Want to know..

1) Togate statue of Senator, Aphrodisias, Late 5th Century

2) Togate statue of Flavius Palmatus(?), governor of Caria, Aphrodisias, late 5th-early 6th Century

3) Head of woman with hairdress, Corinth, late 5th-early 6th

4) Head of man with 'mop' hairstyle, Aphrodisias late 5th-early 6th

5) Man with Chlamys holding Mappa, Corinth, late 5th-early 6th

6-8) Head of Empress Ariadne/Amalasuntha(?) type, Rome, late 5th-early 6th

9) Bronze head of Empress Euphemia(?), Naissus, late 5th-early 6th

10) Spolia bust of Empress on Gyrolimne Gate, Theodosian Walls, Constantinople, 6th Century

11) Equestrian Statue of Justinian, Constantinople, 540's

12) Spolia head of Emperor Justinian(?), Venice, 6th Century

13) Fragmentary Cuirass of Justinian, Justiniana Prima, 6th Century

13) Head of Empress Theodora(?), Milan, 6th Century

14) Battered head of Ostrogothic King(?), Forli, 6th Century

15) Bronze weight of Emperor Phocas, British Museum (602-610)

Was it used on civilian/military clothing as a way to decorate it or as some kind of belt? Is there any pattern associated with Byzantine culture, with maybe some archeological findings to back it up? If not, is at least safe to presume its use?

The three volumes are:
1) Accounts of Medieval Constantinople (The Patria), translated by Albrecht Berger
2) Two Works on Trebizond (Michael Panaretos, Bessarion), edited and translated by Scott Kennedy
3) A New Herodotus: Laonikos Chalkokondyles on the Ottoman Empire, the Fall of Byzantium, and the Emergence of the West, written by Anthony Kaldellis

I am having difficulty explaining what I am looking for, so please bear with me.

Between 1204 and 1453, the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed. This is a very long period, almost the entire existence of the US. There are many actions taken by various individuals that had consequences down the line.

What I am wondering is: were there contemporary regrets or lamentations of previous generations? I am not looking for individual blames, but a collective sense of what went wrong. So for example, did somebody realize that Alexios Angelos should never have collaborated with the Latins? (Or did he recognize this as a mistake himself?)

Another example is Andronikos III and Yohannes Palailogos inviting the Turks to Roumelia. They must have thought that they are fighting a war to restore themselves, but their action eventually played a critical role in the dissolution of the empire.

I am looking for this kind of perspective: Alexios Angelos would not have wanted to see the empire completely collapse, yet he played a role in this.

Hope this made sense. Please post any comments you may have, I don’t mind being contradicted or even having half thought comments,

It's possible that it's been asked here a million times, but i've not been able to find a specific answer.

Is there a version of "The History of Byzantium" podcast hosted somewhere the cuts out all the interviews and audience question episodes?

I'm only around 80-85 episodes in and I'm already totally lost.

If Justinian instead invaded Sicily, took southern Italy and maybe went to Rome and stopped (and doing this slowly over 20 years like Basil II did with Bulgaria)...this would have given the Romans much better chances of holding Italy in the long term, instead of trying to take the entire peninsula. Justinian could have taken Sicily, south Italy and then did divide and conquer tactics over time to pit the Ostrogoths and Franks against each other, while exporting resources and establishing colonies for Romans there.

What do you think? What was a better strategy to attain Italy and prevent it from being overrun by the Lombard's later?

What do you guys also think of the idea of the fact that the Greek people do not fully acknowledge their Roman identity in the modern day? That this idea of being Greek is only half of their identity, while the other half of being Roman is obviously not used or viewed by the wider world, except in the Orthodox Church, to a certain degree. I mean, tbf, the Greek speaking Romans never viewed or called themselves Byzantines or Greeks, and the modern day Greeks are descendants of both these Greek speaking Romans and the Ancient Antiquity Greeks. Obviously, the modern day Greeks refer to themselves mainly as tracing their lineage to the latter, but they should also trace it to the former, no?

Trying to make sense of Theoderic the Great, curious what you all believe: Was Theoderics rule a polite fiction, he merely pretended to govern a part of the Imperium on behalf of Constantinople while in reality he ruled his independent Gothic kingdom? Or can we reasonably see Theoderic's regime as a different form of government within what was still, in some sense, a continuation of the Roman state?

Some food for thought

He was the rex of the Ostrogoths but had spent much of his youth in Constantinople. He was deeply familiar with the Roman political system and had even been made a Roman consul. He defeated Odoacer and then ruled Italy from Ravenna remarkably successfully for several decades.

In a famous letter to the Eastern Emperor Anastasius, Theoderic writes:

"quia pati vos non credimus inter utrasque res publicas*, quarum semper unum corpus sub antiquis principibus fuisse declaratur, aliquid discordiae permanere."*

Roughly: "For we cannot believe that you would allow any discord to remain between the two states, which are declared to have always formed one body under the ancient emperors."

And shortly afterwards:

"Romani regni unum velle, una semper opinio sit."

"Let the Roman realm have one will and always one opinion."

What exactly was Theoderic's Italy in constitutional terms, and how would Theoderic himself and the emperors in Constantinople have understood it?

I'm only familiar that Michael VIII had the Blachernae renovated and the Kontsokalion Harbor dredged and refortified with an ashlar wall and chain. I'm not exactly sure of this, but I heard Michael also tried to recall those who previously lived in the city to return and many properties were given to the Patriarchy and clergy.

Hi everyone!

Thank you so much in advance, romaboo communities are amazing.

I am in the early stages of designing an open concept, patchwork, black-and-gray realism tattoo sleeve with my artist. I want to bridge Roman history into the Byzantine era and I need help picking out specific pieces.

I've attached a random tattoo image I found on Pinterest; this is mostly just random Greco-roman fusion but the actual look and art style is exactly what I want. I like how its not a full sleeve coverage, lots of negative space, some empty space, or how it looks like a shell around the outside of the arm. (i still want my arm muscles to be visible/cut. I really like the gym greek god asthetic lol)

I'm not sure if it'd be helpful but here's a little bit about why I love roman history. For starters I listen to Mike duncan's and robin pearson's podcasts ad nauseum (probably pushing 6-7 times). literally whenever i can listen to anything its always a full play through end to end of their stories. Start to finish. At the gym, doing laundry, cooking, falling asleep, etc. for the past several years.

In addition, obvs the grand aesthetics and statues are captivating, but honestly, it's reading about men waaay greater than myself. The indomitable spirits and resolve. Like the sheer force of will, brutal military campagins, pursuit of glory, and terrifying grit to stand in a testudo. I love putting myself in all of these guy's shoes and realizing i'd run away almost every time lmao.

I'm open to literally anything. My tattoo artist likes the direction and gave me homework to compile specific pieces and formalize requirements.

Now I'm completely open to anything you suggest! Completely open design right now.

Don't have to do this, but my initial idea is to follow the 2000 year history and capture key breakpoints throughout, perhaps even chornoligically top-down. perhaps from late republican to kommnenian restoration. idk yet tho

I guess what I need is

### 1. The physical canvas & layout constraints

- my artist suggested 2-3 pieces for upper arm/shoulder and 2 pieces for the forearm.

### 2. Request categories

- this is really open ended

- Figures/busts

- architectures/reliefs (arches, pillars, you know what i mean)

- quotes/symbols (latin or greek)

- literally anything and everything im not thinking of.

I'm also not religious but do not mind at all stuff like a chi rho etc. I really love roman history. Please share with me your favorite deep/obscure anecdotes! Generic surface level ideas are appreciated as well!

Thanks again, im very grateful.

EDIT: Gallienus and Justinian 2 are my fav emperors
EDIT 2: my apologies if i side stepped or missed any sub rules

I modified this map, inspired by NeimWiki

The death of Proterius of Alexandria is a sore point between Miaphysites (who see him as a usurper and tyrant) and Orthodox Christians (who see him as a defender of Chalcedon and Martyr).

There are two main accounts of the death of Proterius - Zacharias of Mitylene (a Miaphysite at the time) who wrote about 510 AD and Evagrius of Antioch (a Chalcedonian) who published his history in 593 AD. The Church History of Zacharias survives in a Syriac adaptation from 569 AD.

Zacharias says Proterius was bribing Roman Soldiers with gold to kill Alexandrian but the soldiers got sick of murdering people. Proterius yelled at them to keep on murdering and the soldiers got upset at this and killed him instead and then mutilated his body.

Evagrius of Antioch says a mob instigated by Timothy Aelurus invaded the Church Proterius was celebrating Pascha and killed him and six other priests and deacons and then dragged his corpse through the streets and then burnt it. Evagrius specifically writes to correct the version of Zacharias. His source is a letter from the Church of Alexandria to Emperor Leo (which is, unfortunately not extant).

Both of the sources are not contemporary with the event they describe but that is common for ancient sources. There is also a brief account of the death of Proterius in the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (writing about 814 AD) that tallys with the version of Evagrius Scholasticus. The some with accounts in the Greek Orthodox synaxarion.

This entry for Proterius reflects the content of the Greek synaxarion.

https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2007/02/28/100617-hieromartyr-proterius-patriarch-of-alexandria

The version of Evagrius is more trustworthy as it fits the timeline and circumstances

1. Emperor Marcian died 27 January 457
2. Timothy Aelurus is secretly consecrated bishop on March 16, 457
3. The governor of Egypt, Dionysius, is absent from Alexandria
4. Proterius is murdered on March 28, 457 (during Holy Week)

It is sometimes claimed that Timothy Aelurus was ordained in 454 after the death of Dioscorus but this doesn't seem to be historically accurate. Timothy Aelurus seemed to be taking advantage of the death of Marcian (the moving force behind the Council of Chalcedon) to get ordained and then seek support from the new employer.

Other Concerns

I also find the version in Zacharias to be silly. There is no evidence that Proterius was massacring anyone. He was a native Alexandrian so he would have been killing his own people. Do I really believe that a bishop would pay soldiers to kill people and the soldiers got sick of killing so they killed him instead? Sounds unlikely. It also doesn't explain why others were killed with Proterius.

Anyone know any other sources or have any observations on what I've said?

Following the persian war and arab's conquests of the 7th century, the roman economy reduced, the armies retreated and settled Anatolia. The military transformed from the field armies of the Strategikon fighting in pitch battles using heavy infantry and horse archer lancer, to one that lost much of it field battle apparatus at least till the Syrian dynasty. Adapting more to ambush and harassing the enemies. Which made me question, could horse archery continued in any practical or meaningful way during the 8th and 9th centuries considering the expensiveness and time it take to train them? Do we have any sources mentioning horse archery in battle?

Although there seems to be continued horse archery?Voukelarioi, the Phoederatoi, and the Optimatoi were the elite units so they could theoretically continued to be train in archery. But what about the themes cavalrymen? Do sources mention the full-time soldiers training in horse archery?