Philhellene

You forgot "Syrian wars" of Appian, "History" of Livy, "Books of Maccabees", works of Josephus etc... And epigraphic sources...

Michael Grant - it`s a popular scientific literature.

Bickerman, E., "Institutions des S

According to Nicolaus of Damascus he was the first who accustomed Romans to luxuries (FGrHist #90 F77).

You`re wrong. Aetius didn`t get the credit he deserved because he alredy had everything. He was a real ruler of the Western Empire under Valentinian III all the time of his reign. He murdered his rivals (like Bonifacius), and Empire lost Africa because of his activity... Almost all ancient authors didn`t like him, but now he became a champion.

This chain was useful only when the Byzantines didn`t have a strong navy. It was the last way to protect the harbour.

The chief of crusaders was Boniface of Montferrat.

At least there are no real proofs that "Anneles" were corrected by christians, but only supposition that they could do it. P.S. Such "proofs" like "there are no other pagan sources, that confirm Tacitus" are not convincing.

Possible? Why don`t you think that all antique writers are falcifiers? Not only christians? I mean christians lie because they hate pagans, pagans lie because they hate christians, democrates lie because they hate republicans etc. If even Tacitus is falcifiers or lier, it doesn`t mean that Tertullian and other christian authors are liers and Nero didn`t persecute christians. And christians wouldn`t call themselves "class hated for their abominations" etc. (as Tacitus says) And there were no reasons to falsify because there were no doubts in New Testament.

Fragments? The Acts of the Apostles, "Church history" of Eusebius (with qoutes of ancient church writers), Tacitus, Tertullian, they are all falsifiers?

You should read primary sorces, like Tacitus. About this time Achaia and Asia Minor were terrified by a false report that Nero was at hand. Various rumours were current about his death; and so there were many who pretended and believed that he was still alive. The adventures and enterprises of the other pretenders I shall relate in the regular course of my work. The pretender in this case was a slave from Pontus, or, according to some accounts, a freedman from Italy, a skilful harp-player and singer, accomplishments, which, added to a resemblance in the face, gave a very deceptive plausibility to his pretensions. After attaching to himself some deserters, needy vagrants whom he bribed with great offers, he put to sea. Driven by stress of weather to the island of Cythnus, he induced certain soldiers, who were on their way from the East, to join him, and ordered others, who refused, to be executed. He also robbed the traders and armed all the most able-bodied of the slaves. The centurion Sisenna, who was the bearer of the clasped right hands, the usual emblems of friendship, from the armies of Syria to the Pr

My sources are Robert de Clari and Geoffroi de Villehardouin , participants of this Crusade.

You`re wrong, crusaders initially didn`t plan to sack Constantinople, but to make Alexius, son of Isaac, emperor and to overthrow Alexius III. Alexius promised to return his empire to Roman church, to give money to crusaders, to take part in their Crusade and then to keep some of his soldiers in Holy land. When they did it and Alexius and his father became emperors they refused to pay the crusaders and even started to fight them. So the crusaders said that they will take that he promised befor in any case. Both emperors were overthrown by Murtzuphlus and that Murtzuphlus decided to wage war against cruseders, but he was defeated and Constantinople was taken a second time. Moreover there were 3 fires in Constantinople, two of them - during the siege, and the last - because of quarrel between Venetians and Francs and their battles on the streets. So the main reason of disasters is this fires. And they were not planned by crusaders. Nevertheless some of crusaders came to Syria (the plan was to come to Syria, then to defeat Egypt and then to return Jerusalem), but they were defeated because their forces were too small. And the general forces of crusaders (they never rejected the plan to fight against muslims) were defeated by Bulgarian king and they weren`t able to wage war with new enemies.

"Do they constantly add more to it?" "They" - that`s me and my friend. Yeah, we`re gonna do it.

I want to present you new English data base of antique art. It is about 1500 images of marvelous quality! Search form page

Yeah.

You will be surprised but that chain wasn`t so "great". It was usual practice in Medieval world to use such things in order to guard the harbours. For exemple, such chain was in Dalmatian city Zara, captured by crusaders in 1202. Byzantines used that chain against Arabian fleet in 717-718, in 821 - against Thomas the Slav, in 969 - against Russians, in 1203 - against crusaders and in 1453 - against Ottomans.

Now I read "History about Michael and Andronicus Paleologus" of Georgius Pachymeres and if Pachymeres is completely reliable it means that Michael Paleologus diserve to be Byzantine's Nero. He blinded, mutilated and put to death a lot of his subjects, and general accusations were the contempt of the emperor and the disagreement with his religios policy. He presecuted everybody - nobles, monks, commoners, even his friends.

But by the end of his reign "Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine, and following a path untrodden by the apostles and fathers, became entangled among thorns and briers" (Evagrius, IV, 39). By the way, Theodora was monophysite, that`s why he didn`t persecute them seriosely, and even helped them, but I think his point of view on the Nestorians was different. Don`t forget how Belisarius defended Constantinople against Huns (end of Justinian`s reign)! See Agathius (book 5)! There were no serios forces to fight.

We don`t consider Balkan region. See above:

Procopius, "Wars", books III-VII. Agathius, "History of Justinian`s reign", books I-II. Gregorius of Tours, "History of Francs" Isidorus, "History of Goths, Suebes and Vandals" Jordanes, "Getica"

By the way, Tamerlan restored old Seljuk states.

Why Constantinople? We are talking about Trezibond. And the deafeat of 1402 was crushing and the Ottoman Porta needed time to recuperate.

This interest returned under Michael Paleologus, because of war against Charles d`Anjou.

Because of their defeat in the war against Tamerlan.