Philhellene

This map isn`t available and I can`t say anything about it. By the way, you can find good maps on my site: Ancient maps Pay special attention to "Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas"!

That`s impossible. You really think that nothing changed on the political map between 500BC and 500AD? Oh yeah, but I didn`t write that Mesopotamia wasn`t Roman province, but that Roman Mesopotamia was comletely different. And this province existed not only under Trajan: Romans created it and lost it several times. And Trajan`s Mesopotamia was smaller then your "Mesopotamia", and your "Mesopotamia" is like his Assyria and Mesopotamia taken together.

First of all, what time period are you interested in?

Roman Syria has turned into Phoenicia. "Mesopotamia" - what is it? It`s not a Roman province. Roman Mesopotamia was completely different etc., etc., etc.

Very primitive.

You think Julius Majorianus wasn`t worthy ruler? According to Procopius of Caesarea, "he was more dignified man then all other Roman basilees that reigned in the West" (B.V. I, 7, 4) and "he was tireless in work and at the time of war he was completely fearless in battle" (B.V. I, 7, 5).

I know Caesars of 13th C - one of them is Caesar John under Michael Paleologus. In my opinion Byzantine Caesar is like modern prime-minister or vice-president.

Maybe Kantakuzenoi? The members of this family held high posts in Romania in 19th-20th centuries. Romanian name of Kantakuzenoi - Cantacuzino. By the way, you should visit the site of the Cantacuzino Institute

And why did you add Leo II ?

"Co-Rulers etc, you have a certain amount of confusion, with cases of utter nonentities ruling alongside great men i.e. in Basil II's reign. " In this case, John IV Lascaris is nonentity too, and he does not deserve to be in your king list.

You`re wrong. The titles "Augustus" and "Caesar" never disappeared. See, for an instance, the coins of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and his son Romanus II http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/12103q00.jpg Pay special attention to the inscription "AVGG" (on reverse) after the names of Constantine and Romanus. "Caesar", it`s usual and well-known Byzantine title.

Aphrodite, I`d like to see it. My e-mail is yur-mitin@mail.ru.

And the Romans weren`t ?

New additions Bardas Phocas - emperor-usurper. He proclaimed himself emperor in August 987 and died in April 988 (there are some different versions of his death). Bardas Sklerus - another emperor-usurper. I don`t know if he proclaimed himself emperor in 976, when he rebelled for the first time, but he definitely did it in the spring of 988 and abdicated in the autumn of 989. "Theophilus I" - why "the First"? Thomas - emperor-usurper under Michael II the Amorian. He was crowned by Antiochian patriarch Job in 821. But he was crowned not under his real name but under the name of Constantine VI or his son. He was executed in October 823.

You still havn`t added Matthew (1353-1357). I wrote about him in my first post.

Very interesting, I didn`t know that. Well, I think I`m cool.

I mean such "simple" lists you can find everywhere, but noone did the lists with all usurpers and all co-augusti, except me and roman-emperors.org. My list was in Russian (http://www.ancientrome.ru/imp/index.htm) and not available for many people, so I translated it and posted on RAT, when one of its members presented his timeline tables. So I think it`s not perfect but more reliable then other lists.

Unlike false Neros, he really ruled. Further additions to your list Leo VI was proclaimed emperor in 870 as well as his elder brother Constantine. Constantine died in 879. Alexander, third son of Basil I the Macedonian, was proclaimed emperor in 871. Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus, was proclaimed emperor in 908. In 921 Romanus I Lecapenus proclaimed his elder son Christopher as emperor. Christopher died in 931. Constantine and Stephen, sons of Romanus, were proclaimed emperors in 924. They were overthrown by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus in 946. The correct Roman emperor list (with some additions) Do not scare "—", that`s just a sign " - " (hyphen)! Now RAT has troubles with its domain.

Pseudo-Ioannes was a blinded boy who pretended to be John IV Lascaris, i.e. he didn`t need to be crowned, because John IV Lascaris was already crowned. See about him: Georgius Pahymeres, History of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi, III, 12-13. OK, but in this case, John IV Lascaris never reigned. And Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus started to reign only after the fall of Romanus I Lecapenus and his sons (I`ll write about them lately). Nevertheless he still controlled some cities and never abdicated the throne. For exemple at the time of war between Murtzuphlus and crusaders, "he was in a city called Messinopolis, with all his people, and still held a great part of the land" (Geoffrey de Villehardouin, The Conquest of Constantinople, 266).

The correct Roman emperor list (from August to Justinian with all usurpers) with some additions you can find on RAT (now it doesn`t work and I`ll post the direct link lately). As for list of Byzantine Emperors, it`s not good too and I want to propose some corrections. In 590 emperor Maurice proclaimed his son Theodosius as co-august (ChrP. P. 377, ed. Dindorf; Johannis Biclarensis, Chronicon, Col. 868). He was killed in late 602 by Phocas. "Phocas I (602-610)" - why "Phocas the First"? Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Constantine VIII were proclaimed emperors in 960. Alexius III Angelus was caught only in late 1204 when the Franks took his imperial insignia. Pseudo-Ioannes - usurper under Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1262. Matthew (1353-1357) - son of John VI Cantacuzenus.

Constantine Porphygenitus in "De thematibus" indicates that Heraclius and his successors "liked everything Hellenic and scorned their native Roman language" (De thematibus, intro). But this is some kind of abstract reference.

I know the years of Heraclius` reign, but I asked the year when the greek language was made an official language of the Empire.

So... When exactly? I mean the year.

He won`t say "yes". What do you think why the citizens of Byzantine empire called themselves "romans" and Byzantine writers began their "Histories" from the foundation of Rome?

I wonder why do people call him "The Last Of the Romans"? And why do they love him at all. He defeated Attila, that`s true, but because of his intrigues Romans lost Africa and one of the best men of the Empire, Bonifacius, was killed. He gained the power in 3 days after the accession of Valentinian III with the help of barbarian army of usurper John; and he could be an emperor if he defeated the army of Eastern Roman general Aspar but the battle was a draw and then Aetius reconciled with Valentinian and got the title comes. He was a real ruler of the Western Empire and all deeds of Valentinian`s administration - that`s his deeds. He was killed and I don`t regret about it.