Author Topic: The Byzantine Empire  (Read 64484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Frederika

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • queen frederika
The Byzantine Empire
« on: April 21, 2005, 04:44:09 AM »
Could some one post some info on this empire and how it ended?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by frederika »

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2005, 10:55:27 AM »
Hi Frederika!
There is a quite straightforward article about the Byzantine Empire here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

Offline Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • born a century too late
    • View Profile
Cantacuzene
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2005, 08:16:39 AM »
Isn't the Romanian noble family of Cantacuzene recognised as being of Byzantine Imperial descent?

If memory serves, a John Cantacuzene reigned at Constantinople during the 12 or 1300s. He gave the Turks Gallipoli- their first toe-hold in Europe. whoops!
The only real possession you'll ever have is your character.
Tom Wolfe
US author & journalist (1931 - )

Offline umigon

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
    • View Profile
    • My Family Tree
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2005, 06:01:25 AM »
Here is a list of Byzantine Emperors:

 Arcadios                                         395 - 408
 Theodosius II                                    408 - 450
 Markianos                                        450 - 457
 Leo I                                            457 - 474
 Leo II                                           474
 Zeno                                             474 - 476
 Basiliskos                                       476 - 477
 Zeno (restored)                                  477 - 491
 Anastasios I                                     491 - 518

Justian family
 Justinus I                                       518 - 527
 Justinianus I "the Great"                        527 - 565
 Justinus II                                      565 - 578

Tiberian family
 Tiberius II                                      578 - 582

Kappadocian family
 Maurikios                                        582 - 602

Thrakian family
 Phokas                                           602 - 610

Heraklian family
 Héraklios                                        610 - 641
 Héraklonas                                       641
 Konstantinos III                                 641
 Konstans II                                      641 - 668
 Konstantinos IV                                  668 - 685
 Justinianus II "Cut nose"                        685 - 695

Leontian family
 Leontios                                         695 - 698

Apsimar family
 Tiberius III                                     698 - 705

Heraklian family
 Justinianus II "Cut nose"                        705 - 711

Bardenes family
 Filippikos                                       711 - 713

Artemian family
 Anastasios II                                    713 - 715

Theodosian family
 Theodosios III                                   715 - 717

Isaurian family
* Leo III                                          717 - 741
* Konstantinos V                                   741 - 775
* Leo IV "the Khazar"                              775 - 780

 Irene                                            780 - 790, regent

* Konstantinos VI                                  780 - 797

 Irene                                            792 - 802

Pisidian family
 Nikéforos I                                      802 - 811
 Staurakios                                       811

Rangabe family
* Michaél I                                        811 - 813

Armenian family
 Leo V                                            813 - 820

Frygian family
* Michaél II                                       820 - 829
* Theofilos                                        829 - 842

 Theodora                                         842 - 856, regent

* Michaél III "Mythistés"                          842/856 - 867

Macedonian family
* Basileos I                                       866 - 886
* Leo VI                                           886 - 912
* Alexandros                                       912 - 913
* Konstantinos VII                                 913 - 959

Lekapénos family
* Rómanos I "Lekapénos"                            919 - 944
* Christoforos                                     921 - 931

Macedonian family
* Rómanos II                                       959 - 963

Fokas family
 Nikéforos II                                     963 - 969

Tzimicses family
 Ióannés I                                        969 - 976

Macedonian dynasty
* Basileios II "Bulgar Slayer"                     976 - 1025
* Konstantinos VIII                                976 - 1028

 Rómanos III Argyros                             1028 - 1034

Paphlagon family
 Michaél IV                                      1034 - 1041
 Michaél V                                       1041 - 1042

Macedonian dynasty
* Theodora                                        1042
* Zoé                                             1042

 Konstantinos IX "Monomachos"                    1042 - 1055

Macedonian dynasty
* Theodora                                        1055 - 1056

Stratioticus family
 Michaél VI                                      1056 - 1057

Komnenos family
* Isaakios I                                      1057 - 1059

Dukas family
* Konstantinos X                                  1059 - 1067

Dalassena family
 Eudokia                                         1067

Diogenes family
 Rómanos V                                       1067 - 1071

Dukas family
* Michaél VII "Parapinaces"                       1071 - 1078

Botaneiates family
 Nikéforos III                                   1078 - 1081

Komnenos family
* Alexios I                                       1081 - 1118
* Ióannés II                                      1118 - 1143
* Manuél I                                        1143 - 1180
* Alexios II                                      1180 - 1183
* Andronikos I                                    1183 - 1185

Angelos family
* Issakios II                                     1185 - 1195
* Alexios III                                     1195 - 1203
* Issakios II                                     1203 - 1204 with
* Alexios IV                                      1203 - 1204

Dukas family
 Alexios V                                       1204

Laskaris family
* Théodoros I Laskaris                            1204 - 1222

Batatzes family
* Ióannés III Dukas Batatzes                      1222 - 1254 in Nicea
* Théodoros II                                    1254 - 1258
* Ióannés IV                                      1254 - 1261

Palaiologos family
* Michaél VIII                                    1261 - 1282
* Andronikos II                                   1282 - 1328
* Michaél IX                                      1295 - 1320
* Andronikos III                                  1325 - 1341
* Ióannés V                                       1341 - 1376

Kantakuzenos family
* Ióannés VI                                      1347 - 1354
* Matthias                                        1353 - 1357

Palaiologos family
* Andronikos IV                                   1376 - 1379
* Ióannés V                                       1379 - 1391
* Ióannés VII                                     1390
* Ióannés V                                       1390 - 1391
* Manuel II                                       1391 - 1425
* Ióannés VII                                     1399 - 1402/08
* Andronikos V                                         - 1408
* Ióannés VIII                                    1425 - 1448
* Konstantinos XI Dragasés                        1448 - 1453

(Note that there were some female rulers!). The Empire was conquered by the Turks in 1453, fact that for some historians means the development of Middle Ages into Modern Ages. For others the fact that would mean this is America's discovering by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
Gonzalo Velasco Berenguer

My Family Tree: www.tribalpages.com/tribes?userid=umigon

Royal Families: www.tribalpages.com/tribes?userid=gondan

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2005, 06:44:16 PM »
If you want to know more about Byzantium you shouldn't start with Edward Gibbon's "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire". Historians agree today that this book is responsible for the modern misunderstanding of this "world". Think of only what the labeling "Byzantine" means today.

I would start with one of the books on the empire by Sir Steven Runciman. There is also a documentary about him called "Bridge to the East". Here is a part of a recent article you might find interesting:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/laiou_runciman.html



Steven Runciman: A man who never grew tired


...
While Runciman wrote with a fluency that make his books a pleasure to read, he was at the same time a Byzantine historian who loved and respected the theme of his scholarly occupations. It is regrettable that the Anglo-Saxon school of Byzantinologists includes serious scholars of distinction and persuasiveness who loathed Byzantium, either because they saw it as obscurantist or because they thought of its religion as a negative phenomenon or because Byzantium was not ancient Greece or, contrarily, the Ottoman Empire. Rather than add here the transgressions of "liberal" historiography, I would mention in passing the fact that in contemporary Greece a deep-seated negative view of Byzantium is held, not by specialists but by a considerable segment of the educated public.

Runciman on the other hand had a very clear understanding of Byzantium. He considered the Byzantines to be the most civilized and enlightened of medieval peoples; in my opinion he was right. He was also one of the few non-Greek historians who saw in Byzantium the medieval age of Hellenism, just as he saw the continuity of Hellenism under Ottoman occupation. This was his great contribution to Byzantine historiography. From the Western European standpoint he was an irreproachable historian, for he was not a Greek and he could not be accused of having a Greek bias. He was moreover a historian with a profound knowledge of the sources and wrote about Byzantium both lovingly and respectfully in an alluring style. His books are reprinted to be read with pleasure by students, specialists and the public. His is an important contribution that has withstood the passing of the years.

I have not dwelt on Steven Runciman's major work, A History of the Crusades. I have repeatedly spoken about it, and thought I should focus this short appreciation elsewhere. But this inspired work cannot be wholly passed over, for it is a work which for the first time presented the Crusades as a cosmo-historic confrontation and the clash of three worlds, those of Byzantium, Islam and Western Europe. Runciman understood the significance of the Crusades as an international movement that led to the destruction of the outstanding medieval civilization, the civilization of the Christians of the East who, as he notes, were its main victims. He is one of the few Western European scholars of the Crusades, who has clearly and categorically condemned the movement. He condemned the Crusades as "nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost". I was interested to see that the obituary published by The Times of London found in these words, which bring the History of the Crusades to a close, a kind of self-inflicted punishment, a self-flagellation of the West. This demonstrates that the historian's verdict on the Crusades has struck a chord and continues to disturb the Western conscience.

Runciman said that when he first came to Greece Byzantium was a neglected age. His work as well as his presence, his friendship with so many scholars, writers and historians, the persuasive nature of his conversation, his enthusiasm for Byzantium played an important part in the shaping of a more serious interest in that superb age of history both in Greece and in Western Europe and North America.

Angeliki A. Laiou
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: Cantacuzene
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2005, 03:42:47 AM »
Quote
Isn't the Romanian noble family of Cantacuzene recognised as being of Byzantine Imperial descent?

If memory serves, a John Cantacuzene reigned at Constantinople during the 12 or 1300s. He gave the Turks Gallipoli- their first toe-hold in Europe. whoops!


The Cantacuzino family is a large one today and has played a very important role in Wallahia's history. They are related to the imperial dynasty with the same name. Other "Byzantine" families in Romania are: Ghyka, Mavrocordat, Paleologu. They all came to Wallahia and Moldavia from Constantinople [in the XVII century?] to by land and live because here they were more protected from the Turks, even if they still were under them.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810233.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2005, 12:40:50 PM »
The Cantacuzino Palace in Bucharest, now George Enescu museum [the composer married a Cantacuzene and lived here].

I, Claudius

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2005, 07:22:31 PM »


This undated handout photo shows a previously unknown silver coin marking the beginnings of Christianity in the Roman Empire on the date, May 11, 330 A.D. The coin was struck for the dedication of Constantinople as the capital of Constantine the Great's Christian Empire. The obverse has a portrait of Constantine and the reverse design depicts the goddess Roma, the embodiment of Rome. The coin, about the size of a U.S. half dollar and valued at $600,000, was bought at a coin show by ancient coin expert Harlan Berk of Chicago who realized its importance after extensive research. (AP Photo/Minkus & Dunne, HO)
I, Claudius

Offline Iskenderbey

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Zito o Vasileus!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2005, 11:12:33 AM »
Quote
Could some one post some info on this empire and how it ended?


The so called Byzantine Empire was in fact the Roman Empire, the Eastern part.  
There are many reasons why historians, especially in the 19th century, tried to distinguish between the Roman Empire and the "Byzantine" era.
Any google research would give you the reasons behind this.

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2005, 01:42:27 PM »
people insist on talking about "the fall of the Roman Empire" with the advent of Christianity and the "decadence of Byzantium"

this sort of interpretation is no longer sustainable

there is no such thing as the fall of the Roman Empire

maybe a long transformation


for me 1453 [the Fall of Constantinople] can be a better candidate for "The Fall"
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2005, 10:19:38 AM »
There is an excellent web site devoted to late Greek theologian Fr. John Romanides, which has several articles on the false notions of "byzantine",  "Byzantium", "Byzantines", etc...:

http://www.romanity.org/

One of the articles is "What if anything is byzantine", by Clifton R. Fox Professor of History at Tomball College, TX.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm.

Regards,
Branislav

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2005, 10:57:25 AM »
Thank you Branislav for the sites!

You are right about naming "Byzantium", it looks and feels like it was designed to down-grade it.

However, for lack of an accepted better name and to avoid confusion historians still speak of "Byzantium" and "Middle Ages" even if they know the problems with this naming.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2005, 12:57:47 PM »
Yes, "palimpsest",

Especially, the notion of "DARK middle ages", ignores the fact of cultural flurishing in Byzantium during those "dark ages". But even regarding Western Europe, I strongly disagree about terming that period as "dark". Period that produced divine Gregorian Chant can only be full of divine Light. Seeing some darkness in it is possible only from, so to say, Marxist perspective on history (or more broadly - from materialistic point of view), where only material and economical  things matter.

Unfortunately, "Byzantium" was a product of a very unhappy politics, and it is not surprising that Byzantine Art is often placed out of context of so called "Western Art", and put, instead, next to Islamic Art, in general textbooks on Art History, like it had anything to do with Islam!

regards,
Branislav

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2005, 03:56:34 PM »
I think "Byzantine" Art is related to Western Art but it isn't just a "part" of it. I think it has a distinct [how should I put this?]... "philosophical" foundation than Western Art. For me the "Western" world is defined mainly in comparison with Byzantium, so there is a difference, even if we are in the same "family".



There is another major problem. The lack of cooperation between "Post-Byzantine" Orthodox Countries. Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium". Even if "Byzantine" Orthodox ethos includes national/local cultural traditions with much more flexibility than "Western" Christianity, this advantage has become a disadvantage by ignoring each other. This is a product of a complicated history, but there is no reason for it to continue today.

So there is little surprise that the discourse about "Byzantium" is dominated by "Western" views and terms.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 01:25:05 AM by Svetabel »
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2005, 01:19:06 PM »
Quote
I think "Byzantine" Art is related to Western Art but it isn't just a "part" of it. I think it has a distinct [how should I put this?]... "philosophical" foundation than Western Art. For me the "Western" world is defined mainly in comparison with Byzantium, so there is a difference, even if we are in the same "family".


My impression is that word "Western Art" has been constructed in contrast to all other Arts - Chinese, Arabic, Pre-Columbian, ... not primarily in contrast to Byzantine Art. Term "Western Art" is pretty vaguely defined. It is definitelly not based on geographic principle. But it is also not based on the principle of faith, since then Byzantium would be included. For me, Western Art is Christian Art. Christianity emerged in Middle East, not in England or France, and indeed, Middle East was the West for the Three Kings who came from the far East to pay respect to newly born Christ. So all Christian art should be called "western" if we don't want to discard term "western" alltogether.

Different "philosophical" foundation of "Byzantine" and "Western Art"? - I think, "philosophical" foundation was the same in the first 1,000 years, when there was unity between Rome and other Patriarchal sees. It is more Christian foundation then "philosophical". But after 1054, slowly but surely, and especially after St. Thomas Aquinas, and his "system", various philosophies emerged in the West, and took over theology, and later defined these differences between the "West" and "Byzantium".


Quote
see also:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=history;action=display;num=1121353312;start=0


This link is not working.

Quote
There is another major problem. The lack of cooperation between "Post-Byzantine" Orthodox Countries. Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium". Even if "Byzantine" Orthodox ethos includes national/local cultural traditions with much more flexibility than "Western" Christianity, this advantage has become a disadvantage by ignoring each other. This is a product of a complicated history, but there is no reason for it to continue today.

So there is little surprise that the discourse about "Byzantium" is dominated by "Western" views and terms.


I agree with this. But maybe Turkish conquest played some role too. When "Byzantine studies" were 'in statu nascendi' in western Europe, most of the Orthodox countries were still occupied by Otoman Empire. So, later, we all learned about Byzantium and its culture and Art from already established sources in the West, which in the meantime became dominant power, and thus able to dictate both terminology, approach, and the yard-stick with which everybody had to measure "other" arts and cultures.

But the truth is - as you said, that by ignoring each other, and taking national differences as more important than cultural similarities inherited from the Eastern Roman empire, Orthodox countries lost their "Byzantine Commonwealth" and the opportunity to participate and, indeed to lead, in defining what "Byzantine" actually is.

How true and sad is what you sad: "Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium" ", especially when you think that romantic nationalism was invented in western Europe, and then imported in Orthodox countries. (One can think of other parallels: Marxism was also invented in western Europe, not in Russia, or Bulgaria, and then imported in Orthodox countries).

I hope too that there is no reason for this fragmented life of post-Byzanitine countries to continue to exist today. As far as I follow, I am pleased to see increased cooperation, for instance, in Astronomy research between Bulgaria and Serbia. I believe there are other encouraging examples of cooperation.

Regards,
Branislav