Philhellene

And I have found out that emperor Manuel (I) Comnenus waged war in Italy against Norman kings of Sicily and Italy. He also tried to defeat Egyptian kings in Egypt. And I have found out that emperor Michael (VIII) Paleologus possessed himself of the Lipari Islands (near Sicily) in 1275.

The Roman Empire of German people became "Holy" only under Friedrich Barbarossa in the middle of the 12th century. Besides Niccolo Macchiavelli in his "History of Florence" called Arnulf "the first german emperor" (crowned in 896). Why modern historians used to consider Otto the first Holy Roman emperor?

I`m sure. You should see the official edicts of Eastern Roman governors and Eastern Imperial coins.

Where did you read it? The greek language was an offical language of administration of the Roman East, when the Empire was united.

You sad: So is Nero the emperor? Respect of subjecsts - bad criterion.

Ursus, you didn`t read the massages above...

But I told you that if you consider Pepin as the founder of Charlemagne's empire, why you forget the Merovingians and their achievements? You think that Charles called himself "the Fat"? By the way the great Byzantine emperor Constantine V was called by his subjects "Copronymus", or "The Defecator" in English. This emperor was fooling himself as well?

Oh, realy? First of all, the Empire began with Charlemagne, not Pepin. You forgot that the Merovigians waged wars with Italian states as well. Then Charlemagne's empire was "disintegrated" even under Charlemagne himself. It was Charlemagne who divided his state into 3 parts between himself and his two sons. And it was usual German custom to divide the state between sons. Then you forgot that Charlemagne`s successors became emperors, and not only "German" kings. So the "German" emperors are the direct successors of his empire. By the way, Thietmar says that when Otto became an emperor he became "a patron of Roman Church" (Chronicon, II, 13), i.e. the title "emperor" meant just "the patron of Roman Church" (for Thietmar).

It is pure hokum.

Fox Hound says: Eastern emperors never "Hellenized" their empire. Where did you read that?

First of all, you need "Gallic wars" of Caesar, then "The History" of Posidonius (you need the excerpts from Athenaeus, IV, 151e-152f, 154a-c and VI, 246c-d), then "Celtic wars" of Appian, "Description of Hellas" of Pausanius - chapters about Celtic invasion in Hellas, of course "Geography" of Strabo and works of Livius and Polibius.

You`re wrong. You should read that: Byzantium, When was it Greek. Noone can explain me why the Byzantine Empire wasn`t the Roman Empire.

You forgot that Aurelian was "Dominus" as well. His coins called him "Dominus imperi Romani", "Deus et dominus natus". And before him emperor Domitian called himself "Dominus et deus noster" (Suetonius, Domitian, XIII, 2). So why do you think it was Diocletian who finished republicanism?

Dispite this we have "Church histoties" of Philostorgius and Zacharias... By the way they called only their followers "Orthodoxes".

I mentioned only the last campaign (according to my opinion). I also remember the military campaigns of Constans (Constantine) Pogonatas. He waged war with Lombards in the middle of VII century.

According to victorious Christian doctrine all its historical opponents are not Orthodoxes. Basil II was pitiless for ennemies, not for his nationals, like Nero. Constantine V Iconoclast (I prefer do not use Copronymus-Defecator, it`s scoffing name) was the most bloody tyrant. Can anybody proove the contrary?

Constantine V Iconoclast - he was persecuting orthodoxes anh he killed a lot of them (they called him "Mamona").

Why do you think that Rome fell? You mean the capture of Rome by barbarians? or by Romans?

The last military campaign in the West that I know is the war against arabs of Sicily in 1038-1040.

No, all the time. I think the last attemts to conquer something in the West there were in XI century.

The West may be didn`t, but the Eastern emperors conquered some Western territories, especially Italian and Sicilian. Not exactly. The term "Byzantine" was invented by the German Hieronymus Wolff in 1562 AD. He named his edition of texts of "Byzantine" historians "Corpus Byzantinae Historiae".

I forgot to add that the year of fall of Western Roman Empire is the year of reunion of Roman Empire as well, because Odoacer sent all regalia of Western emperors to Constantinople.

Diocletian divided the empire into 4 parts. And then the Empire was reunited and divided many times and when it was divided, there were not only 4 but sometimes more or less then 4 parts. And thier size wasn`t stable. I think the first time, when the empire was divided, occured during the reign of Gallienus when he made Odaenathus his co-ruler.

I cite Scanderbeg It`s not actually true. The greek language was an offical language of administration of the Roman East. Where did you read it? Roman emperors (of united empire) were always using greek titles in Eastern law documents, coins etc. I cite Fatboy Well, I think the Byzantine Empire was always Roman. And why do you think that it happened?