Primus Pilus Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 By the way, I don't personally feel that Philhellene is attacking anyone, I think he is just pointing out improvements that could be made. We are all entitled to our opinions after all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) You still havn`t added Matthew (1353-1357). I wrote about him in my first post. Edited March 8, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 You still havn`t added Matthew (1353-1357). I wrote about him in my first post. Yeah, I hate that Matthew. Its a personal thing from a previous life Actually I just haven't finished the edits yet. I'm compiling some additional updates and would rather do it all at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited March 9, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 I have a complete list of theEmperors of the Eastern Roman empire, starting with Constantine in 324, going right through to Constantine XI (XII) Palaiolgos in 1448. Its a pretty long list and i don't really have the time to copy type it all out, but if anyone would like to see it I could scan the sheet in and upload the doc, if i can work out how to do it!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Aphrodite, I`d like to see it. My e-mail is yur-mitin@mail.ru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) I suppose there is a bit of a gray area in this list. Some of the usurpers in Byzantine History were of consequence, and did influence the history, whereas others are mere nonentities who lasted for virtually no time or for not too long, leaving little or no legacy or improvement to the Empire. And when you throw in the 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. An idea i had to limit potentially unneeded info was to perhaps establish a set of conditions for the list; that is, have guidelines or conditions that a ruler has to meet to be considered the main ruler of the Empire, so that a smooth and tidy list is made. That way, a researcher isn't confused by a heap of usurpers and legitimate rulers declaring that they are ruling at the same time. Just a thought, and i'd be interested in any thoughts from my colleagues and the moderators on the matter.... Edited March 13, 2006 by Tobias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) "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. Edited March 13, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 "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. i added him because he was the last of the lascaris dynasty..it was jsut a simple list.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 And why did you add Leo II ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) Philhellene, we value your contributions to the list, and you have made some fair points sir. The reason why we aren't making the list as in depth as perhaps you would like it is that as i said above, having too many rulers around the same time only serves to confuse. We want to inform people of the main Byzantine rulers, not every single general, politician etc who took it into his/her head to proclaim themselves the Emperor of the Romans. This disagreement over the list is not the best way to go; don't you think it might be best if we left it as is? Edited March 15, 2006 by Tobias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.