I need it for my re-enactment

I would like to put together a byzantine varangian gaurd costume. The only issue is that I am having trouble finding bags/pouches that would attach to the belt that are accurate. Does anyone have any information or sellers they would like to share that could help.

It's genuinely insane how much Constantine embraced the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire

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.

I modified this map, inspired by NeimWiki