You can write a book about Byzantine economy without religion, but that's about it.

You can't write a book about the complete State itself without Christianity, though as it was its heart.

File: D'après_Maurice_Quentin_de_La_Tour,_Portrait_de_Voltaire,_détail_du_visage_(château_de_Ferney).jpg (102KB, 476x598px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 476x598px

"Eastern Roman Empire".

This is very difficult to say while keeping a straight face. I wonder who can, because indeed it is hard.

"Eastern", you say, grinning like Procopius did. "Eastern", it is its name. But when thinking of "Eastern", you think about how Rome was located in the West. You think about all those who succeeded Rome in the West. You think about how the Catholic Church continued Roman political system in the West.

But then, the funniest is coming: "Roman". Yes, now, you cannot contain your laughter. "Roman" it is called, despite the fact that this "Roman" body is standing on Greece, a land so harsh and poor that it took the Legions of Rome 66 years to set foot in it. A Greek-speaking and non-Roman Catholic people, yes, but still calling themselves "Roman".

And now, here is the end of the fun: "Empire". Now you fell on the ground, laughing so hard you can't breathe. An "Empire", a body made of dozens of pretenders to the throne, all fighting for themselves, giving strange names to their position, full of Despots or Autokrators. An "Empire" who will stay divided and eventually ruled by Turks , while the great powers of Europe create colonies all around the world.

>Eastern
>Roman
>Empire

File: leo the isaurian.jpg (345KB, 1500x728px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1500x728px

Say whatever you want about the Byzantines, but they still had the greatest madman of the dark ages, Leo the Isaurian. The man tricked muslims, who were on their way to conquer Constantinople, to help him get the throne and then had them sabotage their own war effort.

File: suleiman the magnificent.png (308KB, 360x500px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 360x500px

I love the Byzantine Empire!

File: A08B417D_3838_4F6F_BD06_D242AFA025A7_2_1024x1024.jpg (94KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x1024px

>>2151819
Nah, I hate them all equally. Always when I read or learn something about someone, I ask myself why did they do that, what was their motivation behind, from their perspective. And my conclusion is that most of the Byzantium Emperors were utterly retarded. Yes, internal struggle of power, pointless civil wars, from 1050s its like they wanted to crash an empire with no survivors. You would get one good emperor, and then the next one would undone everything and made it even worse. The only reason they lasted that long is that Turks were no better, maybe even worse in some regards. And don't get me started about butthurt (muh Latin massacre) Enrico Dandolo the greatest doge of Venice. Went all in with Venice economy to build 400 ships and 15000 men (while whole Venice had 80000 people at time) in a year and a half. Then decided to sack Christian Zara (most of the the crusaders didn't even know at first why they are there) , but that wasn't enough. and while they stayed for the winter in Zara the greatest idea of all time was born. Let reinstate lying cunt as an Emperor instead of sailing to the richest Muslim state as planned. Even though he knew he couldn't pay promised amount, but fuck it,I have a trade deal with Alexandria and my ships were never build to land there in the first place, yolo. Yeah, I fucking hate them all. P. S. :Sry for this mess of the text, writing from phone

>>2152585
Nope, Constantinople. Even you mudshits called him by that name until recently

>>2153322
You mean Ḳosṭanṭīnīye?
That just means Constantine, not The City of Constantine.

>>2153322
Romans called it Istanbul before the Turks got it.

>>2153328
Different language same name. Just look at the official documents of Ottomans

>>2153353
How is "contantine" the same as "the city of constantine"?

>>2153356
Jesus fuck. How is then Germany - Deutschland - Allemagne same country? Or are those 3 completely different countries?

>>2153374
Nobody said its a different city, you autist.
These are different names for the same thing.
Not the same name, as you claim, but different names.

>>2153337
>Romans called it Istanbul before the Turks got it.

Romans called it Eistinpolin in conversation.

>>2153337
>>2153394
Ispolin means "very large" in old bulgarian, and bulgarians live near the city.
Though actual bulgarian name for Istanbul was "Tzarigrad" - City of Caesars.

>>2153058

An empire is a state ruled by an emperor. According to your logic, the Roman Empire never existed since the Persian Empire pre-dated it.

>>2152609

The masssacre was caused by the Venetian merchants chimping out in 1171 and burning down half the city. Emperor Manuel expelled the Venetians for their crimes, and they responded by attacking Byzantine possessions in the Aegean, allying with Sicily, laying seige to Byzantine Ancona, and sponsoring Serbian rebels. After Manuel died, his Latin widow have favourable trading rights to Latin merchants, which ruined the capital's economy. The massacre happened after she was overthrown.

The Latins had it coming.

>>2153412
>An empire is a state ruled by an emperor.
>An emperor is a guy in charge of an empire.

The worst circular logic.
And the Persian Empire had to die for the Roman Empire to be an "empire".
Look at old greek writing, Iran was just called "the empire". Later, Rome was just called "the empire".
The moment you have to put something in front of "empire" its no longer an empire.

File: krum.jpg (71KB, 489x342px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 489x342px

>>2149387
>Constantinople was Lygos,[12] a settlement of likely Thracian origin founded between the 13th to 11th century BC
Bulgarians are here long before you.

File: 1212.jpg (508KB, 856x1100px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 856x1100px

abandon thread

>>2153556
reeeeee barbarians go back to siberia

>>2151751
There's a pdf of it, I can send it to you.

File: 325610_20161229112243_1_FotoSketcher.jpg (480KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1920x1080px

I TRIED SO HARD

>>2153524
WE

File: 2a6.png (260KB, 563x542px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 563x542px

>>2149387
>Can't you see
subtle

>>2149387
Who's talking? Show yourself! I can't see you on the map. Are you an extinct state that no longer exists?

>>2149224
First of all, it is called East Roman Empire, not Byzantine Empire, and they are called Romans, not Byzantines

>>2153843
more like eastern hellenic despotate

>>2153847
what? why?

>>2153874
Its in the east, its hellenic, and its a despotate.

>>2153881
>East
>Hellenic
>Despotate

congrats for the new meme

>>2153881
Yes, just like history remembers the Papal-Endorsed Western Germanic Electorate, the Altaic Confederation of Steppe People's and their Dominions, and the infamous Multi-dynastic Near-Eastern Theocratic Semitic State.

>>2153463

The Romans recognised the Persians as an imperial power, and vice versa. The Romans also recognised China as an imperial power, and vice versa.

>>2153966
citation needed

>>2153843

It was never actually called the "eastern" empire. Even after the split, Rome was legally one empire, just with two emperors, two courts, and two armies.

>>2153979

"By the 4th century however, basileus was applied in official usage exclusively to the two rulers considered equals to the Roman Emperor: the Sassanid Persian shahanshah ("king of kings"), and to a lesser degree the King of Axum, whose importance was rather peripheral in the Byzantine worldview."

Chrysos, Evangelos K. (1978), "The Title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ in Early Byzantine International Relations", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Dumbarton Oaks, 32: 35, 42, JSTOR 1291418.

>>2154028
>basileus

This word doesn't imply "emperor". It was even used in ancient Greece for despots.

>>2154028
>>2154088
I love how people on 4chan fight to the bitterest end.

>>2154088

It was used by the Eastern Roman emperors for 800 years, and was used by the Romans specifically when referring to the Persian emperor. It translates as "sovereign." It was good enough for Alexander, the Seleucids, and the Romans, so why not you?

>>2154186
Alexander was called megas basileus, literally mega king.
Just like the mongols got their genghis khan, instead of just regular khan.

Basileus was used for kings, or even chieftains, throughout history. Not a word exclusively for emperor.

Byzantium is a list of around 900-1000 years of history. It can't really be summarized and i'd suggest reading on the fall of antiquity for more detail about the events more specifically and how they played out, though it kind of looks like this:

>Splits from Rome, moves patriarchate to Constantinople under Constantine

>Remainder of roman empire consolidates under Constantine, west is lost to invasion of Lombards, Germanic franks

>Byzantium has a fraction of the roman empire, albeit the richest one at the time, to maintain the entire east antiquity with Persia's Kwarismian shahanshah at its throat at all times

>Justinian gets into power, attempts to rebuild the roman empire through huge invasions into italy, africa and the balkans

>Africa is very loosely conquered since at the time it was practically empty, Italy becomes a battleground since it's already ruined and depopulated from the germanic invasions, the lombards rule it as warlords and now the byzantines are invading, barely anything of western rome remains

> Persians attack Byzantium as a show of military might to consolidate their failing empire after major defeats to the steppe people several times in recent history and their priest class gaining dangerous influence in the country

>Byzantium then gets the Justinian plague (black death round 1) which kills around a third to half of the population of byzantium (which being roman relied very heavily on a large tax base and population to field armies)

>War with Persia destroys all the revenue of some of the richest remaining crecent areas under roman control, antioch and damascus are razed and the crecent is left barren

>Byzantium finally wins a huge victory over Persia after an immensely Pyrrhic victory, but essentially ending any chance Persia will have to stir shit up for at least a century with a byzantium friendly puppet shahanshah

>Suddenly islam bursts into a region depopulated and largely ruined by said war, barely any defense is made

>>2154088

Oh, and there was a term for a Greek despot, it was... despot, which translates roughly as "lord." When Constantinople fell in 1204, the rulers of Epirus took the title of despot. After they took Thessalonika, they took the title of basileus. The rulers of Trebizond took the title of basileus from the get go to show their imperial lineage, being members of the Komnenos family of emperors.

>>2154196

Not originally, but it became the word for an emperor after the rise of Rome. This has been proven to you.

>>2154401
The emperor in the west was called.... imperator, which is where we get emperor from.
The emperor in the east signed his documents with "X by the grace of Christ the God, faithful basileus and autocrat of the Romans".
We translate basileus there as emperor, but if he also has to say autocrat, this implies you could be a basileus without being an autocrat, thus it could refer to something other than emperor (always an autocrat).

>>2154312
This is full of errors.

>>2154436

It's stupidly simplified, naturally I either had to ignore events or condense them so they didn't fit the exact timeline that they should have. If there's anything that stands out despite this feel free to actually contribute to the discussion by correcting it.

File: 1480846599508.png (208KB, 807x935px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 807x935px

>>2154485
>tfw to intelligent to actually contribute too a discussion

File: mosaic_xl.jpg (36KB, 606x341px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 606x341px

Which Byzantine dynasty was it that started calling it's emperors by their first and last names instead of the adopted titles like previous emperors?

What was the reason for that again?

>>2154401
>>2154430
Wasn't basileus adopted as a direct replacement of augustus in the 7th century?

>>2154522

Yes.

>>2154430

No, the emperor's title was Caesar, and then Augustus. This is why Diocletian's tetrarchy had two senior emperors titled Augustus, and two junior emperors titled Caesar. Imperator translates as "commander." The Greek equivalent was autokrator. Imperator Augustus, literally "Venerable Commander" - was the title of the Western emperor. Basileus Autokrator is the Greek equivalent.

>>2154522
With heraclius, yes

>>2154509

Justinian was the last emperor who spoke Latin as a first language, and Maurice was the last Latin-cultured emperor. His full name was Flavius Mauritius Augustus. Phocas was known just as Phocas, while Heraclius was Heraclius the Younger. Neither used the title Augustus. Greek was the majority language in the east. Italy, Africa, Thrace, and Illyria were Latin-speaking, while Greece and nearly all of Anatolia was Greek-speaking. Large areas of Egypt, Syria, and Israel were also Greek-speaking.

>>2154779

My bad, apparently Phocas and Heraclius did call themselves Flavius [NN] Augustus. I'm not certain that's correct. Heraclius began calling himself shahanshah from 629, and basileus from 632.

>>2154779
Interesting but not exactly what I meant.
I'm talking about an imperial family, maybe the Komnenos or the Paleologos dynasty, who are constantly referred to with both their first and last name. Possibly on coinage and official decrees too? I'm not sure, just curious why it became like that.

>>2154939

That came about with the ascension of Isaac Komenos in 1057. Earlier emperors had been named after their places of birth, so Basil the Macedonian, Michael the Amorian, Leo the Isaurian, and so on.

>>2150167
>Sack capital
>kill all the scholars and beaurocrats
>rape nuns because lol crusaders
>decide to make your own empire
>since you killed everyone with a brain you are forced to regress from a continued Roman Administration to fucking feudal adminastration.
>The capital is also now ass since you sacked it lowering your newly conquered lands property value.

Crusaders are dumb as fucking bricks.

>>2154939

It may be because the Komnenos and Palaiologos families were old and prestigious. Leo the "Isaurian", Michael "the Amorian", and Basil "the Macedonian" were all born as peasants. The Nikephorian dynasty was similar, with the exception that it was named after its founder. Unusually enough, it's mentioned that Nikephoros came from a noble family, but the name is not recorded, and nether he nor his son used it. Earlier emperors, such as Romanos III Argyros and Constantine IX Doukas had actual last names, but they never seem to have used them in the capacity you're talking about.

>>2154312
Let's go through this on a point by point basis.


1) Invading tribes that destroyed the West were most notably the Vandals, Goths, Alemanni and Herules. Franks didn't move in until after the Empire fell, and the Lomards for another century plus.


2)Disingenuous to call it half the Empire a fraction. Also, the Persians were Sassanian not Khwarmezian.


3) Africa was very densely populated, in fact it was one of the most valuable provinces of the Empire before it collapsed. Without Africa or Egypt, Rome/Constantinople could not get fed. The looseness of conquering is more a result of revolts by the army in Africa as opposed to local resistance. Moorish raids also contribute. In Italy, the Byzantines fought the Ostrogoths, whom they themselves encouraged to invade Italy about 50 years prior. The peninsula was despoiled and depopulated by the end of the Gothic War around 560, and it was after this date that the Lombards began moving in. Furthermore, plenty of classic Rome remained. They were just being ruled over by Germanic Cheiftans.


4) You're starting to merge the Persian wars starting under Justinian in 525 with the Great War of 602-620. These wars had myriad causes, and Byzantium had plenty strength to turn back Persian armies until Phokas fucking everything up. Honestly, Enrico Dandolo is only the second biggest Byzantine villain to this asshat.


5) The armies were depleted by the time the Arabs attacked in 636, but the Byzantines still put up one stiff battle at Yarmouk. They lost, and without much reserves they chose to retreat to Anatolia and play defense, instead of playing it risky as Phokas had done when the Persians attacked.

>>2153314
cringe

Turks need to be rangebanned.

File: 13906666_10205820884715783_2538968768550558860_n.jpg (94KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 720x960px

are these books still worth a go or are they pretty outdated?

Justinian was born a peasant and basically put modern law into writing

File: augustus.png (253KB, 436x551px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 436x551px

Why is it so difficult for people to objectively distance themselves from the Roman Empire? For a state that fell over 5 centuries ago people seem almost uniquely attached to it, myself included. The emotions that spill over when people argue about it are either a testament to its perceived greatness, or that /his/ is just full of people who want to cling onto the glories of others.

>>2156881
>Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev was considered the foremost authority on Byzantine history and culture in the mid-20th century.

t. Wikipedia

And how can they be outdated, when they talk about events centuries ago? Not like the past changed, and not like we have new archeological data for Byzantium.
The only thing that changed was our own culture, and thus our views on things.

>>2157377
>And how can they be outdated, when they talk about events centuries ago? Not like the past changed, and not like we have new archeological data for Byzantium.
The only thing that changed was our own culture, and thus our views on things.

You're partially wrong. In certain areas much has changed even in the past 30-40 years. Archaeological evidence comes to light that throws entire interpretations out of whack. That being said so long as you remain cautious you can use authoritative secondary sources even if they're pretty old.

>>2157379
>Archaeological evidence comes to light that throws entire interpretations out of whack.

Name a few such discoveries that dramatically shifted our perception of Byzantine history.

>>2157385
Demographic evidence for one, but i'm talking generally. You're wrong if you think history is slow moving enough that decades blink by with nothing happening.

File: fourthcrusade.jpg (208KB, 960x702px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 960x702px

>>2149249
t. Pope Innocent Internet Defense Force

>>2149224
Basil II was the best emperor
Then Alexios I
Then Justinian I

>>2158522
>Implying Justinian I was more than a jumped up pig farmer who bankrupted the Empire because of his delusional megalomania


Heraclius 4 lyfe son

>>2157361

It happened IRL though. Napoleon was a huge Romanboo, so was Charlemagne, Otto I, and so forth.