Jump to content

User:Biz/byzantineempireFAR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Biz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biz (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 2 September 2024 (→‎Flags and Insignia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Biz/Drafts

To-do

Next

  • Flags and Insignia

Do later

Current work

Flags and Insignia

Constantine introduced a new emblem for his army, the Labarum. It came to represent the emperor and was used by his successors for legitimisation and continuity through to the Theodosian dynasty. By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, the Chi Rho, tau-rho (Staurogram), and cross formed a new hierarchy of Christian signs observable in this period with the labarum-cross become the main banner of the Christian Roman Empire.

The Double-headed eagle appeared in art from the 10th century and histortian Zapheiriou proposes the Komnenos dynasty adopted it from the Hittite motif found in Paphlagonia where the family originate from. It's more confidently attested as a symbol of the emperor in the late era the when Andronikos II Palaiologos used it in 1301. During the Palaiologan period, we also see the introduction of the Tetragrammatic cross with the fourtime representation of the Greek B representing Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων βασιλεύων βασιλεύουσιν Basileùs basiléon basileúon basileúousin "King of Kings ruling over the kings/rulers""


THE CONSTANTINIAN LABARUM AND THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF ROMAN MILITARY STANDARDS https://doi.org/10.18573/jlarc.117

  • Constantine introduced a new emblem for his army: the labarum. It came to represent the emperor and was used by his successors for legitimisation and continuity through to the Thedosian dynasty.
  • It later evolved with the Chi-Rho and the cross

An Iranian Standard used as a Christian Symbol https://doi.org/10.2307/627151

  • big circle, or two concentric circles, a combination of five small, circles,2 or four small ones arranged round a

big circle, frequent also is a= design consisting of two diagonals (Fig. i).

  • Emperors in the IXth and Xth centuries used the same as 4th century

Christograms as Signs of Authority in the Late Roman Empire https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198815013.003.0003

  • By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, the chi-rho (Chi Rho), tau-rho (Staurogram), and cross formed a new hierarchy of Christian signs observable in various media produced in the Theodosian period,


Kazhdan 1991a, The Oxford Dictionary Of Byzantium pp. 472 COATS OF ARMS. The use of heraldic insignia as a symbolic representation of families did not develop in Byz. The broad range of images (Christ, the Virgin, the cross, various saints) found on seals are personal rather than familial emblems. Certain “blazons” have, however, been inter¬ preted by some scholars as official imperial or familial coats of arms. Soloviev (infra) considered the double-headed eagle as an emblem of the Komnenoi and the tetragrammic cross with four Bs as the blazon (from ca. 1327) of the Palaiologoi. G. Vikan (ArtB 63 [1981] 326) has connected other emblems (including a multipetal flower, a swastika, and four overlapping bars) with the Palaiologos family. Some of these symbols—whether blazons or not—were placed on imperial stan¬ dards: thus, a i4th-C. ceremonial book (pseudoKod. 167.17—23) states that on ordinary warships the customary imperial banner (phlamoulon) was displayed, that is, the cross with pyrekbola (flints?) probably the tetragrammic cross—whereas the ship of the rnegas doux displayed the image of the mounted emperor. In Aug. 1439 John VIII PaIaiologos conferred upon Giacomo de Morellis, a citizen of Florence, the right to place on his ban¬ ner the imperial “blazon” (semeion); on the chrysobull, beneath the text, is pictured a double¬ headed eagle ( Reg 5, no.3489).

Kazhdan 1991a, The Oxford Dictionary Of Byzantium pp. 999-1000

INSIGNIA (cttj pieia ), characteristic emblems used to express symbolically the social and political position of an individual or an institution. Byz. only embryonically developed the heraldry of he¬ reditary familial coats of arms so typical of West¬ ern feudalism, but it did establish systems of per¬ sonal, institutional, and imperial insignia. The word semeion was also used to designate both a standard or banner (e.g., a Persian semeion placed on a tower— Chron . Pasch. 554.8—9) and a theo¬ logical symbol, such as the sign of the cross, bap¬ tism, or a miracle.

Personal insignia are known primarily from seals that depict images of Christ, the Virgin, the cross, and various saints, the most popular of which were military saints (George, Demetrios, and Theodore), the Archangel Michael, and St. Ni¬ cholas; more developed scenes (e.g., the Annun¬ ciation) appear rarely. The saint is considered a patron (often the owner of the seal was named alter him), but it is not yet clear to what extent the owner consistently used the image of his pa¬ tron saint and accordingly whether the semeion should be considered a genuine emblem. Some patterns of usage are evident: thus, generals fre¬ quently adopted military saints as patrons, whereas civil functionaries preferred Michael and Nicho¬ las. Seals reveal a certain consistency and conti-jnuity of semeia for local churches; thus, the met ropolitans of Ephesus had as their patrons either the apostle John or the Virgin.

The emblems of officials are better known. The Notitia dignitatum represents the insignia of important office holders ca.400; thus, the em¬ blems of the praetorian prefect of Illyricum were the codicillus (diploma of appointment) with im¬ perial portrait, the so-called theca (i.e., pen case and ink pot), and a horse-drawn state coach re¬ served for the use of the prefect (P.C. Berger, The Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum [New York— London 1981] 25—37). Later insignia are listed in such texts as De ceremoniis of Constantine VII or in pseudo-Kodinos.

Insignia can be divided into symbolic emblems (as represented in the Notitia dignitatum or on coins) and real objects. The latter encompassed costume including footgear, the crown, weap¬ onry and horse trappings, the throne, and sym¬ bols of authority or piety, such as the scepter, sphaira (orb), and akakia. The form and color of these garments and objects dif fered, reflecting the hierarchical ladder. Thus, in pseudo-Kodinos, the despotes was granted the privilege of wearing the skiadion covered with pearls, with a veil bear¬ ing the name of the owner embroidered in gold; the sehastokrator had a gold and red skiadion with gold embroidery (syrmateinon), but no pearls are mentioned; the me gas domestikos wore a klapoton (not syrmateinon) skiadion , that is, one decorated with small golden squares in the shape of a nailhead; the me gas doux wore a klapoton skiadion , but without a veil, and so on.

In the late gth C. the Kletorologion of Philotheos divided all functionaries into two major catego¬ ries: those who were invested with some form of insignia (brabeion), and those who were appointed by the word of the emperor. Among official in¬ signia Philotheos mentioned the charte (codicil); a golden staff; the fiblatorion , a cloak secured with a fibula; a golden chain; a golden whip decorated with precious stones; and a sword ornamented w 7 ith gold and ivory plaques.

Imperial regalia, partly developed from the in¬ signia of Roman magistrates (e.g., consuls), partly derived from the East, partly created anew, were above all characterized by the exclusive right to use the color purple (while green and blue were the colors of certain high-ranking officials). A special costume decorated with gold, pearls, and precious stones distinguished the emperor from his entourage. The order in which the different elements of imperial costume (divetesion, chlamys, skaramangion, etc.) were put on was pre¬ scribed by court ceremonial, and the usage of a particular garment was usually linked with car¬ rying particular objects (scepter, etc.). The cere¬ monial also prescribed a change in the imperial regalia at certain stages of processions and recep¬ tions. The different elements of the regalia varied in importance: the crown and chlamys always held pride of place, whereas the scepter and shoes (tzangia) probably assumed significance only by the 10th C. Different crowns and garments were employed for different festivities.

The Byz. saw a symbolic meaning in various insignia: the spliaira designated the universal power of the emperor, the akakia his mortality and sub¬

jection to Christ. A poem of Christopher of Mytilene (110.30.12—26) gives an example of the symbolic interpretation of the insignia that be¬ longed to the eparch of Constantinople: his simikinthion (“apron/’ probably the loros) symbolized the uninterrupted series of his good works; the tawny orange boots his divine paths; the white horse his shining virtue; and the brazen bosses of

his horse trappings, which were alloyed with gold, symbolized his generosity, since he distributed

gold and bronze among the needy.

Previous work

Law

Revised text

Roman law has its origins in the Twelve Tables, consisted mostly of legal remedies to issues and would be shaped by jurists later.[1] The law eventually ended up being confusing as it was a series of imperial responses to issues where the emperor was asked to intervene.[2] There were several attempts to simplify such as Hadrian making permanent the previously annual Praetorian Edict; the private collections of the Codices Gregorianus and the Hermogenianus; and then later by the East with the Codex Theodosianus in 438, with the most relevant decrees from Constantine onward.[3] A complete standardisation leveraging the previous efforts was later completed, known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, between 529-534[4] It was not only restricted to civil law, but also the power of the emperor, the organsiation of the Empire and other matters that is now classified as public law.[5] After this point, Justinian would legislate the Novellae (New Laws) in Greek which legal historian Bernard Stolte states is how historians demarcate the end of Roman law and the start of Byzantine law.[6]

Researcher Zachary Chitwood claims Justinian code's was inaccessible in Latin, especially in the provinces.[7] That and the stronger association of Christianity to law following the shocking rise of Islam created the backdrop for Leo III (r. 717–741) to develop the Ecloga 'with a greater view of humanity'.[8]. The three so-called leges speciales (the Farmers’ Law, the Seamen’s Law, and the Soldiers’ Law) are derived from the Ecloga and that Chitwoood claims were likely used day-to-day as companions in the provinces.[9] The Macedonian dynasty started their reform attempts with the Procheiron and the Eisagogetoto to replace the Ecloga due to its associations with iconoclasm, and is of note as it shows an attempt to define the emperor's power according to the laws.[10] Leo VI (r. 886–912) achieved the complete codification of Roman law in Greek with the Basilika, a monumental work of 60 books that became the foundation of all subsequent Byzantine law.[11] The Hexabiblos, published in 1345, was a law book in six volumes.[12]

These law codes form the basis of the modern world's civil law tradition, underlying the legal system of western and eastern Europe, the common law countries, Latin America, African nations like Ethiopia, with ongoing debates about the impact on Islamic countries.[13][14][15] The Hexabiblos, which remained in direct use the longest of the aforementioned, was the basis of Greece's civil code until the mid 20th century.[16] Historians used to think there was no continuity between Roman and Byzantine law, but this view has now changed due to changes in scholarship.[17][18]



  • Dingledy, Frederick (2019-05-02). "The Corpus Juris Civilis: A Guide to Its History and Use". dx.doi.org. Retrieved 2024-08-07.
  • Gregory, Timothy E. (2010). A history of Byzantium. Blackwell history of the ancient world (2nd ed ed.). Chichester, U.K. ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8471-7. OCLC 320435937. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Merryman, John Henry; Pérez-Perdomo, Rogelio (2007). The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America (3rd ed.). Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5568-9. OCLC 81252739.
  • Johnston, David, ed. (2015). The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law. Cambridge Companions to the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cco9781139034401. ISBN 978-0-521-89564-4.
    • Stolte, Bernard H. "The Law of New Rome: Byzantine Law". In Johnson (2015), pp. 355-373. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFJohnson2015 (help)
  • Chitwood, Zachary (2017). Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867–1056. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316861547. ISBN 978-1-107-18256-1.
  • Stolte, Bernard H. (1998). "Not new but novel. Notes on the historiography of Byzantine law". Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 22. doi:10.1179/byz.1998.22.1.264. ISSN 0307-0131.
  • Stein, Peter (1999). Roman Law in European History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-64372-6.
  • the Hexabiblos published in 1345 was the basis of law in modern Greece until 1940. p.35 Roman law in european history, Peter Stein; THE LAW OF NEW ROME: BYZANTINE LAW BERNARD H. STOLTE p.368
  • Impacted the balkans and Russia p.36 Roman law in european history
  • Ethiopia and Islamic law. THE LAW OF NEW ROME: BYZANTINE LAW BERNARD H. STOLTE p.368


12 tables. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6614?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780199381135.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780199381135-e-6614&p=emailAgZ01N4uSr7ZI https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/byzantine-legal-culture-and-the-roman-legal-tradition-8671056/EDF3AD1A74C4461805235605257DF9D6

Current text

Main article: Byzantine law

In 438, the Codex Theodosianus, named after Theodosius II, codified Byzantine law. It went into force in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire as well as in the Western Roman Empire. It summarised the laws and gave direction on interpretation. In 529, Justinian appointed a commission to revise and codify the law into the "Corpus Juris Civilis", or the Justinian Code. In 534, the Corpus was updated and, along with the enactments promulgated by Justinian after 534, formed the system of law used for most of the rest of the Byzantine era.[19] The Corpus forms the basis of civil law of many modern states.[20] It was Tribonian, a notable jurist, who supervised the Corpus Juris Civilis. Justinian's reforms had a clear effect on the evolution of jurisprudence, with his Corpus becoming the basis for revived Roman law in the Western world, while Leo III's Ecloga influenced the formation of legal institutions in the Slavic world.[21]

In the 10th century, Leo VI achieved the complete codification of Byzantine law in Greek. This monumental work of 60 volumes became the foundation of all subsequent Byzantine law and is still studied today.[22] Leo also reformed the administration of the empire, redrawing the borders of the administrative subdivisions (the themata, or "themes") and tidying up the system of ranks and privileges, as well as regulating the behaviour of the various trade guilds in Constantinople. Leo's reform did much to reduce the previous fragmentation of the empire, which henceforth had one centre of power, Constantinople.[23] The increasing military success of the empire greatly enriched and gave the provincial nobility more power over the peasantry, who were essentially reduced to a state of serfdom.[24]

Attested in orations by Themistius from 364 CE, and later codified in law by Justinian, the emperor was regarded as nomos empsychos, the "living law", both lawgiver and administrator.[25][26] This is a characterisation that is commonly used in modern scholarship to distinguish the Byzantine emperors from earlier Roman emperors, but it is now understood that this idea originated with the Julio-Claudian dynasty.[27][28]

Current sources

  • Gregory 2010, p. 150
    • Gregory, Timothy E. (2010). A History of Byzantium. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8471-7.
    • P.150: Justinian's activity in the realm of law continued after the brief interruption of the Nika Revolt. The legislative committee, disbanded during the difficulties, was reconstituted and it turned its attention, first, to the Institutes, published in November of 533, and then to the Digest, published in December. The Institutes was designed essentially as a textbook to be used in the teaching of law, especially in the schools of Constantinople and Beirut. The Digest represents an even more remarkable achievement, especially given the often contradictory nature of earlier Roman legislation. As a practical handbook, designed to be used by real judges, it quoted and discussed the writings of the classical Roman jurists, cited contemporary legislation, and developed principles on which conflicting legal principles might be reconciled. The original edition of the Codex Justinianus (issued in 529) was made obsolete by these newer works and the continued legislation of the emperor, and it was replaced by an updated version, published on November 16, 534. This detailed legal code, organized in 12 books, formed the basis of law for the rest of the Byzantine era, and it was borrowed and modified in all the areas influenced by Byzantine civilization and even in much of the West. Naturally, Justinian continued to issue laws through the rest of his reign; these were called Novellae (New Laws) and, unlike most of the rest of his legislation, they were issued more commonly in Greek than in Latin. Together, these four summaries of Roman (Byzantine) law, the Institutes, the Digest, the Codex Justinianus, and the Novellae, represent one of the high points of worldwide legal activity and they came to be known as the Corpus Juris Civilis.
      • P.135: Another aspect of Justinian's attempt to refashion the Byzantine state was in the area of law. As mentioned above, Roman law was prescriptive in the sense that it had come to be made up of a series of imperial responses to individual problems and requests for the intervention of the emperor. This naturally led to confusion and serious questions about what the law really meant in certain cases. The Theodosian Code of 438 had gone some distance to solving these problems, but many difficulties remained and by the time of Justinian - there was considerable legislation that had been issued since the time of Theodosios II. Justinian therefore set out to reform and standardize Roman law, and in 528 he appointed a committee, whose first responsibility was the codification of existing law, along the lines of the Theodosian Code. The head of the committee was the distinguished jurist Tribonian, and in just over a year (529) it published the first volume of the Codex Justinianus. This text, like the Codex Theodosianus, arranged the whole of previous law (back to the time of Hadrian) in categories according to subject, but it was soon itself in need of modification, in part because of the considerable legislative activity of the emperor himself.
  • Merryman & Perez-Perdomo 2007, p. 7
    • Merryman, John Henry; Perez-Perdomo, Rogelio (2007). The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5569-6.
    • The statement "The Corpus forms the basis of civil law of many modern states" is not found on P7 but the whole chaprer 6-14 covers the topic.
    • p8 The Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian was not restricted to Roman civil law. It included much that had to do with the power of the emperor, the organization of the empire, and a variety of other matters that lawyers today would classify as public law. But the part of Justinian's compilation that deals with Roman civil law has been the object of the most intensive study and has become the basis of the legal systems of the civil law world. Other parts of Justinian's compilation have been less carefully studied and used because they have seemed to be less applicable to the problems of other peoples and governments in other times and places. In any event, the part of the Corpus Juris Civilis that is devoted to Roman civil law is much the larger part.
    • p11 Roman civil law epitomizes the oldest, most continuously and thoroughly studied, and (in the opinion of civil lawyers) most basic part of the civil law tradition. Roman law is often said to be the greatest contribution that Rome has made to Western civilization, and Roman ways of thinking have certainly percolated into every Western legal system. In this sense, all Western lawyers are Roman lawyers. In civil law nations, however, the influence of Roman civil law is much more pervasive, direct, and concrete than it is in the common law world.

Jus commune

    • p10-11 In the nineteenth century, the principal states of Western Europe adopted civil codes (as well as other codes), of which the French Code Napoléon of 1804 is the archetype. The subject matter of these civil codes was almost identical with the subject matter of the first three books of the Institutes of Justinian and the Roman civil law component of the jus commune of medieval Europe. The principal concepts were Roman law or rationalized Roman law, and the organization and conceptual structure were similar. A European or Latin American civil code of today clearly demonstrates the influence of Roman law and its medieval and modern revival. Roman civil law epitomizes the oldest, most continuously and thoroughly studied, and (in the opinion of civil lawyers) most basic part of the civil law tradition.
  • Troianos & Velissaropoulou-Karakosta 1997, p. 340
    • Troianos, Spyros; Velissaropoulou-Karakosta, Julia (1997). Ιστορία δικαίου από την αρχαία στην νεώτερη Ελλάδα [History of law from ancient to modern Greece] (in Greek). Athens: Sakkoulas. ISBN 978-9-6023-2594-0.
    • Cannot find an online version of the book. Book title implies it's a general history of Greece from ancient times, so would be ok to replace for another if it can cover the same
      • "Slavic legal traditions, including countries ranging from Bulgaria to Russia, were substantially influenced by the Farmer's Law"
      • Elena Salogubova & Alan Zenkov, “Roman Law's Influence on Russian Civil Law and Procedure”, Russian Law Journal 6, no. 2 (2018): 118–33.
      • Actual paper says how it influenced Russian and it was from multiple sources, both from byzantine and then later from western which itself was roman influenced (p.120)
      • p.121-122 in different periods of time nine sources of law, either direct translations of Byzantine law or russian incorporations, were included into the Kormchaya Kniga that became a guiding book for the russian Church. 13 the first translated source was the Nomocanon of Johannes Scholasticus in the 6th century. it included several novels of emperor Justinian, which determined the civil rights and obligations of the priesthood, and the privileges of the Church and monasteries. second, Ecloga by the Greek emperors Leo iii and Constantine v of 741 was translated. 14 these were included in the Kormchaya Kniga in the 16 th century. the third source of Byzantine legislation added to the Kormchaya Kniga was the Prochiron by Basil the Macedonian. this was translated into russian in the 13th century, where it was commonly known as the Gradskie Zakony. the Nomocanon by Patriarch Photius, of the 9th century, was the fourth source. the fifth, sixth and seventh sources included the Zakon Sudniy Lyudem, the Corpus Legum by emperors roman and Constantine, and the Legislation of Alexius Comnenus, dated in the 10 th century. the Byzantine Matrimonial Law was

the eighth source, and the ninth was the Hexabiblos. the Hexabiblos (Ruchnaya Kniga Zakonov) was written by Constantine harmenopoulos in the 14th century, however, its strongest effect on russian legislation came later. it entered the legal system in the western regions of the russian empire (Bessarabia) and started to be implemented in central russia since 1831. in 1652, during the rule of tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich the first printed version of the Kormchaya Kniga appeared. it contained the first eight sources of Byzantine law. One thousand two hundred books were printed and sent to civil courts “for application of this obligatory law.” 15 significantly, the Kormchaya Kniga was implemented in some parts of the russian empire until the 19 th century. this is a record of longevity for russia

      • p118 exec summary: The subject of the research in this article is the influence of Roman law on Russian civil

procedure. Roman law has undoubtedly had a huge impact on the development of civil legislation in many countries of the continental legal system, in particular on Russian law. But the importance of the institutes developed by Roman lawyers of different eras, has not received a decent assessment of experts. In this article, the authors propose to the reader the concept that Roman civil procedure, finally formed during the reign of Emperor Justinian, is the foundation for the development of civil proceedings in Russia at different during key stages of its development. It is also suggested that Roman law was indirectly received with the help of nineteenth-century German scholars. Full use of the potential of Roman civil procedure in Russian civil procedure is difficult, because in the Russian legal science researchers have paid little insufficient attention to the correlation of such an important stage in the development of Roman, Russian and the continental law. And yet the theoretical legal basis laid by Roman law, well-developed by Roman lawyers, with procedural institutions that have had a significant impact on Russian law. The degree of such influence on Russian law in different periods of history varied. The institutions of the claim, representation in civil procedure, as well as evidence and proof, were most affected by Roman law, although the importance of other institutions of Roman civil procedure should not be underestimated. This article is intended to initiate more fundamental analysis of the impact of Roman law on Russian civil procedure.

  • Browning 1992, pp. 97–98
    • Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-0754-4.

In the 10th century, Leo VI achieved the complete codification of Byzantine law in Greek. This monumental work of 60 volumes became the foundation of all subsequent Byzantine law and is still studied today.

      • confirmed. but says books not volumes.
      • p97: the Procheiron and the Epanagoge, which were issued by Basil I to replace the Ecloga. Though both books owed much to the Ecloga, their prefaces condemned it in harsh and vituperative terms as the "destruction of good laws," since it was tainted by its association with Iconoclasm. These handbooks were to be only the beginning of a drastic purification and recasting of Roman law, which was to embrace the corpus of Justinian supplemented by the enactments of later emperors. Basil evidently saw himself as a great legislator and a second Justinian.
  • Browning 1992, pp. 98–99
    • confirmed.
      • p.98 clean up of laws by Leo due to anomalites or anorchisms.independent rights of city councils and legislature authority of the senate was abrigated on th grounds power is now vested in the emperor. Marks the formal abolition and culmination of a process of centralisation accelrated by the empires fight for survival. the roman empire in its heyday has been a collection of civic and self governing communities with the monarchy superimposed for defence and foreign relations. the byzantine empire in its fully developed form had only one centre of power.
  • Browning 1992, pp. 98–109
    • confirmed but this does not belong in this section

Leo also reformed the administration of the empire, redrawing the borders of the administrative subdivisions (the themata, or "themes") and tidying up the system of ranks and privileges, as well as regulating the behaviour of the various trade guilds in Constantinople. Leo's reform did much to reduce the previous fragmentation of the empire, which henceforth had one centre of power, Constantinople.[23]

The increasing military success of the empire greatly enriched and gave the provincial nobility more power over the peasantry, who were essentially reduced to a state of serfdom.[24]


New sources

Glendon, Mary Ann, 'Justinian, Tribonian, and Irnerius: How Statesmen and Scholars Rescued Roman Law (Twice)', The Forum and the Tower: How Scholars and Politicians Have Imagined the World, from Plato to Eleanor Roosevelt (2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 10 Feb. 2015), https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199782451.003.0004, accessed 27 July 2024.

Chitwood Z. Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867–1056. Cambridge University Press; 2017.

Stolte, Bernard, 'Byzantine Law: The Law of the New Rome', in Heikki Pihlajamäki, Markus D. Dubber, and Mark Godfrey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Legal History, Oxford Handbooks (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 8 Aug. 2018), https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198785521.013.10, accessed 27 July 2024.

Stolte, Bernard, ' Justice Legal Literature', in Robin Cormack, John F. Haldon, and Elizabeth Jeffreys (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (2008; online edn, Oxford Academic, 21 Nov. 2012), https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199252466.013.0065, accessed 27 July 2024.

Stolte BH. Not new but novel. Notes on the historiography of Byzantine law. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 1998;22:264-279. doi:10.1179/byz.1998.22.1.264 

Stolte BH. The Law of New Rome: Byzantine Law. In: Johnston D, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law. Cambridge Companions to the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press; 2015:355-373.

Stolte, B. H. (2012). The Peira and the Basilica: posted in Oxford Research Archive (Oxford University Library Services) [ora-20121009-143311].

Tantalos, M. (2021). Forms of suretyship in the Peira in the light of the Basilica. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History Review, 89(1-2), 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-12340004

And now that the west was again a junior partner of the east, Constantinople conceived the ambition to codify and streamline Roman law to bring order to the mass of confusing legislation that had accumulated during the past century. As Theodosius put it, the law “was hidden behind a thick cloud of obscurity.”77 In 429, he informed the Senate of Constantinople that he had appointed a committee to codify the law by collecting the most relevant decrees from Constantine onward, and by making a selection of the writings of the best jurists. Only this collection would henceforth be valid in court, and future laws would be valid throughout the empire, though Theodosius reserved the right to change or revoke them.78 The first component of this project, the Theodosian Code, was completed and ratified in 438; the second would not be undertaken until Justinian, a century later. In both conception and execution, the Theodosian Code was a landmark of Roman jurisprudence, whose influence would extend for centuries in both east and west. As a historical source, it is a gold mine. We have the minutes of its reception by the Senate of Rome, where Theodosius’ letter to the eastern Senate was read out, followed by hundreds of acclamations praising the emperors (e.g., “You are our salvation!”—repeated twenty-six times; “May it please our Augustuses to live forever!”—repeated twenty-two times; and so on). Unified though the empire was in law, its administrative division had led to two de facto separate states. The embargoes of the first decade of the fifth century had hardened the borders between their territories. Lists were produced of “those provinces and cities that are ruled by the emperor of the Romans whose base is at Constantinople.”79 After 395, the careers of civilian and military officials were normally confined to one of the two empires. Their diplomatic efforts were Kaldellis 168-169

Diplomacy

Rewrite

todo

According to Dimitri Obolensky, the preservation of civilisation in eastern Europe was due to the skill and resourcefulness of the Empire's diplomacy, and Imperial Diplomacy is one of its lasting contributions to the history of Europe.[29] The Empire's longevity has been said to be due to its aggressive diplomacy in negotiating treaties, the formation of alliances, and partnerships with the enemies of its enemies, notably seen with the Turks and when the Persian Sassanid Empire was defeated or riffs between Muslims states like the Umayyads in Spain and the Aghlabids in Siciliy.[30] Diplomacy often involved long-term embassies, hosting foreign royals as potential hostages or political pawns, and overwhelming visitors with displays of wealth and power.[31] Other tools in diplomacy include political marriages (more common from the 11th-12th centuries), wiles, bribery, ideological blackmail and intelligence as attested in the ‘Bureau of Barbarians’ from the 4th century and which is likely the first foreign intelligence agency.[32]

Diplomacy in the Empire following Theodosius I (r. 379–395) contrasted sharply with that of the Roman Republic, emphasizing peace as a strategic necessity.[33] Even when it had more resources and less threats in the 6th century, the costs of defense were enormous;[34] foreign affairs had become more multi-polar, complex and interconnected;[35] further the challenges in protecting the empire's primarily agricultural income as well as numerous aggressive neighbors made avoiding war a preferred strategy.[36] Between the 4th and 8th centuries, diplomats leveraged the Empire's status as Orbis Romanus and sophistication as a state, which influenced the formation of new settlements on former Roman territories.[37] Byzantine diplomacy drew fledgling states into dependency, creating a network of international and inter-state relations (the oikouménē) dominated by the Empire, utilising Christianity as a tool.[38] This network focused on treaty-making, welcoming new rulers into the family of kings, and assimilating social attitudes, values, and institutions into what Evangelos Chrysos [de] has called a "Byzantine Caliphate".[39] Diplomacy with the Muslim states, however, differed, as a state of war was the norm and centered on war-related matters such as hostages or the prevention of hostilities.[40] Muslims were less open to diplomatic influence due to differences in wealth, culture, and religion.[41]

Initially, the Empire's primary concern was defense against the vastly superior forces of Islam, which threatened its very existence.[42] However, a change in policies by emperors in the 9th and early 10th centuries laid the groundwork for future activity.[42] This change involved halting, reversing, and attacking Muslim power; cultivating relations with Armenians and Rus; and subjugating the Bulgarians.[42] The primary objective of diplomacy was survival, not conquest, and it was fundamentally defensive or as as Dimitri Obolensky has claimed "defensive imperialism".[43] The Empire's strategic location and limited resources constrained its actions.[44] Telemachos Lounghis notes that diplomacy with the West became more challenging from 752/3 and later with the Crusades, as the balance of power shifted.[45] The number and nature of the Empire's neighbors also changed significantly, making the Limitrophe system (satellite states) and the principle of unbalanced power less effective and eventually abandoned.[46] By the 11th century, the Empire changed this core diplomatic principle to one of equality, and Byzantine diplomacy evolved instead to solicit and utilise the emperor's presence.[47]

Complex diplomatic maneuvering is how Michael Palaiologos managed to recover Constantinople in 1261.[48] Despite its weakened state, it was strong in statecraft and in the 13th and 14th centuries, the Empire still acted as the great power of the past, which allowed it to forge a network of alliances.[49] The now more influential Constantinople patriarch also gave the emperor credibility.[49] Militant Islam threatened the state geographically and Latin Christians challenged it economically.[50] Nikolaos Oikonomides claims despite not having a foreign service, it was its efficient foreign relations, not military or economic might, that kept the state alive in the late era.[51]


  • Shepherd, Jonathan; Franklin, Simon, eds. (1990). Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies.
    • Kazhdan, Alexander. "1: The Notion of Byzantine Diplomacy". In Shepherd (1990).
    • Chrysos, Evangelos. "2: Byzantine Diplomacy, AD 300-800". In Shepherd (1990).
    • Shepherd, Jonathan. "3:Byzantine Diplomacy, AD 800-1204". In Shepherd (1990).
    • Oikonomides, Nikolaos. "4:Byzantine Diplomacy, AD 1204-1453". In Shepherd (1990).
    • Kennedy, Hugh. "7:Byzantine-Arab diplomacy in the Near East from the Islamic conquests to the mid eleventh century". In Shepherd (1990).
    • Haldon, John. "18:Blood and ink: some observations on Byzantine attitudes towards warfare and diplomacy". In Shepherd (1990).


Other

  • Whitby M. Byzantine diplomacy: good faith, trust and co-operation in international relations in Late Antiquity. In: de Souza P, France J, eds. War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History. Cambridge University Press; 2008:120-140.
  • Zhang, Yongjin, 'Barbarism and Civilization', in Mlada Bukovansky, and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of History and International Relations, Oxford Handbooks (2023; online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Aug. 2023),
  • Neumann, Iver B. Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary, 2005
  • Howard-Johnston,James. Byzantium and Its Neighbours, The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 2012

Neumann, Iver B. (2006-08). "Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary". Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 34 (3): 865–888. doi:10.1177/03058298060340030201. ISSN 0305-8298. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)


Whitby, Michael (2008-03-13), "Byzantine diplomacy: good faith, trust and co-operation in international relations in Late Antiquity", War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, Cambridge University Press, pp. 120–140, retrieved 2024-07-26

Zhang, Yongjin (2023-08-16), "Barbarism and Civilization", The Oxford Handbook of History and International Relations, Oxford University Press, pp. 218–232, ISBN 978-0-19-887345-7, retrieved 2024-07-26

Haldon, John Frederick. "Blood and ink": some observations on Byzantine attitudes towards warfare and diplomacy . - In: Byzantine Diplomacy p. 281-294. 1990

N. Oikonomides, Byzantine diplomacy, AD 1204-1453: means and ends 1990

Kennedy, Hugh Byzantine-Arab diplomacy


fall of Rome --> Fall of the Western Roman Empire

Current text

After the fall of Rome, the key challenge to the empire was maintaining relations with its neighbours. When these nations set about forging formal political institutions, they were often modeled after Constantinople. Byzantine diplomacy managed to draw its neighbours into a network of international and inter-state relations.[52] This network revolved around treaty-making and included the welcoming of the new ruler into the family of kings and the assimilation of Byzantine social attitudes, values, and institutions.[53] Whereas classical writers are fond of making ethical and legal distinctions between peace and war, Byzantines regarded diplomacy as a form of war by other means. For example, a Bulgarian threat could be countered by providing money to the Kievan Rus'.[54]

Diplomacy was understood to have an intelligence-gathering function on top of its pure political function. The Bureau of Barbarians in Constantinople handled matters of protocol and record-keeping for any issues related to the "barbarians", and thus had, perhaps, a basic intelligence function itself.[55] John B. Bury believes that the office exercised supervision over all foreigners visiting Constantinople, and that they were under the supervision of the Logothetes tou dromou.[56] While on the surface a protocol office—its main duty was to ensure foreign envoys were properly cared for and received sufficient state funds for their maintenance, and it kept all the official translators—it probably had a security function as well.[57]

Byzantines availed themselves of several diplomatic practices. For example, embassies to the capital often stayed on for years. A member of other royal houses would routinely be requested to stay on in Constantinople as a potential hostage as well as a useful pawn in case political conditions changed. Another key practice was to overwhelm visitors with sumptuous displays.[52] According to Dimitri Obolensky, the preservation of the ancient civilisation in Europe could be accredited to the skill and resourcefulness of Byzantine diplomacy, which remains one of Byzantium's lasting contributions to the history of Europe.[58]

New sources and notes

Obolensky

  • the preservation of civilisation in eastern Europe was due to the skill and resourcefulness of Byzantine diplomacy, and Imperial Diplomacy is one of Byzantium's lasting contributions to the history of Europe. p3


Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20051200_cli_paper_dip_issue102.pdf

  • After the fall of Rome, the key challenge to Byzantium was to maintain a set of relations between itself and sundry neighbours that embodied and so maintained its imperial status. These neighbours included the Germanic peoples, the Visigoths in Spain, the Franks and the Lombards, the Huns and the Avars, the Bulgars and the Slavs and also the Arabs. They all lacked a key resource that Byzantium had taken over from Rome, namely a formalised legal structure that could shore up their claim to being an ordered political entity.As the Byzantine historian Evangelos Chrysos points out, when these peoples achieved settlements and set about forging formal political institutions, they were dependent on the empire. p4
  • The road was open for Byzantine diplomacy to draw them into a network of international and inter-state relations which was controlled by the empire. This process revolved around treaty-making, and the treaties often had a formative character for the new states. (beforementioned references Chrysos). p4
  • Chrysos postulates a three-layered process at work.10 First, the new ruler was welcomed into the family of kings.11 Secondly, there was an assimilation of Byzantine social attitudes and values. Thirdly, and as a formalization of the

second layer of the process, there were laws. In order to drive this process, the Byzantines availed themselves of a number of, mostly diplomatic, practices. For example, embassies to Constantinople would often stay on for years. A member of other royal houses would routinely be requested to stay on in Constantinople, not only as a potential hostage, but also as a useful pawn in case political conditions where he came from changed. A key practice, however, was to overwhelm visitors by sumptuous displays p4-5, reference to E. Chrysos, ’Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 300-800: Means and End’

Whitby M. Byzantine diplomacy: good faith, trust and co-operation in international relations in Late Antiquity. In: de Souza P, France J, eds. War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History. Cambridge University Press; 2008:120-140.

  • There were significant developments in the practice of diplomacy during Late Antiquity, especially after the death of Theodosius I in 395 and the virtual cessation for a couple of hundred years of active involvement in warfare by Roman emperor p.122
  • It has been proposed that there was also a more substantive change in the nature of diplomacy, from diplomacy as an adjunct or epilogue to war to diplomacy that sought to substitute itself for war and to treat war not as its precondition but as its outcome. p.123
  • In a sense, however, war as the outcome of unsuccessful diplomacy was embedded in the structures of the Roman Republic through Roman exploitation of the fetial process and Latin literary narratives of diplomatic dealings with Carthage or Hellenistic monarchies; Romans may often have behaved disingenuously in diplomatic exchanges with such opponents, but this underlines the strength of the principle which they were subverting.Accounts of early Sasanid diplomatic demands, if accurate, indicate that this approach was also recognised in Persia, with impossible demands serving as the precursor to hostilities (e.g. Herodian 6.2.2–5; 4.5).12 The fragility of Roman–Persian relations in the sixth century, when short-term considerations counted for most,13 suggests that there had been no fundamental change in diplomatic presuppositions. p123

Byzantium and Its Neighbours, James Howard-Johnston

  • It was only after much complex diplomatic manoeuvring and ghting in the Balkans, that Michael Palaiologos managed to recover Constantinople in 1261, with the vital backing of the Genoese. That event, however, did not signal the reemergence of Byzantium as arbiter of east Mediterranean or Balkan aairs. The reconstituted state was loosely structured, impoverished by comparison with the Komnenian empire, strong only in statecraft (as it showed, most spectacularly, in its successful subversion of Angevin power in Sicily in 1282). p.945
  • Armed as it was from the 670s with Greek Fire p.947
  • Knowledge gathered from scanning the ever-changing neighbouring world was put, on the whole, to good use. Byzantium deserves its popular reputation as a subtle exponent of the dark arts of diplomacy. Guile, however, would have served little purpose without coordination of policy. Given its position, exposed to attack by land and sea from all quarters, and its limited military and naval resources, Byzantium had no choice but to adopt a global approach to foreign policy. Priorities had to be established and resources allocated accordingly. Action might take different forms: major troop or eet deployments on defensive or ofensive campaigns, small expeditionary forces with strictly limited objectives, covert intervention on an even smaller scale, negotiations designed to neutralize or to gain the support of a great power, diplomatic management of small neighbouring powers, and propaganda. Actions of all these sorts had to be harmonized both within and across all arenas of active diplomacy. Coordination of policy and orchestration of action were the keys to Byzantium's survival and subsequent resurgence as a regional power p949
  • For the first two centuries of its medieval existence, the main lines of Byzantium's foreign policy were determined by circumstance. The overriding priority was defence against the greatly superior forces of Islam, since they threatened its very existence. p.949
  • Five initiatives, two of Basil I (867–86) and three of Leo VI (886–912), were of long-lasting signicance, laying down policies which would be pursued over many generations. They were, in chronological order: (i)the decision, originally made by Michael III but conrmed by Basil I, to commit substantial resources to halting and reversing the advance of Muslim power in the central Mediterranean (and incidentally boosting Byzantium's prestige in Italy and transalpine Europe); (ii) Basil's selection of the Arab marches, running south-west from Melitene to Tarsos, as the objective of attack by Byzantine eld armies (the signicance of which was marked by his taking personal charge of operations in 871, 873, and 878); (iii) Leo's replacement of Basil's policy of confrontation with the principal Armenian dynasty of the Bagratids, with one of conciliation and alliance, which was broadened subsequently into a general cultivation of Armenian princes, great and small (a policy which proved disastrous in the short term, since it led to the temporary destruction of the Bagratid state in 914); (iv) Leo's grand oensive against Bulgaria in the early 890s, involving a coordinated attack across the Danube by the Hungarians, which made it plain that, in the long run, Byzantium would not brook the presence of an independent power, albeit now Christianized, in the Balkans; and nally (v) the establishment of good relations with the Rus at the beginning of the tenth century, substantial economic inducements being used to entice them into alliance with Byzantium. p950

Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge The notion of Byzantine diplomacy by Alexander Kazhda

  • Diplomacy of the Byzantine Empire is still an under-researched topic p3
  • Generally speaking, Muslims were less susceptible to diplomacy than to northern and western neighbours due to factors of wealth, culture, and religion. p4
  • There was a shift in 752/3 with east-west relations and later again with the advent of the crusades due to the shifts in power. There was also radical shift from the 14th century in both diplomatic technique and political situation. p5
  • Foreign relations, international relations are not the same as Byzantine diplomacy, the technique of foreign relations. Not what was happening but how it was happening. p6
  • The objective of diplomacy was about survivial not conquest p7 It was defensive p10
  • Political influence (failed) but cultural influence in the north (successful) p8
  • some emperorrs were expansionist: Justinians I, Basil II, Manuel I but they were simply trying to restore rather than expand the empire P10-11
  • The limitrophe was a system of states by the imperial borders that served the defensive needs of the empire p11
  • the concept of a centralised empire surrounded by a string of feodorati that fenced the civilised Romans from the outer world -- other superpowers, persia, illiterates in the north and south -- and a diplomacy based on supremacy p13
  • usage of the father-son terminology outlived the feodorati and was in full swing in the 10th century p15
  • marriage was seldom used form the 4-7th century but then would become more common from the 11th century p17-18
  • from 8-14th, the system of satellites or feodorate principalities was abolished; where the principle of unbalance could not longer be used and changed to soliciting and use of the emperors presence p20
  • the essence of late Roman diplomacy was the establishment of civilised satellites, the oikouménē(Ecumene, whereby Christianity was a major component. It broke, both because of foreign attacks and government intiiative and by the 11th century it abandoned this basic diplomactic principle to be an equal to european states, and it lost this balance in the 14-15th centuries to supplicant p21


E. Chrysos

  • the first period was universalism, 330 to Leo III, for it is commonly accepted the empire comprised of the whole Orbis Romanus, the oikoumene The firmly rooted believed inherited from imperial Rome defines the fundametal aim of Byzantime foreign policy towards its neighbours and consequenrly all foreign policy. p25
  • the second state was to preserve the Heraclean gates to the Tigris but then it became the third stage of defending the narrow territority that was left behind p28
  • oikoumene was ambigious is how it was defined, as previous Roman emperors like Augustus and Hadrian abadoned expansion to create borders p26
  • thus it was very much defensive, or as Obolensky claims "defensive imperialism" p28-29
  • there was a constant need for diplomatic missions: notification of a new Byzantine soverign and confirmation of statu quo of relations; recognition of foreign rulers after their election to power; important announcement such as royal marriages and royal births. Further embassies on news on internal disputes like dynastic issues, regulation of trade; prevention of hostilities or declaration of war; and peace negotiations p32
  • Byzantium had a developed system of norms and concepts for constitutional and public law and was very useful for Byzantie diplomats especially when confronting neighbours who took over former Roman territority but lacked legal structures of state, which in turn had them dependent on Byzantium. It had a formative character on the new states. Until 800 this set the framekwork of relations with Germanic people, visigoths in spain, franks, lombards, huns, later the avars, bulgars, slavs and with the Ummayad Arabs. This has been called the Byzantine caliphate. p33
  • this diplomacy of recognition was not just a nice gesture but decisive in the significance of their formation p36

Jonathan Shepherd

  • Kazhdan emphasises the number and nature of Byzantium's neighbours alters greatly. Around 800, only had to deal with one major power in the east, one power north-east in the form of Khazaria, a fledgling and fissiparous 'empire' in the far west, and in the balkans, a rabble of Slav and semi nomadi chieftains among whom the Bulgar khan alone cut a really formidable figure p43
  • by the mid 12th century, faced a number of potemlates, city states, and unpredictable mass movements (due to the Crusades) whos underlying ecomomic resources, administrative competence and military organisation were in the same league as the Byzantine state p43-44
  • Constantinople was inaccessible and diplomacy exploited the general difficulty to travel to hinder communications and alliance between its neighbours, but this changed by the 12th century as it was not only accessible but in the way such as when western europe travelled to the latin levant. p44
  • political marriages were rare before the 12th century p60
  • the palace and the ceremony was a big part of diplomacy, a sense of one-upmanship, a dispenser of titles and money p61-67

blood and ink

  • The Byzantines prefered to avoid war, with exception to the 10th century, preferring craft, intelligence, wiles, bribery, ideological blackmail and other devices rather than commit themselves to battle p281-282. This was due to the economic and strategic situation of the state -- income was from agriculture and there were plenty of disasters that challenges this already; the empire was surrounded by aggressors and potential enemies p282
  • the expense of defending of the state was enormous even in the 6th century when it had less threats and more resources; the history of the state is one of crisis management and making ends meet p283
  • Byzantium lost its wealthiest provinces during the 7th century, was in constant warfare through much of the 8th and 9th, and it's quest was to newly exploit its old resources p283
  • strategic location and resources constrained the Byzantines and they were not more or less peace loving than their enemies p286
  • the Byzantine administrative state was far more sophisticated and complex with respest to resource extraction and distribution compared to northern and western neighbours until the time of the crusades. this superiority was cultivated in diplomacy, even when outnumbers with men and materials. p289
  • The Arabs presented constsant warefare and this ideological clash it what was do damaging for the empire p290
  • There is a perception that the Byzantines were a diplomatic state than a warring state, which is communicated through their writings and modern historians, but this image as much a polished image than reality. Ultimately, the state fought for its political survival and the competing cultural identities of blood versus ink are symbols for what ultimately was a policy of pragmatism. p294

Oikonomides

  • Despite it's weakeness, in the 14th and 14th centuries, it still acted as the great power of past which allowed it to forge a network of alliances. p.74
  • The patriach of Constantinople had more subjects now than the emperor, but due to its loyalty to the emperor, it gave the emperor more credibility p.74
  • Two pivots and one theme of Palaeologan foreign policy was was religion at the center of all activity. The Turkish threat, militant muslim threatened the existance of the state; and the Latin Christians who were economic rather than geographic threats, and who unanimously adamant to submit to the church of Rome. p75
  • it was efficient management of foreign relations, not military or economic might, they kept the state alive in this late era. p75-76
  • Byzantium never had a foreign service p77

MARTIN ARBAGI, WrightState University, review https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=history

  • Hugh Kennedy makes the surprising observation that Byzantine diplomacy with the Arabs was largely restricted o negotiations for exchanges of prisonersof war, truces,and other short-term issues. There was little attempt at "creating]the conditions. for longer terms ecurity" (p. 133)
  • agree with Oikonomides' remark that especially in periods where military victories were few or entirely absent,"the survival of the empire all this time was .. . due to its efficient foreign policy and to its efficient diplomacy"(p. 88).
sources used

[52]

Army

Main article: Byzantine army

In the 5th century the East was fielding five armies of ~20,000 each in two army branches: stationary frontier units (limitanei) and mobile forces (comitatenses).[59]

  • Rewritten, added a third source

In the 6th century, Anthony Kaldellis claims the fiscally stretched Empire could only handle one major enemy at a time.[60]

  • Rewritten. opinion. Enough for it to be one source if called out,

The Islamic conquests between 634 and 642 led to significant changes, transforming the 4th-7th centuries field forces into provincialised militia-like units with a core of professional soldiers.[61]

  • Could do with a third source

The state shifted the burden of supporting the armies onto local populations and wove them into the tax system, with provinces evolving into military regions known as themata.[62]

  • Third source added

The military structure would diversify to include militia-like soldiers tied to regions, professional thematic forces (tourmai), and imperial units mostly based in Constantinople (tagmata).[63]

  • Rewritten, added a second source

Foreign mercenaries also increasingly became employed, including the better-known Tagma unit, the Varangian Guard, that guarded the emperor.[64]

  • Added a new second source

The defence-orientated thematic militias were gradually replaced with more specialised offensive field armies but also to counter the generals who would rebel against the emperor.[65]

  • Third source added

When the Empire was expanding, the state began to commute thematic military service for cash payments: in the 10th century, there were 6000 Varangians, another 3000 foreign mercenaries and when including paid and unpaid citizen soldiers, the army on paper was 140,000 (an expeditionary force was 15,000 soldiers and field armies seldom were more than 40,000).[66]}

  • third source added, new facts

The thematic forces faded into insignificance --the government relying on the tagmata, mercenaries and allies instead -- and which led to neglect of defensive capability[67]

  • second source added

Mercenary armies would further fuel political divisions, civil wars, and significant losses such as last of Italy and the Anatolian heartland in the 11th century.[68]

  • rewritten

Major military and fiscal reforms under the emperors of the Komnenian dynasty after 1081 re-established a modest-sized, adequately compensated and competent army.[63] However, the costs were not sustainable and the structural weaknesses of the Komnenian approach --namely, the reliance on fiscal exemptions called pronoia) -- unraveled after the end of the reign of Manuel I (r. 1143–1180).[67]

  • added Treadgold as second sources, rewrite

The rulers of the Empire of Nicaea that retook the capital and the Palaiologos that ruled until 1453, built on the Komnenian foundation initially with four types of military units -- the Thelematarii (volunteer soldiers), Gasmouloi and the Southern Peloponnese Tzacones/Lakones (marines), and Proselontes/Prosalentai (oarsmen) -- but similarly could not sustain it, largely relying on mercenaries for soldiers and fiscal exemptions to pronoiars who provided a small force of largely the cavalry.[63]

  • Rewrote, added second source Treadhold

Over time, the distinction between field troops and garrison units eventually disappeared as resources were strained.[69]

The frequent civil wars further drained the Empire, now increasingly instigated by foreigners such as the Serbs and Turks to win concessions, and the emperors were dependent on mercenaries to keep control all the while dealing with the impact of the Black Death.[70]

  • rewrite, added third source

The strategy of employing mercenary Turks to fight civil wars was repeatedly used by emperors and led to the same outcome: subordination to the Turks.[71]


[72]

[73]

Byzantine navy The navy was one of the most powerful forces in the Mediterranean, dominating the eastern Mediterranean when it ended the challenge of Arab naval hegemony first posed in the 650s and was the case until the Venetians and Genoans caught up in the 11th century [74] The navy's patrols, in addition to chains of watchtowers and fire signals that warned inhabitants of threats, created the coastal defense for the Empire and were the responsibility of two themes (Cibirriote and the thema for the islands) and an imperial fleet that comprised of mercenaries like the Norsemen and Russians that later became Varangians.[75]

A new type of war gallery, the dromon, appeared early in the sixth century.[76] A variant, the chelandion, appeared during the reign of Justinian II r. 685–711 and it could be used to transport cavalry.[77] The gallery's were designed to do coastal navigation and supplies allowed 3-4 days of travel, equipped with Greek fire for their patrols, which put a check on Arab pirates.[78] They were the most advanced galleries on the Mediterranean until the 10th century development of the galeai which replaced them in the 12th century, which is also when the word katergon became the standard word for war gallary later used by other states. [79]

The Fleet was disbanded in 1284 and attempts were made to build it back later but Italian sea states sabottaged the effort. [80]

p812. Attempts were made to build it back later but Italian sea states sabottaged the effort and . p860-861

Cibyrrhaeot

Imterial

Two districts, the Cibirriote theme on the South coast of Asia Minor, and the theme of the Islands, were responsible for the provision of the naval force of the Mediterranean fleet (p16 varangians)


The army during the 10th century were likely the most capable and effective in the history of the eastern Roman Empire. p562 Kaldellis

Imperial naval forces were likewise completely restructured over the same period (later 8th), with the establishment of several provincial fleets for coastal defence, since Arab warships had begun to pose a serious naval challenge to the empire from the 650s (Haldon 1997: 208–53 and 1999: 79; Whittow 1996: 113–25).


. 

References to the navy 680 but stop in c.730 p 432.)

Venetians and the Genoans gradually caught up with the Byzantine marine power 11th century varangians 29

The fleet of the naval era was divided into two main sections: the Imperial fleet and the fleet of the themes. The former was organized into two divisions, one for the personal use of the Emperor and Empress, and for the defence of the capital, the other for use on regular military expeditions and for policing the seas against pirates. The fleet of the themes was kept up at the charge of various maritime themes, particularly those of the Greek islands (Aegea, Samos, Cephalonia), Greece and the Cibirriote theme in Asia Minor. p29 varangians

Merceneries were employed, and the navy is how Russians or norsemen would start their service. p30


Phocades lunch wars when the empire ewas preoccupied with foreign wars (1070s). 585 Kaldellis

There wer about 64,000 seamen during the time of Diocletion, half in the East. pge 44 Treadgold

Investment in the naby began because of the Arabs p.393. In 673, the Arab feelt was destroyed (p399). the loss of the fleet ended Arab naval hegemony. Page 442 References to the navy 680 but stop in c.730 p 432.

The navy performed regular patrols with Greek fire. pge 502.

4000 marines were recruited in the 9th century. p 618

The navy was inferior to the army in the 12 century p841

The Fleet was disbanded in 1284 p812. Attempts were made to build it back later but Italian sea states sabottaged the effort and . p860-861

Cibyrrhaeot Theme

John Pryor, Shipping and Seafaring , Oxford handbook


Notes

Naval units for maritime and riverine operations were stationed at key Balkan and Syrian ports, the former part of a special arrangement established by Justinian known as the quaestura exercitus, whereby naval and land forces along the Danube were supplied and provisioned from the Aegean region by sea (Dixon and Southern 1996; Elton 1996; Jones 1964: 607–86; Lee 1998; Whitby 2000).

Imperial naval forces were likewise completely restructured over the same period (later 8th), with the establishment of several provincial fleets for coastal defence, since Arab warships had begun to pose a serious naval challenge to the empire from the 650s (Haldon 1997: 208–53 and 1999: 79; Whittow 1996: 113–25).

Likewise, the navy was a direct continuation of its classical Roman predecessor, but played a far greater role in the defence and survival of the state than its earlier iteration. While the fleets of the Roman Empire faced few great naval threats, operating as a policing force vastly inferior in power and prestige to the army, command of the sea became vital to the very existence of the state, which has led several historians to call it a "maritime empire".

Kaldellis

  • Page 442 the loss of the fleet ended Arab naval hegemony.
  • Page 454 The army thus acquired two tiers: the fully professional soldiers of these new battalions (tagmata), who were better paid and stationed in Constantinople, and the provincial armies of Asia Minor, which were descended from the field armies of the fourth–seventh centuries and were now increasingly being called themata.
  • Page 479 Thus the “theme system” finally emerged as a unified framework for provincial and military administration.
Overview Roman army Navy General
Early
Middle
Late


Central government

Outline

What's needed

  • One paragraph on the emperor
    • their power, and how power transitioned
  • An analytical contrast between the periods up to the Arab wars; the Issurian, Macedonian and the Komenean eras; the 1204-1453 era.
    • Coverage of the debated Themata
  • A discussion about the bureaucracy, aristocracy
    • In the 13th century, the landed aristocracy became the merchant class.
Outline

Kaldellis

  • Cities were run by a local council, central government representatives, and now their bishops. P.185
  • P.189: blues and green replaced the imperial cult to legitimise rule. Constantinople and public space created a political codependence.
  • P. 222 the public space was a key component of what made Romania different. The emperor could not sell the empire. Discussed Anastasius accession the most detailed account we have
  • Soldiers got a bonus every time a new emperor elected.
  • P.229 talks about scholarship, the pride but decline of cities, not the case.
  • P 296 Central government peak decade before 572
  • P.338 phokas. First military overthrow since the third century
  • P. 387 empire had lost 75% of revenues
  • P.396 city councils became extinct c 600
  • P.408 cities was kastra not polis, a sign of the timee
  • P.409. Local city governace decline except bishops and army managed centrally from constantinople. Arab destruction
  • P.421. Themata
  • P.421. Farming and soldiers core to empire. Leo vi
  • army was stationed closer to the capital and more enmeshed in its politics with an overthrow every 20 years

P.441. C727


Revised text

From 364 CE, Themistius began to express court ideology that emperors were considered νόμος ἔμψυχος, nómos émpsychos, the "living law" (also Lex Animata).[81][82]This is a platonic concept codified by Justinan, used to distinguish emperors from the principate, and along with the church's independence by Constantine would shape early modern political thought.[83][84][81][85][86] The proclamations of the crowds of Constantinople, and the inaugurations of the patriarch from 457 CE, would legitimise the rule of an emperor.[87] The senate had its own identity but became an extension of the emperor's court, and by 1204 the Komnenian aristocracy formally replaced the senatorial order.[88] The central government likely was at its peak power in the decade before 572.[89]

The reign of Phocas (r. 602–610) was the first military overthrow since the third century, one of 43 emperors violently removed.[90] The army stationed closer to the capital had it more enmeshed in its politics.[91] There were nine dynasties between Heraclius in 610 and 1453, however only 30 of those 843 years was the empire not ruled by men linked by blood or kinship (largely due to the practice of co-emperorship).[92]

As a result of the Diocletianic–Constantinian reforms, the army was separate from the civil administration.[93] This remained in place until the 7th century, when it was divided into provinces, ruled by civil governors appointed by the emperor but responsible to the relevant praetorian prefect.[94] The provinces were grouped into four prefectures, and the army was being organised separately.[94] The Empire was divided into districts called themata at the end of the eight century, governed by a military commander called a strategos that oversaw the civil and military administration.[94] During the reign of Leo VI (r. 886–912), farmers and soldiers were more closely linked and is when supporting the army was woven into the tax system.[95]

Cities had their own governance. They were run by a local council, central government representatives, and their bishops.[96] The Arab destruction primarily changed this, with a decline in city councils from the 7th century but which also occurred in Italy due to the Lombard destruction.[97]




P.189: blues and green replaced the imperial cult to legitimise rule. Constantinople and public space created a political codependence. P. 222 the public space was a key component of what made Romania different. The emperor could not sell the empire. Discussed Anastasius accession the most detailed account we have Soldiers got a bonus every time a new emperor elected. P.229 talks about scholarship, the pride but decline of cities, not the case. P 296 Central government peak decade before 572 P.338 phokas. First military overthrow since the third century P. 387 empire had lost 75% of revenues P.396 city councils became extinct c 600 P.408 cities was kastra not polis, a sign of the timee P.409. Local city governace decline except bishops and army managed centrally from constantinople. Arab destruction P.421. Themata P.421. Farming and soldiers core to empire. Leo vi army was stationed closer to the capital and more enmeshed in its politics with an overthrow every 20 years


Largely based on Emperor Diocletian's Dominate reforms in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, the monarch was the sole and absolute ruler, and his power was regarded as having divine origin.[98][99] From Justinian I on, the emperor was considered nomos empsychos, the "living law", both lawgiver and administrator.[100] The senate had ceased to have real political and legislative authority but remained as an honorary council with titular members, resembling an emergency or ceremonial meeting made up of powerful Constantinopolitan aristocrats, very often friends and relatives of the emperor. By the end of the 8th century, a civil administration focused on the court was formed as part of a large-scale consolidation of power in the capital (the rise to pre-eminence of the position of sakellarios is related to this change).[101] As a result of the different Orthodox and Hellenistic political philosophies, from Justinian onwards, an administrative simplification was given way for the emperor's easier management of the state as the sole administrator and lawgiver of the sacred Oikoumene.[102] Definitive powers began to be attached around single entities who acted as viceroys, starting with the exarchs and their Justinianic-era predecessors stratelates who shared the extraordinary powers of the emperor in their respective districts and only answered to him, they also being appointed by the sovereign directly.

The most important administrative reform, which probably started in the mid-7th century, was the creation of themes, where civil and military administration were embodied in a single person, the strategos, who, as the emperor's viceroy, shared his extraordinary powers in their respective "thémata", they too being also appointed by the emperor alone. The void left by the disappearance of the old semi-autonomous civic institutions was filled by the theme system, which entailed dividing Asia Minor into "provinces" occupied by distinct armies that assumed civil authority and answered directly to the imperial administration. This system may have had its roots in ad hoc measures taken by Heraclius, but over the course of the 7th century it developed into an entirely new system of imperial governance.[103][104][105] The massive cultural and institutional restructuring of the empire consequent on the loss of territory in the 7th century has been said to have caused a decisive break in east Mediterranean Romanness, and that the Byzantine state is subsequently best understood as another successor state rather than a real continuation of the Roman Empire.[106]

Despite the occasionally derogatory use of the terms "Byzantine" and "Byzantinism", the Byzantine bureaucracy had a distinct ability of adapting to the empire's changing situations. The elaborate system of titulature and precedence gave the court prestige and influence. Officials were arranged in strict order around the emperor and depended upon the royal will for their ranks. There were also actual administrative jobs, but authority could be vested in individuals rather than offices.[107]

In the 8th and 9th centuries, civil service constituted the clearest path to aristocratic status. However, beginning from the 9th century, the civil aristocracy was rivaled by an aristocracy of nobility. According to some studies of the Byzantine government, 11th-century politics were dominated by competition between the civil and the military aristocracy. During this period, Alexios I undertook important administrative reforms, including the creation of new courtly dignities and offices.[108]

Sources used
  • Yale Courses. "08. Survival in the East". Youtube. Archived from the original on 30 October 2023. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
    • General overview by Yale professor. Not a written source, remove.
  • Mango 2007, pp. 259–260
    • Greek version of 1980 book.
  • Nicol 1988, pp. 64–65.
    • Nicol reference in the The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350–c.1450. The chapter is written by Nicol. Text: "From Justinian I on, the emperor was considered nomos empsychos, the "living law", both lawgiver and administrator" is appropriate except it did not start at Justinian, was used with Theodosius at least
      • Nicol, D.M. “Byzantine Political Thought.” The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350–c.1450. Ed. J. H. Burns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 49–80. Print. The Cambridge History of Political Thought.
      • P63: emperor was elective. Nine dynasties between Heraclius in 610 and 1453, only 30 of those 843 years was the empire not ruled by men linked by blood or kingship. In 457, with Leo I, the patriach inaugurated every emperor thereafter except for the last few.
      • p64: 43 emperors were violently removed
      • p64 hellenisic thought is that emperor was the living law (Nomos empsychos), a survival of ancient roman law that emperor was above the law.
      • p67 emperor was the source of human law and nature
  • Louth, Andrew (2005). "The Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century". In Fouracre, Paul (ed.). The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 1, c.500–c.700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 289–316. ISBN 978-1-13905393-8.
    • p.303. Up until the 7th century, it was the same state from Diocletian and Constantine. At the beginning of the seventh century the Empire was divided into provinces that were ruled by civil governors who, though appointed by the emperor, were responsible to the relevant praetorian prefect (the provinces being grouped into four prefectures), the army being organised quite separately. at the end of the eighth century the Empire was divided into districts called themes (thema, themata), which were governed by a military commander called a strategos (general) who was responsible for both the civil and military administration of the province, and directly responsible to the emperor.
    • Civil administration pp 304-306
      • There were prefectures as well departments called res privata and sacrae largitiones, administered by counts (comites), who belonged to the imperial court (the comitatus). The comes rei privatae was responsible for all land and property belonging to the state. The comes sacrarum largitionum controlled the mints, the gold (and probably silver) mines and the state factories in which arms and armour were decorated with precious metals. The praetorian prefects were responsible for the fiscal administration of the prefectures, into which the Empire was divided. These prefectures consisted of provinces, governed by governors (with various titles), and were themselves grouped into dioceses, governed by vicarii.
      • By the end of the eighth century, the fiscal administration was organised rather differently. The distinction between the public and the ‘sacred’ (i.e. pertaining to the person of the emperor) had gone, and instead of the res privata, the sacrae largitiones and the prefectures, there were several departments, or sekreta, of more or less equal status, all subject to the emperor through an official called the sakellarios. The heads of these departments consisted of three administrators: the Postal Logothete (logothetes tou dromou), who dealt with the post, diplomacy and internal security, the General Logothete, in charge of the genikon logothesion, who dealt with finance, and the Military Logothete, in charge of the stratiotikon logothesion, who dealt with military pay. There were two treasurers: the chartoularios of the sakellion, in charge of cash and most charitable institutions, and the chartoularios of the vestiarion, in charge of the mint and the arsenal. And there were the heads of state establishments: the Special Secretary (epi tou eidikou), in charge of factories; the Great Curator (megas kourator), in charge of the palaces and imperial estates; and the orphanotrophos, in charge of orphanages. In addition there was an official called the protoasekretis, in charge of records. Directly responsible to the emperor, and independent of the sakellarios, were the principal magistrates, the City Prefect (responsible for Constantinople), the quaestor (in charge of the judiciary), and the Minister for Petitions (who dealt with petitions to the emperor). We also see the use of Greek instead of Latin, thought this dates back to Justinian so is a more superficial change
      • The position of the sakellarios perhaps gives a clue to the nature of the changes. In charge of the emperor’s personal treasury, this official’s rise to pre-eminence was a function of his closeness to the emperor and suggests a change from an essentially public administration, determined in its structure by the need to administer a far-flung empire, to an administration focussed on the court, in which the Empire is almost reduced to the extent of imperial command. The background to this is, of course, the dramatic shrinking of the Empire in the first half of the seventh century. a period of overlap, in which the new administration emerged, while the old administration still retained some of its functions. However the whole picture only emerges when we consider the changes in the military administration.
    • Military administration pp 306-308
      • As a result of the Diocletianic–Constantinian reforms the Roman army was separated from the civil administration, so that governors of provinces no longer commanded a provincial army (though they were still responsible for raising funds to support the army). The army was divided into two parts: there were troops protecting the borders, the limitanei, under the command of duces, and there was a field army, the comitatenses, which was mobile, organised in divisions under the command of the magistri militum. In addition there were the palace troops, and the imperial bodyguard, whose titles changed throughout the fifth and sixth centuries. By the end of the ninth century, there had emerged a quite different system, with the army divided into divisions called themata (or themes), based in provinces also called themes, each under the command of a strategos, who was responsible for both the civil and military government of his

theme.

      • There is no general agreement about how quickly this change took place, nor why (whether it was the result of some planned reorganisation, or simply a fumbling reaction to the problems of the seventh and eighth centuries). There is, however, general dissent from the theory, which once commanded much support, associated with the name of the great Byzantinist George Ostrogorsky, who saw the thematic army as the result of a deliberate reorganisation of the army and the Empire by the emperor Heraclius.
      • Refer to Kaldellis for latest on themata as this book is 2005
    • Legal administration pp 308-309
      • The explanation for this lack of legislative activity in the secular sphere is probably to be found by recalling the dual nature of Roman legislation: not only a body of rules governing day-to-day behaviour, but more importantly a way of enunciating the world-view and set of values
    • religion and the church pp 309-316
  • Neville 2004, p. 7: Neville, Leonora Alice (2004). Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950–1100. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83865-8.
    • Page 8: quotes Haldon (warfare, state and society), discuss themata became irreleant. Mentions 11th soliders no longer supported themselves from their land, but ratehr taxes from their land paid the military. Professionalism increased success in the 10th century,
  • Davies, Brian (March 1976). "Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God. pp. 232. (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.) No price given". Religious Studies. 12 (1): 125–128. doi:10.1017/s0034412500009094. ISSN 0034-4125. S2CID 170429521. Archived from the original on 31 August 2022. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
    • 1903 book. Page references to bibliography. Cut.
  • Heather 2005, p. 431: Heather, Peter (2005). The Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-49136-5. Archived from the original on 30 May 2016. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
    • Can't access. See if reference statement matters if worth it.
  • Cameron 2009, pp. 157–158
    • This source is a published book.Cameron, Averil (2002). "The 'long' late antiquity: a twentieth-century model". In Wiseman, T. P. (ed.). Classics in progress: Essays on ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 165–191. Archived from the original on 9 February 2024. Retrieved 12 December 2023.This source is a published book.

——— (2006). The Byzantines. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9833-2.This source is a published book. ——— (2009). Οι Βυζαντινοί (in Greek). Athens: Psychogios.

  • Neville 2004, p. 34: see above
  • Neville 2004, p. 13: see above


Existing text expanded, rewritten: WP:SS and WP:V. Women. Rename Socioecomomic?

Agriculture was the main basis of taxation and the state sort to bind everyone to land for productivity[109] The emperor held the largest landownership, with senators after that; Local city councillors were typically the richest in their respective areas, though there would be a noticeable disparity between smaller and larger towns.[110] In an economic sense, a middle class existed, comprising merchants, smaller landowners, and artisans, yet it never coalesced as a distinct class.[111] Most land consisted of small and medium-sized lots, with family farms serving as the primary source of agriculture.[112] The status of the Coloni once referred to as proto-serfs but actually, free citizens remains a subject of historical debate.[113] Slaves would have been rare after the 7th century, primarily urban, with their socio-economic status tied principally to their masters.[114]

Inheritance rights were well developed, including for all women.[115] It may have been what prevented the emergence of large properties and a hereditary nobility capable of intimidating the state.[114] The prevalence of widows meant that women often controlled family assets as heads of households and businesses, contributing to the rise of some empresses to power.[116] Women were major taxpayers, landowners and as petitioners to the imperial court seeking resolution for primarily property-related disputes [117]

While women shared the same socio-economic status as men, they faced legal discrimination and had limitations in economic opportunities and vocations.[118] Prohibited from serving as soldiers, holding political office, or assuming Church roles, women essentially were assigned household responsibilities which were labour intensive.[119] They also worked in professions, such as in the food and textile industry, as medical staff, in public baths, had a heavy presence in retail, and were practicing members of artisan guilds.[120] They also worked in disreputable occupations: entertainers, tavern keepers, and prostitutes, allegedly where some saints and empresses originated from[121] Women participated in public life, engaging in social events such as dancing at festivals, processions, protests and attending the Hippodrome.[114] Women's rights would not be better in comparative societies, nor western Europe or America until the 19th century.[122]

In 741, marriage had become a Christian institution, and no longer a private contract.[123] Monogamy had been a Roman definition of marriage, but Christianity introduced a prohibition in divorce and sexual relations outside of marriage, bringing a change in power relations with slavery[124] Marriage was considered an institution to sustain the population, transfer property rights, support the elderly family, and the empress Theodora had said it was needed to restrict sexual hedonism.[125] Women usually married at ages 15-20, and were used as a way to connect men and create economic benefit among families[126] The societal norm dictated that women should bear up to six children, yet only 2-3 were expected to survive.[127] Divorce could be done by mutual consent but would be restricted over time, such as only if joining a convent.[128]

Education maintained a standard and a continuation from the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman era's, and right through the Byzantine era.[129] Education was voluntary but required financial means to attend.[130] There is no evidence that women were catered for.[131] It's more likely that boys and girls, whose families could afford it, had private tutoring at home.[131]


Unvalidated

= Sources =

Validated

-- For example, Monogamy had been an Ancient Roman definition of marriage, but Christianity introduced a prohibition in divorce and sexual relations outside of marriage, with the latter to prevent sexual relationships with slaves. [124]. ---

"Critical study of gender in Byzantium has received sustained, if dispersed, attention since the publication of the groundbreaking collection of essays in 1997, Women, Men, and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, edited by Liz James. That publication was preceded by extensive foundational work on “women’s history” (by Alice-Mary Talbot, Angeliki Laiou, and Judith Herrin, among others), which focused largely on identifying evidence of women’s lives in Byzantium and incorporating their stories into existing master narratives...Leonora Neville’s Byzantine Gender builds from existing scholarship, including her own exceptional contributions to this still-emerging subfield." https://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=hart_pubs

Women

Sources used in existing text

Guglielmo Cavallo: The Byzantines Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine 1997/ Guglielmo Cavallo. Guglielmo Cavallo (born 18 August 1938 in Carovigno) is an Italian palaeographer and Byzantinist, Emeritus Professor of the Sapienza University of Rome.

  • Chapter on women is by Alice Mary-Talbot.
  • Discussion about the two extremes women were viewed: temptress "Eve", and Virgin Mary, the mother of God (p.117-118)
  • briefly on legislation: favourable inheritance (p.119), discrimination (legal status, freedom of movement, education: p.118) in divorce and in court (p.119)
  • discussions the three phases of a womans life: as girls, marriage and motherhood, and old-age and widowhood
      • Girls did not attend regular school, home tutored or at convents. Spent most of their time home learning the ways of a household. p.120
      • marriage common at 15-20 but cases of even earlier, and usually arranged, economic and family connections paramount (p.121) The only way out of this path was being in a convent. (p122) Life expectancy was 35. (p.121) The dowry was an important part of the marriage. (p.122) High infant mortality was an big factor that shaped decisions (like young at marriage) (p.121) and lives (breastfeeding acted as contraceptive, mortality p.124). Running the housdhold was time consuming: food made from scratch, cosmetics were made, all garment making, child care; high income has more help, country side additional work with the garden (p.126-127). Discusses clothing, divorce, violence, adultery -- men had it better, women often would go to the convent due to these issues. (p.127-128)
      • old age: women peaked here: no longer sexual objects, better financial control over dowries, likely widows. 20% households headed by women (14th century Macedonia)
  • Segregation.
    • Young women were protected for their virginity and reputation. Older women, it depends on social status and century, but women were often outside and it was only the richer women who were secluded.
    • women worked (p130-131) and usually it was an extension of their house work like cleaning, textiles, cooking. There is evidence that they were members of guilds like the silk makers and the cloth maker. Active in retail both as work and consumers.
    • Other categories are health related services, and disreputable occupations: prostitution, entertainers, tavern keepers. p131.
    • women were active in the church and its activities
  • Discusses monastic life of women and empresses patronage of the arts and nunneries.

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL19696591W/The_Byzantines?edition=ia%3Abyzantines0000unse_o0m1

Paul Stephenson: The Byzantine World Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine 20 December 2010. Paul Stephenson is Professor in the Department of History at the University of Durham and a specialist in the early and middle Byzantine periods.

Marcus Louis Rautman:Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine 30 Mar 2006. MARCUS RAUTMAN is Professor and Department Chair of the Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Missouri, Columbia

Jonathan Harris: Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine 9 February 2017. Jonathan Harris (historian) Jonathan Harris is professor of the History of Byzantium at Royal Holloway, University of London.


Lynda Garland: Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience 800–1200. Professor at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on female images in the Late Antiquity period and Byzantine Society.

Key themes to cover from existing text

  • Women's education --> --> new section for education (men and women)
  • Marriage/Divorce --> revamp and put in socioeconomic
  • Other Legal rights --> move to socioeconomic and compare to men)
  • Segregation --> can cover in socioeconomic
  • Inheritance and money --> can cover in socioeconomic classes
  • Professions --> can cover in socioeconomic classes
Existing text
Main article: Women in the Byzantine Empire

The position of women in the Byzantine Empire essentially represents the position of women in ancient Rome transformed by the introduction of Christianity, with certain rights and customs being lost and replaced, while others were allowed to remain. There were individual Byzantine women famed for their educational accomplishments. However, the general view of women's education was that it was sufficient for a girl to learn domestic duties and to study the lives of the Christian saints and memorize psalms,[133] and to learn to read so that she could study Bible scriptures—although literacy in women was sometimes discouraged because it was believed it could encourage vice.[134]

The Roman right to divorce was gradually erased after the introduction of Christianity and replaced with legal separation and annulment. Marriage was regarded as the ideal state for a woman, and only convent life was seen as a legitimate alternative. Within marriage, sexual activity was regarded only as a means of reproduction. Women had the right to appear before court, but her testimony was not regarded as equal to that of a man and could be contradicted based on her sex if put against that of a man.[133]

From the 6th century there was a growing ideal of gender segregation, which dictated that women should wear veils[132] and only be seen in public when attending church,[135] and while the ideal was never fully enforced, it influenced society. The laws of Emperor Justinian I made it legal for a man to divorce his wife for attending public premises such as theatres or public baths without his permission,[136] and Emperor Leo VI banned women from witnessing business contracts with the argument that it caused them to come in contact with men.[133] In Constantinople, upper-class women were increasingly expected to keep to a special women's section (gynaikonitis),[135] and by the 8th century it was described as unacceptable for unmarried daughters to meet unrelated men.[133] While imperial women and their ladies appeared in public alongside men, women and men at the imperial court attended royal banquets separately until the rise of the Komnenos dynasty in the 12th century.[135]

Eastern Roman and later Byzantine women retained the Roman woman's right to inherit, own and manage their property and signs contracts,[135] rights which were far superior to the rights of married women in Medieval Catholic Western Europe, as these rights included both married women as well as unmarried women and widows.[136] Women's legal right to handle their own money made it possible for rich women to engage in business, however women who actively had to find a profession to support themselves normally worked as domestics or in domestic fields such as the food or textile industry.[136] Women could work as medical physicians and attendants of women patients and visitors at hospitals and public baths with government support.[134]

After the introduction of Christianity, women could no longer become priestesses, but it became common for women to found and manage nunneries, which functioned as schools for girls as well as asylums, poor houses, hospitals, prisons and retirement homes for women, and many Byzantine women practised social work as lay sisters and deaconesses.[135]

Languages
  • Beckwith 1993, p. 171 -- not available on google books
  • Halsall 1998; discuss Erh-Shih-ssu Shih. nothing useful for language. website no longer live.
  • Oikonomides 1999, p. 20; French. Oikonomides is heavily referenced by Kaldellis. Translation page 20: "In Constantinople, all languages are spoken"
  • Harris 2014, p. 12. Armenia, GeorgianM Russian, Arab, Italian in city but the pattern also beyond. particularly Armenian and Slavonic in provinces
  • Beaton 1996, p. 10; latin, syriac, coptic, church slavonic, armenian, georigian, slavic
  • Jones 1986, p. 991; bad link, volume 2: https://archive.org/details/JonesLaterRomanEmpire02/page/n235/mode/2up page 991 (volume 2) is a good reference to how Greek was used in church debates. 991 also talks about Syriac adopted by local churches for liturgy, was a literary language. 992 Phoenician and Berber. 993 Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic. Reference to page 997 which concludes the majority were illiterate and spoke other languages than greek and latin,
  • Versteegh 1977, Chapter 1; page 1 says lower strata would speak Aramaic (eg, Syriac) or Coptic. Greek for the educated.
  • Campbell 2000, p. 40; remove source, not relevant.
  • Hacikyan et al. 2002, Part 1. history of armenia, not relevant.
  • Kaldellis 2007, Chapter 6; page 95, not a multi-ethnic state, everyone was assimilated.
  • Nicol 1993, Chapter 5. multil-lingual but Greek bound everyone. p1-2


Transition into an eastern Christian empire

Roman Citizenship was extended to people with no direct territorial claim to the city of Rome which had enormous significance.[137] In 212, it was extended across the entire empire, affecting two-thirds of its population and fundamentally changing its nature.[138]


By the second century CE, Greek culture had redefined Roman identity. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43767621

The Constitutio Antoniniana is considered a turning point by some modern historians. It occurred in 212 and is when Caracalla granted citizenship across the entire Empire. Roman citizenship was an innovation of the Roman state, where people with no direct territorial claim to the city of Rome could have it.[139] However, the decision in 212 would affect two-thirds of the Empire's population, fundamentally changing its nature.[140] For example, in 249, Decius required all subjects to make a public sacrifice to the gods for the Empire, which following 212 was unprecedented in scale and marks the progression towards uniform religious practice.[141]

Diocletian's constitutional reforms from 284 reconfigured the reforms by Augustus that created the principate, seen as forming a new state.[142] Constantine's support for Christianity and moving the imperial seat east changed the power structures forever. For example, the formation of the Constantinople Senate gave the East political independence.[142] Theodosius issued a series of edicts essentially banning pagan religion. Pagan festivals and sacrifices were banned, as was access to all pagan temples and places of worship.[143] The last Olympic Games are believed to have been held in 393.[144]

By the second century CE, Hellenic culture had heavily impacted Roman identity.[145] On top of this, the theological debates in the Christian Church increased the importance of the Greek language, making it highly dependent on Hellenic thought.[146] It enabled philosophy like Neoplatonism to loom large on Christian theology.[147] Despite this, Anthony Kaldellis views Christianity as bringing no economic, social, or political changes to the state other than being more deeply integrated into it.[148]

Previous text Mary Beard distinguishes the history of ancient Rome up until 212 to be different to the era that follows, "effectively a new state masquerading under an old name".[149] Anthony Kaldellis says Rome went from an empire to a world and this decision would later underpin the enforcement of uniform religious belief.[141] Diocletian's reforms half a century later are considered to be so far reaching that it formed a new empire.[142]

Constantine, who had moved the imperial seat to the east, favoured Christianity after his conversion in 312; despite a lack of personal interest, he took an active role in theological debates and convened the First Council of Nicaea to address the Arian controversy.[150] Constantine's dynasty fought a lengthy conflict against Sasanid Persia and ended in 363 with the death of his son-in-law Julian, a pagan who futilely attempted to reverse the Christianization of the empire, after a failed expedition.[151] In 391 and 392 Theodosius I issued a series of edicts essentially banning pagan religion. Pagan festivals and sacrifices were banned, as was access to all pagan temples and places of worship.[143] The last Olympic Games are believed to have been held in 393.[144]

Although polytheism had been suppressed by the state since at least the time of Theodosius I in the 4th century, traditional Greco-Roman culture was still influential in the Eastern empire in the 6th century.[152] Hellenistic philosophy began to be gradually amalgamated into newer Christian philosophy. Philosophers such as John Philoponus drew on neoplatonic ideas in addition to Christian thought and empiricism. Because of the active paganism of its professors, Justinian closed down the Neoplatonic Academy in 529. Other schools continued in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, which were the centres of Justinian's empire.[153] Hymns written by Romanos the Melodist marked the development of the Divine Liturgy, while the architects Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles worked to complete the Hagia Sophia, one of the major monuments of Byzantine architectural history.[154] During the 6th and 7th centuries, the empire was struck by a series of epidemics, which devastated the population and contributed to a significant economic decline and a weakening of the empire.[155] Great bathhouses were built in Byzantine centres such as Constantinople and Antioch.[156]

Slavery

Chapter two addresses the international dimensions of Byzantine slavery: that is, war captives and the slave trade. The two were intimately linked and shaped by relations with the Muslim world. As captivity increasingly involved being enslaved by people of another faith, Rotman detects a growing interest on the part of the state in securing the recognition of captured Chris tians' free status—by placing limits on the trade of core ligionists, but also by upholding the validity of their marriages, and by facilitating their recovery of freedom, whether through the exchange of captives or by placing conditions on those who purchased them (if captives could not repay their purchase price, they did not simply remain slaves, but had to be paid a salary until they could repurchase their freedom

Chapter three Rotman sees a move, with a particular turning-point in the tenth century, toward considering slaves as individuals, both in hagiography and law

Altough the Christian Church did not have an anti-slavery agenda of any description, it insisted on masters' responsibilities, and the relationship between slave and God was gradually privileged over that between slave and earthly master (Alexius I Comnenus thus gave slaves the right to Christian marriage despite masters' worries). Rotman sees a parallel development in laws. Alongside the state's growing interest in controlling private persons' use of their free status (leading to restrictions on penal sla very, self-sale, and the sale of children), it also took on increasing control over unfree status: as with the slave/God relationship, the relationship between slave and state also came to be privileged over that between slave and master. "The evolution of ancient slavery thus appears to be, more than anything, the history of the growth of public power" ((p. 179).

https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/23308155?seq=1

Byzantine law provided that a non-Christian could not hold a Christian as slave as a way to protect the Christianity of the slave.

Slavic and Bulgar regions were most of the slaves MiHAELA L. FLORESCU, French and Linguistics, Cerritos College

The last three chapters are a virtual primer on Byzantine slavery, whose full value cannot be covered in a brief review. Rotman explicates the alteration of the nature of slavery in the Mediterranean world as a result of piracy and the near perpetual Byzantine‐Muslim warfare, especially with the phenomenon of the exchange of captives, while giving great attention to the Mediterranean slave trade. Meanwhile, the Christianization of the Byzantine Empire, especially allowing slaves to have Christian marriages, brought about significant internal changes to the practices of slavery. During this period, Byzantine sources also illustrate a changing view of slaves, who progress from being mere objects to being the central focus of literary attention, especially in hagiography. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1540-6563.2011.00301_65.x


Underpinning Rotman's analysis is a dissatisfaction with modern notions of freedom and with their Roman republican antecedents. The author steps away from the polar opposition of freedom and slavery as conceived through the varied analytical frameworks of Marx, Henri Wallon, Moses Finley, and others and posits a more complex conception of unfreedom, essential, in his mind, to the analysis of autocratic societies (p. 18). https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/41105571?seq=2

Against this background, and contrary to Lenski’s assertion, the Byzantine innovation of the 8th century cannot be overestimated. This innovation lay not in attributing a free status to the captives returning to the Empire, but in considering them free Byzantines while in captivity. Contrary to Lenski’s assertion, I did show (pp. 30-31) that the innovation of the Ekloga drew on the previous constitution of Honorius (CJ 8.50.20 = CTh 5.7.2), which determined a period of five years during which the redeemer will pay the captive a wage.

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.05.14/ https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.07.02


The institution of slavery would transition to what Youval Rotman calls different degrees of unfreedom.[157] There were about 3 million enslaved people (or 15% of the population) around the time of the Diocletian reforms.[114] Previous slave professions became prestigious free-market roles like tutors. Fiscal arrangements by the state created the coloni, tenants bound to the land, which emerged as a new legal category between free and slave.{{sfnm|Kaldellis|2023|1p=39} A dramatic change in the 726 Ekloga was that battle captives were considered freed people while in captivity, considered part of a series of progressions since the constitution of Honorius.[158][159] Emperors promoted cultural assimilation of conquered people, which included releasing of enslaved people.[160] Christianity had no direct impact on slavery.[114] Still, it did influence it due to state policies prohibiting enslaved Christians and trade limits on Christians.[161] Despite all this, slavery ultimately would persist, though prices would remain constant.[162][114]


The institution of slavery would transition, to what Youval Rotman calls different degrees of unfreedom.There were about 3 million slaves (or 15% of the population) around the time of the Diocletian reforms.[114] Previous slave professions became prestigious free market roles like tutors; and fiscal arrangements by the state created the coloni, tenants bound to the land, which emerged as a new legal category between free and slave.[111] An innovation in the Ekloga of 726 was that war captives were considered free people while in captivity, but this has origins from the constitution of Honorius.[158] Emperors promoted cultural assimilation of conquered people, which included freeing of slaves.[160] Christianity had no direct agenda on slavery, but it did influence it due to state policies prohibiting Christian slaves and trade limits on Christians[163] Despite all this, slavery ultimately would still persist and prices would remain constant.[164][114]

  • Rotman, Youval (2009). Byzantine slavery and the Mediterranean world. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University press. ISBN 978-0-674-03611-6.


Under the influence of Christianity, views of slavery shifted: by the 10th century slaves were viewed as potential citizens (the slave as a subject), rather than property or chattel (the slave as an object).[165] Slavery was also seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although it remained legal.[166]


Early history issues

The following are a list of problems with the Early History section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Early_history

Background

Issues

  • There is no mention of Magna gracia which had a big influence on the Roman Republic more so than the Hellenistic states. This matters because the language and culture of the Roman Empire was heavily influenced by Hellenism/Greek and the historiography that has invented the concept of the Byzantine Empire as a different empire (rather than simply being a later Roman period) is underpinned by this mis-understanding
  • The article needs to document standalone how it all started and not jut jump into the Republic fighting wars. Mimic the Roman Empire article
  • There are three references, with two using the same: Ostrogorsky 1959, p. 21; Wells 1922, Chapter 33 and Bury 1923, p. 1; Kuhoff 2002, pp. 177–178.
    • Ostrogorsky made fantastic contributions to the field but he is a dinosaur now and should not be referenced alone. Treadgold and Kaldellis are the two most recent academic historians to write about the entire period and build on his work. Treadgold wrote in the 1990s so a reference to Kaldellis is now preferred to anything referencing Ostrogorsky (and Treadgold).
    • Wells is not a professional historian so adds no insights that are original. Also his book was 100 years ago. Low quality source.
    • Bury, is what I said about Ostrogorsky but earlier.

Christianisation and partition of the empire

The following are sources in this section

  • Bury 1923, p. 1; Esler 2004, p. 1081; Gibbon 1906, Volume III, Part IV, Chapter 18, p. 168; Teall 1967, pp. 13, 19–23, 25, 28–30, 35–36
  • Bury 1923, p. 63; Drake 1995, p. 5; Grant 1975, pp. 4, 12.
  • Greatrex & Lieu 2002, p. 1.
  • Friell & Williams 2005, p. 105.
  • Perrottet 2004, p. 190
  • Cameron 2009, pp. 54, 111, 153
  • Alemany 2000, p. 207; Bayless 1976, pp. 176–177; Treadgold 1997, pp. 184, 193.

Loss of the Western Roman Empire

The following are sources in this section Cameron 2009, p. 52 Burns 1991, pp. 65, 76–77, 86–87 Lenski 1999, pp. 428–429. Grierson 1999, p. 17.

Other headings

Justinian dynasty

The rise of Justinian I

Renovatio imperii and the wars of Justinian

Transition into an eastern Christian empire

Decline of the Justinian dynasty

Arab invasions and shrinking borders

Early Heraclian dynasty

First Arab siege of Constantinople (674–678) and the theme system

Late Heraclian dynasty

Second Arab siege of Constantinople (717–718) and the Isaurian dynasty

Religious dispute over iconoclasm

Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025)

Wars against the Abbasids

Wars against the Bulgarian Empire

Relations with the Kievan Rus'

Campaigns in the Caucasus

Apex

Split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (1054)

Crisis and fragmentation

Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades

Alexios I and the First Crusade

John II, Manuel I and the Second Crusade

12th-century Renaissance

Decline and disintegration

Angelid dynasty

Fourth Crusade and aftermath

Fall

Rise of the Ottomans and fall of Constantinople

Political aftermath

  1. ^ Chitwood 2017, p. 16; Stein 1999, pp. 3–4, 8, 16.
  2. ^ Gregory 2010, p. 135; Kaldellis 2023, p. 168.
  3. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 168; Dingledy 2019, p. 2; Stein 1999, p. 14, 16, 28.
  4. ^ Gregory 2010, p. 135; Stein 1999, pp. 33–35.
  5. ^ MerrymanPérez-Perdomo 2007, p. 8; Stein 1999, p. 21.
  6. ^ Stolte 2015, pp. 356, 370.
  7. ^ Chitwood 2017, p. 185,23.
  8. ^ Chitwood 2017, p. 23; Nicol 1988, p. 65.
  9. ^ Chitwood 2017, pp. 23, 132, 364.
  10. ^ Browning 1992, p. 97; Kaldellis 2023, p. 529.
  11. ^ Browning 1992, p. 97-98; Chitwood 2017, p. 32-35; Kaldellis, p. 529.
  12. ^ Stein 1999, p. 35.
  13. ^ MerrymanPérez-Perdomo 2007, pp. 10–11; Stotle 2018, pp. 367–368; Stein 1999, pp. 36.
  14. ^ Hudson, John (2010-12-31), "Magna Carta, the ius commune, and English Common Law", Magna Carta and the England of King John, Boydell and Brewer, p. 114, ISBN 978-1-84615-812-4, retrieved 2024-08-24
  15. ^ Salogubova, Elena; Zenkov, Alan (2018-06-15). "Roman law 's influence on russian civil law and procedure". Russian Law Journal. 6 (2): 118–133. doi:10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-2-118-133. ISSN 2312-3605.
  16. ^ Stolte 2015, p. 358; Stolte 1998, p. 264; Stein 1999, pp. 35.
  17. ^ Chitwood 2017, p. 4, 364-365; Stolte 1998, p. 264.
  18. ^ Stolte, Bernard H. (2019). "Review of Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867–1056". Speculum. 94 (4): 1139–1140. ISSN 0038-7134.
  19. ^ Gregory 2010, p. 150.
  20. ^ Merryman & Perez-Perdomo 2007, p. 7
  21. ^ Troianos & Velissaropoulou-Karakosta 1997, p. 340
  22. ^ Browning 1992, pp. 97–98.
  23. ^ a b Browning 1992, pp. 98–99.
  24. ^ a b Browning 1992, pp. 98–109.
  25. ^ Tussay, Ákos (2022). A History of the nomos empsychos idea (Thesis). Miklós Könczöl, Szilárd Tattay. doi:10.15774/PPKE.JAK.2022.010.
  26. ^ Nicol 1988, p. 64-65; Bleicken 1978, p. 6.
  27. ^ Bleicken 1978, p. 25; Tuori 2016, p. 11; Nicol 1988, p. 64-65.
  28. ^ Christov, Ivan (2020). "Political Philosophy, Byzantine.". In Lagerlund, Henrik (ed.). Encyclopedia of medieval philosophy: philosophy between 500 and 1500. Springer reference (Second ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. p. 1574. ISBN 978-94-024-1663-3.
  29. ^ Obolensky 1994, p. 3.
  30. ^ Zhang 1994, p. 221; Kaldellis 2023, pp. 322–323, 325, 366–367, 511.
  31. ^ Neuman 1990, pp. 4–5; Chrysos 1990, p. 35.
  32. ^ Zhang 1994, p. 221; Sinnigen 1963, p. [1]; Haldon 1990, p. 281-282.
  33. ^ Whitby 2008, pp. 122–123.
  34. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 283.
  35. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 309.
  36. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 282.
  37. ^ Chrysos 1990, pp. 25, 36; Haldon 1990, p. 289.
  38. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 289; Chrysos 1990, p. 25,33,35; neuman 1990, pp. 4–5.
  39. ^ Chrysos 1990, pp. 33, 35; neuman 1990, pp. 4–5; Kaldellis 2023, p. 338.
  40. ^ Kennedy 1990, pp. 134, 137, 143.
  41. ^ Kazhdan 1990, p. 4; neuman 1990, pp. 4–5.
  42. ^ a b c Howard-Johnston 2008, p. 949.
  43. ^ Kazhdan 1990, pp. 7, 10; Kennedy 1990, p. 134; Chrysos 1990, pp. 28–29.
  44. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 286.
  45. ^ Kazhdan 1990, p. 5.
  46. ^ Kazhdan 1990, pp. 11, 13, 20.
  47. ^ Kazhdan 1990, pp. 20–21.
  48. ^ Howard-Johnston 2005, p. 945.
  49. ^ a b Oikonomides 2005, p. 74.
  50. ^ Oikonomides 2005, p. 75.
  51. ^ Oikonomides 2005, pp. 75–76, 77.
  52. ^ a b c Neumann 2006, pp. 869–871 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFNeumann2006 (help).
  53. ^ Chrysos 1992, p. 35.
  54. ^ Antonucci 1993, pp. 11–13.
  55. ^ Antonucci 1993, pp. 11–13; Seeck 1876, pp. 31–33
  56. ^ Bury & Philotheus 1911, p. 93.
  57. ^ Dennis 1985, p. 125.
  58. ^ Obolensky 1994, p. 3.
  59. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 59,194; Haldon 2012, p. 554; Treadgold 2000, p. 50.
  60. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 331.
  61. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 454-455; Haldon 2012, p. 555.
  62. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 422,437; Haldon 2012, p. 555-556; Treadgold 2000, p. 430-431.
  63. ^ a b c Haldon, 2012 & Treadgold 2000.
  64. ^ Haldon, 2012 & Benedikz.
  65. ^ Kaldellis 2021a, p. 463; Haldon 2012, p. 730-734,737; Treadgold 2000.
  66. ^ Kaldellis 2021a, p. 463; Haldon 2012, p. 555; Treadgold 2000, p. 735-736.
  67. ^ a b Haldon, 2012 & Treadgold 2000, p. 557.
  68. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 634; Haldon 2012, p. 557; [[#CITEREF|]].
  69. ^ Haldon 2012, p. 558.
  70. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 1881; Haldon 2012, p. 559; Treadgold 2000, p. 1112.
  71. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 896; Haldon 2012, p. 559.
  72. ^ Benedikz, Benedict (1979). The Varangians of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511562365.
  73. ^ Treadgold, Warren T. (2000). A history of the Byzantine state and society. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2630-6.
  74. ^ Kaldellis 2023, pp. 399, 442, 562, 565; Benedikz 1973, pp. 29; Haldon 2012, pp. 555.
  75. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 502; Benedikz 1973, pp. 16, 29–30.
  76. ^ Pryor & 2008}, p. 487.
  77. ^ Pryor & 2008}, p. 488.
  78. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 489; Benedikz 1973, p. 29.
  79. ^ Pryor & 2008}, p. 489.
  80. ^ Kaldellis & 2023}, pp. 812, 860–861.
  81. ^ a b Tussay, Ákos (2022). "A History of the nomos empsychos idea". Miklós Könczöl, Szilárd Tattay: 147. doi:10.15774/PPKE.JAK.2022.010. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  82. ^ Nicol 1988, p. 64-65.
  83. ^ Brown, Alison (1986). "Platonism in Fifteenth-Century Florence and Its Contribution to Early Modern Political Thought". The Journal of Modern History. 58 (2): 384–413. ISSN 0022-2801.
  84. ^ Leithart, Peter J. (2022). "4 Antiquity: Constantine and Constitutionalism". In Aroney, Nicholas; Leigh, I. (eds.). Christianity and constitutionalism. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-19-758725-6. OCLC 1298383784.
  85. ^ Riga, P. J. (1990-01-01). "The Influence of Roman Law on State Theory in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries: A Study of the Roman Glossators and their Influence on Modern State Theory". The American Journal of Jurisprudence. 35 (1): 171–186. doi:10.1093/ajj/35.1.171. ISSN 0065-8995.
  86. ^ "10. Conclusion: Singulare et Unicum Imperium", Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, University of California Press, p. 409, 2019-12-31, retrieved 2024-05-13
  87. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 35,189,222; Nicol 1988, p. 63.
  88. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 35,774.
  89. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 296.
  90. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 338; Nicol 1988, p. 64.
  91. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 441.
  92. ^ Nicol 1988, p. 63.
  93. ^ Louth 2005, p. 306-308.
  94. ^ a b c Louth 2005, p. 303.
  95. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 421; Neville 2004, p. 7.
  96. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 185.
  97. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 396, 408-409.
  98. ^ Yale Courses. "08. Survival in the East". Youtube. Archived from the original on 30 October 2023. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  99. ^ Mango 2007, pp. 259–260.
  100. ^ Nicol 1988, pp. 64–65.
  101. ^ Louth 2005, p. 291; Neville 2004, p. 7.
  102. ^ Davies, Brian (March 1976). "Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God. pp. 232. (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.) No price given". Religious Studies. 12 (1): 125–128. doi:10.1017/s0034412500009094. ISSN 0034-4125. S2CID 170429521. Archived from the original on 31 August 2022. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
  103. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 208–215; Kaegi 2003, pp. 236, 283.
  104. ^ Cameron 2009, pp. 138–142; Mango 2007, p. 60.
  105. ^ Heather, Peter; Moncur, David (2001). Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. doi:10.3828/978-0-85323-106-6 (inactive 31 January 2024). ISBN 978-0-85323-106-6. Archived from the original on 31 August 2022. Retrieved 31 March 2022.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)
  106. ^ Heather 2005, p. 431.
  107. ^ Cameron 2009, pp. 157–158; Neville 2004, p. 34.
  108. ^ Neville 2004, p. 13.
  109. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 38; Brandes 2012, p. 563.
  110. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 38-39.
  111. ^ a b Kaldellis 2023, p. 39.
  112. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 39; Harvey 2012, p. 329.
  113. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 39; Harvey 2012, p. 331.
  114. ^ a b c d e f g h Kaldellis 2023, p. 40.
  115. ^ Harris 2017, p. 41; Kaldellis 2023, p. XIV; Garland 2006.
  116. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 40; Stephenson 2010, p. 66.
  117. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 40; Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 129; Garland 2006, p. XVI.
  118. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 40; Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 118-119.
  119. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 40; Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 126-127.
  120. ^ Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 130-131; Harris 2017, p. 133; Garland 2006, p. XIV; Kaldellis 2023, p. 40-41.
  121. ^ Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 131; Kazhdan 1990, p. 136.
  122. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 529; Harris 2017, p. 133.
  123. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 444.
  124. ^ a b Rotman 2022, p. 85.
  125. ^ Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 121; Kazhdan 1990, p. 132.
  126. ^ Rotman 2022, p. 83; Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 121.
  127. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 41.
  128. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 88,321,444,529,588,769; Mary-Talbot 1997, p. 119,122,128.
  129. ^ Markopoulos 2012, p. 785.
  130. ^ Markopoulos 2012, p. 786.
  131. ^ a b Markopoulos 2012, p. 787.
  132. ^ a b Marcus Louis Rautman:Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  133. ^ a b c d Guglielmo Cavallo: The Byzantines Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  134. ^ a b Paul Stephenson: The Byzantine World Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  135. ^ a b c d e Lynda Garland:Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience 800–1200 Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  136. ^ a b c Jonathan Harris: Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium Archived 5 June 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  137. ^ Beard, Mary (2015-10-20). SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. Profile. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-84765-441-0.
  138. ^ Beard, Mary (2015-10-20). SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. Profile. pp. 527–533. ISBN 978-1-84765-441-0.Kaldellis, Anthony (2023-08-24). The New Roman Empire. Oxford University PressNew York. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-19-754932-2.
  139. ^ Beard 2015, p. 165 sfnm error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFBeard2015 (help).
  140. ^ Beard 2015, p. 527-533,2p=19-20 sfnm error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFBeard2015 (help); Kaldellis 2023.
  141. ^ a b Kaldellis 2023, p. 20,60,71.
  142. ^ a b c Kaldellis 2023, p. 34.
  143. ^ a b Friell & Williams 2005, p. 105.
  144. ^ a b Perrottet 2004, p. 190.
  145. ^ Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1998). "To Be Roman, Go Greek Thoughts on Hellenization at Rome". Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement (71): 79–91. ISSN 2398-3264.
  146. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 111.
  147. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 180.
  148. ^ Kaldellis 2023, p. 141,186,342.
  149. ^ Beard, Mary (2015-10-20). SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. Profile. p. 530. ISBN 978-1-84765-441-0.
  150. ^ Greatrex 2008, pp. 326–327; Kaldellis 2023, pp. 81–84; Treadgold 1997, pp. 31–33, 40–47.
  151. ^ Greatrex 2008, pp. 327–328; Kaldellis 2023, pp. 92–99, 106–111; Treadgold 1997, pp. 52–62.
  152. ^ Evans 2005, p. 65
  153. ^ Evans 2005, p. 68
  154. ^ Cameron 2009, pp. 113, 128.
  155. ^ Bray 2004, pp. 19–47; Haldon 1990, pp. 110–111; Treadgold 1997, pp. 196–197.
  156. ^ Kazhdan 1991.
  157. ^ Rotman 2009, p. 18,179.
  158. ^ a b Rotman 2009, p. 30,31.
  159. ^ "Review of: Response: Rotman on Lenski on Youval Rotman, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. ISSN 1055-7660.
  160. ^ a b Kaldellis 2023, p. 425.
  161. ^ Florescu, Mihaela L. (2010). "Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World by Youval Rotman". Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies. 41 (1): 305–307. doi:10.1353/cjm.2010.0001. ISSN 1557-0290.
  162. ^ Harper, Kyle (2010). "Slave Prices in Late Antiquity (and in the Very Long Term)". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 59 (2): 237. ISSN 0018-2311.
  163. ^ Rotman 2009, Chapter 2.
  164. ^ Harper, Kyle (2010). "Slave Prices in Late Antiquity (and in the Very Long Term)". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 59 (2): 237. ISSN 0018-2311.
  165. ^ Youval Rotman, "Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World", transl. by Jane Marie Todd, Cambridge, Massachusetts – London, Harvard University Press 2009. Book presentation in a) Nikolaos Linardos (University of Athens), , Mediterranean Chronicle 1 (2011) pp. 281, 282, b) Alice Rio, American Historical Review, Vol. 115, Issue 5, 2010, pp. 1513–1514
  166. ^ Clarence-Smith. W. G. Religions and the abolition of slavery - a comparative approach. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/Research/GEHN/GEHNConferences/conf10/Conf10-ClarenceSmith.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biz/byzantineempireFAR&oldid=1243679651"