Philhellene
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Philhellene
-
-
Michael Grant - it`s a popular scientific literature.
-
Bickerman, E., "Institutions des S
-
My favorite not so famous roman is Lucullus for his brilliant campaigns in Asia where he defeated all his opponents only to have his glory taken by that worthless Pompei Magnus. He crushed Mithridates VI Eupator and captured armenian capital of Tigranocerta puting an end to armenian ambitions and he was the first to fight and defeat the parthians.
According to Nicolaus of Damascus he was the first who accustomed Romans to luxuries (FGrHist #90 F77).
-
Mine is Aetius. I feel he never gets the credit he deserves for defeating Attila the Hun at Chalons, although he lost most of his army in the process.
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.
-
As well, i believe the effectiveness of the chain probably worked in tandem with Byzantine naval domination; as long as they had a strong navy to support a defence of the harbour, the Chain was a precautionary method and a strong barrier, as the chain could be protected from such attacks as yours Favonius by the navy.
This chain was useful only when the Byzantines didn`t have a strong navy. It was the last way to protect the harbour.
-
The French and Italian Knights, under the Count Baldwin of Flanders, at the instigation of Pope Innocent III.
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.
-
It is possible!
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.
-
Not even this persecution of christians is certain as the fragments about this seem to be christian era fakes.
Fragments? The Acts of the Apostles, "Church history" of Eusebius (with qoutes of ancient church writers), Tacitus, Tertullian, they are all falsifiers?
-
A novel of Stephan Zweig it's about a fake Nero that wins a huge support in Syria.
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
-
Me?, you mean Judith Herrin who is professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies at King's College London who wrote this for the Athen News...
My sources are Robert de Clari and Geoffroi de Villehardouin , participants of this Crusade.
-
The scheme was a disaster, laying Constantinople to waste, gutting its churches and sending many of its citizens into slavery in Europe.
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.
The crusaders never went on to Jerusalem, but calcified the mistrust between eastern and western Christendom.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!
-
Does it just span the harbor preventing passage of ships?
Yeah.
-
Guys jsut the other day i was thinking on how the chain worked and then i got onto the questions as to "what happened to the great chain the gaurded the golden horn?"... does it lie at the bottom of the golden horn? or did the ottoman sultans continue to use it after their capture of Constantinople?
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.
Could someone explain the history and use of this chain please?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.
-
I do remember hearing of Justiinians' persecutions of (again I cannot remember exactly which), certain sects of Christianity.
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.
Also known is that Justinian had no trouble recruiting for the army...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.
-
In addition, Manuel brought land in the western Balkans (Bosnia, Dalmatia) under his control...
We don`t consider Balkan region. See above:
Can you give a reference? Because I can not think of any attempts to conquor land in the west excpet in the Balkan region, and that it not really the west and they were more of taken back recently lost land. -
On a side note, does anyone have any suggestions for books or source materials on this period, (400-600 AD), and on this particular kingdoms and people? Thanks.
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.
Seleucid Empire
in Historia in Universum
Posted
You forgot "Syrian wars" of Appian, "History" of Livy, "Books of Maccabees", works of Josephus etc... And epigraphic sources...