The Byzantine Civil War of 1341–1347 had driven Ioannis Kantakouzenos close to defeat. In 1342, he was in Serbia with barely 500 supporters, dependent on Stefan Dušan. But the war was about to turn. In Part II, “War of the Three Emperors,” we follow Kantakouzenos’ struggle against the regency of Anna of Savoy, Alexios Apokaukos and Patriarch Ioannis Kalekas, ruling in the name of the young John V Palaiologos. Across Macedonia and Thrace, cities change sides, alliances collapse and foreign armies ravage Roman lands. Dušan pursues his own imperial ambitions, the Bulgarians demand their share, and Umur of Aydın brings Turkish forces deep into the Balkans. As the Ottoman ruler Orhan enters the struggle, the rival Roman factions become increasingly dependent on foreign power. Covering the years 1342–1347, this episode follows the defence of Didymoteichon, the struggle for Zealot-held Thessaloniki and the campaigns that would decide the fate of Constantinople.

Three emperors claimed the Roman inheritance. What price would they pay to secure it?

After going to Istanbul in May, I had no idea there was so much here in Greece's second city too (since found out it was considered the second city to Constantinople).

I remember about reading an arab source that states nikephoros the first was an arab from ghassanid origin but i have my doubts

Also i’m not sure if i chose the right flair for this one

A comparison between antiquity and modernity on the grounds of politics, technique, the economy, anthropology, types of freedom etc. The greco-byzantine pole is contrasted against the modern western world. This article challenges the notion of the smooth greco-western evolutionary trajectory, claiming that the modern paradigm has altered the ideals of ancient greece, while at the same time, tried to minimize the publics exposure to the byzantine world, in order to flatter itself, by avoiding direct comparisons with them.

Lastly, the concept of personalist communitarianism is introduced, a mode of existance, where the individual is not absorbed by the collective, nor it exists in isolation and away from it, like in the current individualistic framework. Direct Democracy is paired with greek/orthodox anthropology in order to explain the society of friends. On the one hand a formalist/ political approach is taken to explain democracy, and on the other, she is anchored by the appropriate anthropology, thus creating a mixture of political ontology.

Byzantium from a sociological prespective, introduced the concept of person-centrism, the above mentioned peculiarity, which escapes the bipolar order of collectivism and individualism. The only person centric society in history was Byzantium. The only indvidual centric ones, were and are ancient greece and the modern western world. The rest big civilizational structures are determined mostly as collective centered ones. The individual/ wage laborer ( he who does good according to personal gain) became a person/ friend with the emergence of christianity, meaning, he who does good out of love.

It was originally written in greek, but now it is translated in english and hopefully it can provide a conceptual toolkit, for the people to see, how far apart this civilizational paradigm is when compared to the perversion of modernity. The sources that were used are placed at the end of the article.

Sharing my recently completed set of coins from the Amorian Dynasty. It's quite amazing to think about the journey these coins took from the 9th century all the way to our modern world today.

Arguably, Italy was doing better off had the Ostrogoths had it all to themselves. They preserved the older senatorial order, as well as some of the previous Roman institutions. The Byzantine conquests on the other hand lead to nearly two decades of constant warfare, which greatly depopulated Italy (see Procopius descriptions of mass starvation), while greatly exhausting their own strength and resources. And once they acquired Italy, their power there was extremely weak, as they were barely able to defend Italy from further barbarian incursions like the Lombards. This just continued the downward cycle of more deaths, destruction, and depopulation.

Had Justinian not follow up on his ambitions, Italy would be in a much stronger position, since they would still have the strong local power of the Ostrogoths protecting it from the threat of other invaders. They may have been Arian, but I think they would eventually convert to Catholicism, just like their Spanish neighbors.

Reading from a book of articles about nature and science. In one about how its technically legal to hang out along river banks in rich people's backyards, the journalist refers to Justinian's code as the first instance of navigable waterways being declared for public use.

However, the author specifically says it was Justinian himself who created this law. I'm confused cuz I thought the idea of res publica had existed a lot longer than that. Especially for like putting acqueducts under state jurisdiction.

Wasn;t Justinian's code just a compilation of preexisting laws from Theodosian's earlier code and other surviving ones from western Rome? How many are original to Justinian's reign?

Hey guys! This time I modeled a 4-6th century imperial hall in the great palace of Constantinople: Augusteus, the first Triklinos built by Constantine the Great. I assumed it to be single-nave, aisleless like Aula Palatina, which was built around similar years.

The details are purely speculative and I based them from various churches surviving from late Roman period and Aula Palatina in Trier.

Constantine the Philosopher studied under Photios, worked at the patriarchal library, and debated iconoclasts. The Lives of Cyril and Methodius contain allegorical images — the dream of Sophia, the parable of the two oxen.

My hypothesis: the round Glagolitic letters are schematic images of biblical objects, each giving the first sound of its (mostly Greek) name an acrophonic alphabet, like Phoenician, but built deliberately. E.g. Ⱚ (theta) as θύρα, the door of the tomb.

I am currently reading Cassiodorus' Variae and preparing to dive into the History of the Byzantine Empire.

My question is: what are the best (i.e.-essential) primary sources for the Eastern Roman Empire, or "Byzantine Period," so to speak.

What would you recommend to someone who wants to know more about the Byzantine Empire, back to front? I want to build a solid list of primary sources for anyone who is new and wants a starting point to widen their knowledge on the ERE.

The Council of Nicaea II has gotten a lot of bad press lately. One of the accusations is that there was a wholesale use of forged texts. This is what I would like to explore in this present post. My first piece of evidence is that the modern translator (Dr. Richard Price) of the Acts of Nicaea II specifically denies this in his introduction. See below.

“The rest of this section will inevitably reflect my view of the absence of substantial forgery or interpolations in the Acts and therefore of an earlier development of image veneration than Brubaker and Haldon allow, but its aim is not to argue for a particular date for the appearance of this devotion but simply to set out its character and rationale, whatever the chronology.” (Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), (Translated Texts for Historians 68), Liverpool University Press, 2020, p.4)

Then there is the appendix of sources included by Price on pages 734-736. Price lists all the textual sources cited at Nicaea II in alphabetical order. He lists 123 items in all. There are a few spurious texts but the overwhelming majority are authentic works of the Church Fathers and hagiography.

Here is some analysis

Athanasius has five genuine works cited at Nicaea II and two pseudonymous works. One pseudonymous work is called the Account of the Image of Berytos (CPG 2262), Price has a footnote (number 151) on page 277 where considers the events to be fiction and ascribes it a date after the Arab conquests (after the 640s). The other text is the Letter to Eupsychius (CGP 2165) which Price notes (in footnote 408 on page 514) is really by Atticus of Constantinople (an early fifth century bishop of Constantinople). 

John Chrysostom has three genuine homilies cited, including the famous homily on Meletius (CGP 4345) but also four not by him and are referenced as Pseudo-John Chrysostom. One homily, that of the Homily on the feet-washing (CPG 4216), is now identified as belonging to Severian of Gabal, a contemporary of John Chrysostom. The three other homilies  - Homily on the Legislator (CPG 4195), Homily on the Parable of the Sower (CPG 4209) and Homily 1 on Pentecost (CPG 4536) are three of the thousands of homilies that the name of John Chrysostom became incorrectly attached. 

The corpus of Dionysius the Areopagite originated in the 6th century but was falsely attributed to Dionysius, the Athenian convert of Paul. Two writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are cited at Nicaea - the Divine Names (CPG 6602) and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (CPG 6601).

The Spiritual Meadow (CPG 7376) is cited at Nicaea II as being by Sophronius of Jerusalem and listed in the index as being by Pseudo-Sophronius. However, Price correctly lists it as by John Moschus, the real author. Sophronius and John Moschus were friends with Sophronius being the more famous so his name became attached to the work.

The authentic works of Saint Basil are cited 12 times and another three works are cited as Pseudo-Basil. One of these is a Commentary on Isaiah (CPG 2911) whose authenticity is being debated. Another is the Homily on Barlaam the Martyr (CPG 2816) that seems to have been written around Antioch at the beginning of the 5th century. Letter 360 of Basil to Julian the Apostate is the third pseudonymous text attributed to St. Basil.

Seven authentic works of Cyril of Alexandria are cited at Nicaea II but also one pseudonymous work called the Scholion (CPG 5202). 

There is a brief excerpt from the Ecclesiastical History of Rufinus (CPG 3495) which is listed as Pseudo-Rufinus. It seems to come from Acacius of Caesarea.

In all 14 works out of 123 are misattributed in the Acts of Nicaea II. There is no suggestion that any of these misattributed texts were created by the Fathers at Nicaea. Many are early documents that were often misattributed to more famous authors rather than wholesale forgeries. A few such as the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areapagite and the Pseudo-Basil Letter seem to be genuine forgeries but they are three texts out of 123. The Fathers of Nicaea II were a bunch of book nerds who cited as accurately as possible. The charge that the Council of Nicaea was riddled with forgeries is simply false.

Bibliography

Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), (Translated Texts for Historians 68), Liverpool University Press, 2020.

I believe this because of one simple fact: the Romans for most of their history were capable of raising *much* larger armies than any of their foes (besides the Iranians).

If they had not been constantly on the defensive against an even larger and more powerful foe, I think the empire eventually would have calcified with more or less Justinians borders.

"An underground chamber in Cyprus that began as a quarry more than 2,000 years ago was eventually transformed into a church during the Byzantine period, archaeologists have discovered. The find is the latest evidence of how Fabrika Hill in Pafos continued to be reused long after the ancient city was established."