Honorius

As we all know the reign of the Angeloi Emperors was among the shortest and perhaps most devastating throughout Byzantine history. Only three Angeloi occupied the throne Isaac II, Alexius III, Alexius IV Angelos and ruled for a mere 19 years. But where they really that bad? i know Isaac squandered money on his favourites and had increased taxes to massivley high levels but hadnt many emperors done the same previously? Alexius III also depleted the treasury trying diplomatically to defend the empire and was infact a usurper to boot, but hadnt many other usurpers let alone many emperors done the same? i myself for some reason like the Angeloi and im not sure exactly why but id like to hear everyones opinions about them and if they were infact that bad

OK i know im going a tad off-topic but i have to say if you are indeed Caroline Lawrence that i absolutely adored your books and continue to. thanks heaps for setting a fictional story for younger readers in ancient Rome. anyway Nephele you already told us its an anagram of your name

ahh typical Latin..the papacy has been going on about papal supremecy over the christian world for centuries.. though Benedict is ruining the chances of healing the age old schism between the Latin and orthodox churches

It was never really practical. Although the Vandals and the Goths were relatively easy to beat, there was little chance of the Byzantines conquering the Franks in Gaul. The Vandals and Goths were Arians, the population Catholic, so the Empire was helped by the population. In France, the Franks were Catholic and so were the population, whilst the Empire was 'Eastern' (you can't really call it 'Orthodox' yet). The Empire would not have received any support from the natives. It could have got somewhere without Belisarius: Justinian actually had some superb generals, many of whom stand up well in comparison to Belisarius himself. Whether they would have gone about the invasions the same way and with the same effect will never be known. which other generals? Narses was good but all the other generals that justinian left to be in charge of italy rarely helped eachother and just squabbled. Thus Belisarius was recalled once again from the persian front Good question. Strangely, nobody seems to be aware of some of these men, although they are all mentioned in Procopius. Germanus, the cousin of Justinian was an excellent commander and used around the Empire to plug gaps. However, his relationship to Justinian probably meant that he would not be trusted with a large army - he was too likely to rebel. John the Armenian, who served under Belisarius in the Africa campaign. An excellent general, and trusted by Belisarius to pursue Gelimer, he was killed in a bizarre accident prior to Gelimer's surrender. If he had been in charge, he would not have been killed. However, we don't know whether he would have stood up to the pressures of a lone command. Dorotheus, commander of the foederati. Classed as a good general and liked by the troops, he died of an illness in Sicily prior to the landing in Africa. OK, so he couldn't really have taken much part, but the fact that I can name three off the top of my head shows that Justinian had many good generals in his service. It is possible that the main reason for Belisarius' success was the trust he had from Justinian. Let's be fair, he also squabbled with Narses and others, but he had the piece of paper saying that he was in charge! Germanus was given an army except he died in Durazzo from a fever i think...

It was never really practical. Although the Vandals and the Goths were relatively easy to beat, there was little chance of the Byzantines conquering the Franks in Gaul. The Vandals and Goths were Arians, the population Catholic, so the Empire was helped by the population. In France, the Franks were Catholic and so were the population, whilst the Empire was 'Eastern' (you can't really call it 'Orthodox' yet). The Empire would not have received any support from the natives. It could have got somewhere without Belisarius: Justinian actually had some superb generals, many of whom stand up well in comparison to Belisarius himself. Wheteher they would have gone about the invasions the same way and with the same effect will never be known. which other generals? Narses was good but all the other generals that justinian left to be in charge of italy rarely helped eachother and just squabbled. Thus Belisarius was recalled once again from the persian front

hey everyone well i only recently joined and started battledawn..quite a simple hourly based game where you build a colony anywhere in the world conquer rule etc. heres the link http://bd1.battledawn.com/referx.php?serv=5&ref=323 id advise anyone who wants to play to join earth 5 because it was only made 1 - 2 days ago and there is still alot of room. im currently in Thessalonica if anyone was interested in coming to greece.

'the adoption of christianity in the 4th century AD by Constantine the great was the main catalyst for the fall of the western roman empire in the 5th century AD' this is my final question/debate sorry fopr taking so long to reply to the topic but my computer recently died and its only getting fixed now... it died liek 2 weeks ago..anyway do you guys think this is a better question debate then the ones i put forward earlier? thanks for all the help again.

use alot of pictures lol...large tracts of info gets boring

in the late empire they served under their own chieftains and leaders

The black sea ports were constantly changing hands like Mesembria and Anchialus though i do recall that Amadeus of Savoy a cousin of the Byzantine emperor John V Paleologos took them back in the 14th century i think from either the Venetians or Bulgarians havent heard of Byzantine-Mongol battles...to my knowledge that is hm..

what about.... Honorius and his inability to prevent the sack of Rome in the early 5th century AD? btw my heads going all over the place atm about the subject to choose >< im not a great deicision maker

As Kosmo already said the Empire of Trebizond had closer relations with the mongols and where vassals but if i do remember one of the seljuk or ottoman sultans was defeated in battle at Kosedag? and was carried around in a cage. I dont recall any battles in thrace between the Byzantines and the Mongols but im sure there were.

hey guys, sorry i havent replied in ages but ive been bogged down with about 4 assignments in the second week! thanks heaps for all the suggestions and help but i have t hought of a few new ideas how about Constantine: true christian or bloody tyrant? Theodosius the great: saviour of the Empire or harbringer of doom?

how about this one Aurelius Honorius and the Sack of Rome? is that better then just 'why did rome fall'? btw thanks heaps for the help and advice.

Yay for Ursus! (quite pleased u locked that topic in the 'byzantine' forum)

As was mentioned earlier, the entity named as the 'Roman empire' does not necessarily end with the fall of Rome in the 5th century, but extends to include the Byzantine/Roman Empire. In that light, there were indeed muslims in the (eastern) Roman empire. Ok, so it refers to Roman Christianity, which would have impacted with islam a couple of centuries later. More interesting, is the impact of christianity not in Byrantine, but in Mecca: there is a report there was a Missionary who had close contacts with Mohammed. Anyone hear of this? i dont get what you just said.. could u perhaps rephrase it..? Btw the christian kingdom of Axum had contact with mecca i think/...

from about 395-476 and thanks PP for the links

Could anyone please name a few good later roman sources like Johannes. Because im choosing to do my major work for extension history on 'Why Rome fell?' and i need sufficient sources. the problem is i dont know that many and i recall that there are only a few out there..anyway thanks heaps (probably in the wrong section sorry gyts >< )

I havent really ever come across any info about relations between the tuetonics and the Byzantines. The only reason i can think of is that perhaps the majority of Teutonic castles were in the south of the levant instead of near or around the Principality of Antioch which was under the sphere of Byzantine influence. (theres a map out there showing each of the castles in syria and the orders they belonged to, cant find it right now try to find it later after school) But i am sure that it atleast came into contact with the Byzantines when Frederick Barbarossa came through the empire. Remembering that after the loss of the holy land the order was moved for Cyprus then into Hungary then ended up in the Baltic region whereas the Hospitallers continued to have contact with the Byzantines.

I dont mean to offend anyone but how on earth did we get from discussing muslims within the eastern empire to discussing the acts of crusaders and the Jewish people..?

Belisarius and in a close second Aetius

Emperor Theophilus in the 9th century was pretty fond of arab art and culture i believe.. so i suppose during his reign muslim inhabitants within the empire were fairly treated. Not saying that they werent during the reigns of other emperors.

www.google.com ?

i dont care what he calls them but theres more to the story that i dont wish to speak about.. anyway so they called themselves Romans? not Ellinos?

ok well for the past two days ive been in an argument with a fellow who is Greek.. i corrected him on using the term 'Byzantine' and simply told him that it was a modern term and that the 'Byzantines' themselves called themselves Romans. anyway he claims that the Byzantines called themselves Ellinos/ellinas? which he says means Greek (I know no Greek at all.). so what im asking is did the 'Byzantines' call themselves Ellinos/ellinas? or did they call themselves Romans?