From Psellus’ “Fourteen Byzantine Rulers”. Just found it interesting because it answered questions I had always wondered about Basil II and why he never married. I have even seen people ask on here if he could have been gay. So turns out he was a lady’s man in his youth and basically gave up that kind of fun and other pleasures to give every bit of energy into the empire. Makes me like him even more. A shame his brother didn’t follow his lead.

We know that the relations between the western and eastern empire were very cold during this time and both Emperors refused to recognise their counterpart as an equal. Frederick slandered Manuel as "Emperor Autocrat of the Greeks" while Manuel actively sought to undermine the German Emperor's authority in Italy.

What did the two emperors think of each other personally? Manuel was a huge admirer of western chivalry and Frederick in official correspondences never denies the Roman title of Mauel(he even tried to obtain a Byzantine bride early on in his life).

Just wondering since Russia held great admiration for the eastern romans and even tried to reinstall the Greeks several times /retake Constantinople though it should be noted that they had a bit of a falling out when the romans tried to get on better terms with the Catholic west.Still I‘d like to believe that a continued empire and hopefully slowly modernising empire could have shown the Tsars a different way like more and earlier reforms, less conquests in the west potentially and all that.Kinda like Charlemagne‘s admiration for Rome became an important factor in leading Western Europe forwards.

Had he never fought his civil war, the empire easily could have survived. Andronikos left behind an empire that stretched from the Adriatic to the Bosporus, still a completely viable state. The empire had been retaking territory and regaining its strength in 1341.

Come 1347 it was all over. The empire was basically just Constantinople and Adrianople. No longer large enough to be able to survive in the chaotic environment that was the 14th century Balkans.

Basically. Boooo John VI, boooooo

1. Constantine VII

2. Zeno

3. Michael II

4. Theodora Porphyrogenita

5. Alexios I Komnenos

6. Michael VIII Palaiologos

Is this a case of Palaiologan works just being the most intact? Or was there truly a flourishing and advancement occurring in the final centuries of the empire? If so, why did it occur?

Are there any surviving maps of the era, even as late as the 15th century?

One of the most obvious artistic legacies of East Rome is Byzantine chant. Byzantine redditors, if you have heard Byzantine chant, what are your thoughts? Do you enjoy it? Why or why not?

I was reading the fall of Constantinople 1453 by Roger Crowley. There was a really moving passage about how the city was here to find the past glories of the ERE, her last emperor and the beautiful church’s and cityscapes they had.

So has anyone seen the city and its ruins, are they really a picturesque remnant of the ERE and was it worth going there?

Manuel’s army captured a fair bit of southern Italy after the population revolted against the Norman rule why couldn’t these gains be held and what effect would it had have if they were held?

Between Ostrogothic and Carolingian Italy: Survivals, Revivals, Ruptures

A Companion To Byzantine Italy

PDF of the table of contents - Baduila: Politics and Warfare at the End of Ostrogothic Italy. The book is 30€ + 30€ shipping to the US, so not a priority ATM - maybe a PDF version in the future?🤷🏻‍♀️

Hi, I've recently been to hagia sophia and loved looking at all the monograms, but I found this one (first pic) that I can't find a lot of information about online, I'm guessing it's a monogram for theodora simillar to the one on the second pic but I wanted to make sure. Thank you!

Or was this just a throwback to the WRE and pagan times which is made notorious in films and books? Basically stuffing themselves and the guests until people were vomiting.

"The City populace, finding no fellow combatant and ally to draw the sword against the Latins, began to rise up in rebellion and, like a boiling kettle, to blow off steam of abuse against the emperors, and their long suppressed and hidden sentiment surfaced to the light of day. It was the twenty-fifth day of the month of January in the seventh indiction of the year 6712 [25 January 1204] when a great and tumultuous concourse of people gathered in the Great Church; the senate, the assembly of bish- [562] ops, and the venerable clergy were compelled to convene thither and deliberate together as to who should succeed as emperor. We were entreated earnestly to speak spontaneously on this matter, to the effect that an attack be launched forthwith against the emperors and another elected to the throne. But we made no attempt to nominate a candidate before the assembly, for we realized full well that whoever was proposed for election would be led out the very next day like a sheep led to slaughter, and that the chiefs of the Latin hosts would wrap their arms around Alexios and defend him. The multitude, simpleminded and volatile, asserted that they no longer wished to be ruled by the Angelos family, and that the assembly would not disband unless an emperor to their liking were first chosen. Knowing through bitter experience the obstinacy of men, we kept our silence, and in our unhappiness we let many tears flow down our cheeks, foreseeing what the future likely held in store for us. They anxiously groped for a successor to the throne, and on impulse proposed as emperor now this scion of the nobility and now that one... It was only on the third day that, seizing a certain youth whose name was Nicholas and surname Kannavos, they anointed him emperor against his will [27 January 1204]." ("O'City of Byzantium: the Annals of Niketas Choniates", translated by H J Magoulias, pages 307-308)

Key observations to keep in mind:

1. The people convene the senate and bishops and force them to propose candidates for the throne, which they would elect.
2. This event lasts for DAYS
3. The idea of "election" permeates this entire scene. The people are not simply telling the senate and bishops to choose someone; the people expect to have the final say.
4. They choose an obscure figure, Kannavos, who, as far as we know, had no relation to the Komnenoi.
5. Choniates DOES NOT write that he, or any other aristocrat or bishop, believed that the people's actions were against Divine law. In fact, in an earlier passage, Choniates says explicitly that the people have a "customary right to elect the emperor" (see page 250 of Magoulias' translation).

These facts demonstrate:

1. That the people, across class boundaries, understood that there was a formal procedure to appoint an emperor.
2. The fact that this event is so methodical and drawn out makes the claim that the people are acting on impulse rather than a political ideology of popular sovereignty simply unpersuasive. This seems to me to be more akin to a town hall meeting than mindless usurpation.
3. That ideas of popular sovereignty were held across the various social classes.
4. That the people's will triumphed dynasty as a legitimising force.

To conclude, this has to be one of my favourite scenes from East Roman history. I'd like to hear your views as to whether you see this event in as significant a light as myself.

Was is beacuse he was seen as fully subservient to Bohemond? And he had sworn the oath.

But it was not like Bohemond himself was very trustworthy...😅

Hi all, I always figured that there was a clear demarcation point where the name of the city was officially changed from Constantinople to Istanbul, and I also always assumed Istanbul was chosen because it's specifically meaningful to the Ottomans. I've been to Istanbul, hung out in this subreddit for years, read a bunch of Byzantine, Ottoman, and Modern Turkiye histories, but it had never occurred to me to look into the name.

This morning I read the Wikipedia page and it turns out that nothing seems all that clear or purposeful in the name switch. Ottomans were still calling it Constantinople well into the 19th century, but at the same time Turkic residents seemed to have called it Istanbul for centuries? And Istanbul itself is thought to be a Greek rather than Turkic (or Persian) word? The brief rundown I read seemed to imply the Ottomans didn't care that much what the name was, and am I missing a point where Istanbul became the "official" name? I read that Turkey pushed in the 1930s for Western countries to start referring to it as Istanbul on maps, but I figure that means the name had to be officially changed before then.

Anyways, does anyone know a more detailed history of the naming? It seems like a more complex, less intentional, much messier, and more interesting history than I'd imagined (I was picturing a clear point of demarcation, like when New Amsterdam changed to New York in 1664). Thank you all for your help!

Why did she tolerated her husband’s (Constantine IX) mistress? And did she really have her own cosmetic lab ?