Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 92

Thread: Byzantium

  1. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Europe and the Mediterranean Lands (ca. 1097 AD)


    This map not only shows European lands and the Western-held lands to the East, but it also shows the routes of leaders during the first Crusade, including Godfrey of Bouillon, Adhemar of Puy and William of Toulouse, Bohemond and Tancred, and the route of combined forces.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 66-7.

  2. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Crusader States (ca. 1099 AD)

    Following the successes of the First Crusade, the Franks established a series of crusader states. This map shows each of them at their greatest extent.

    Source: Dow, Earle W. Atlas of European History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1907. Plate 92.

  3. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Asia Minor and the States of the Crusaders in Syria (ca. 1140 AD)


    This map focuses on Western-held lands in Asia Minor and the crusader states.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 68.

  4. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Europe at the Time of the Crusades (1189 AD)


    This map shows Europe at the time of the First Crusade.

    Source: Bartholomew, J.G. LLD. A Literary & Historical Atlas of Europe. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. and New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1910. 20-1.

  5. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Europe in 1190 (1190 AD)


    View a map of Europe as it appeared at the time of the Third Crusade.

    Source: Dow, Earle W. Atlas of European History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1907. Plate 9.

  6. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Europe and the Mediterranean Lands (ca. 1190 AD)


    On this map see the crusade of Louis VII and Conrad III between 1147 and 1149 AD, the crusade of Richard I (Lionhearted) and Philip II (Augustus), and Frederick I (Barbarossa) between 1189 and 1191 AD, and more.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 70-1.

  7. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1204 AD)

    This map depicts Southeastern Europe and Asia Minor after the Fourth Crusade.

    Source: Dow, Earle W. Atlas of European History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1907. Plate 9.

  8. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Mediterranean Lands after 1204 (ca. 1204 AD)

    See the route of the Fourth Crusade from 1202 to 1204, the crusade of Frederick II from 1228-1229, and the Crusades of Louis IX from 1248 to 1254 and in 1270. The map also shows Venetian possessions and Genoese cities after 1261.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 73.

  9. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Byzantine Empire (1265 AD)



    This map shows the Byzantine Empire in 1265 AD, as well as the Empire of Trebizond, the despotat of Epirus, the kingdoms of Bulgaria and Servia, the Wallachian states, states under Latin rule, the palatinate of Cephalonia, Venetian possessions, Mongol dominions and Seljuk Turks, the dominion of the Mamelukes, and more.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 89.

  10. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Mongol Dominions (1300-1405 AD)



    View the approximate limits of the Mongol dominions about 1300 AD, the approximate extent of the dominions of Timur in 1405, the possessions of the Ottoman Turks before and after the battle of Angora in 1402 AD, and more.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 92.

  11. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Turks in 1355 (1355 AD)



    See the Byzantine Empire, Greek Empire of Trebizond, the kingdoms of Armenia, Servia, and Bulgaria, the Ottoman Turks, other Turks, states under Latin rule, Venetian possessions, Genoese possessions, the dominion of the Mamelukes, and more.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 89.

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    Europe (1360 AD)



    See Europe in 1360 AD. Duchies, kingdoms, and principalities are indicated on the map.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 77.

  13. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    The Ottoman Empire (1451-1481 AD)


    In addition to the dominions of the Ottoman Turks and those were acquired between 1451 and 1481, view the remnants of the Byzantine Empire and its dependencies in the Peloponnesus, the Greek empire of Trebizond, Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania under George Castriota, states under Latin rule, Venetian and Genoese possessions, the dominion of the of the Circassian Mamelukes, and more.

    Source: Sheperd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911. 93.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,811

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by kamani View Post
    I understand the Latin-Greek duality of the Byzantine Empire up to the schism, but after that, speaking Italian-Latin was not such a good idea anymore. Also anything remotely related with Catholicism and Rome, was seen as heresy. So they stopped being friends and started competing for control over the mediterannean world, which culminated with the destruction of Costandinople by the Crusaders. When the turks came, they just "collected the bones" of a dead empire. The Turks were never that strong to match Byzant at its peak; as proof, for 25 years after the fall of Constandinople the whole Ottoman Empire was held back and defeated by a few thousand Albanians under Skanderbeg. So these guys still calling themselves Roman after the schism, would be more for political reasons on their part.

    WRONG

    the biggest hate was due to 4rth Crusade,
    Turks were already in minor Asia,
    Manjikert Mtzikert or how ever written battle was 1 century before,

    Turks with their Allies Kurds won the battle against Rums, Varrangians and their allies,
    that opened the road to Konya and West minor Asia to Turks,

    Schism has nothing to do, mostly in religious circles,
    if search General Maniakis story, his Orthodox army left from Orthodox south Italy, just to replace their General honor, the revolt of Arbanites,

    So schism was nothing,
    it was the lost of Battle of Majikert, and the crusaders, whom Byzantines believe that will help against Islam, sucked Con/polis.

    Crusades and especially 1204 is a catalytic date for East Roman empire and West Europe rise in sciences and politics,
    Although it started before, from Peter the Hermit
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    And the end of this tour in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire through maps, THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPOLI

    Ottoman Empire at the Fall of Constantinople (1453 AD)


    This map shows the Ottoman Empire, Venetian possessions, Genoese possessions, and Christian states in the East.

    Source: Bartholomew, J.G. LLD. A Literary & Historical Atlas of Europe. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. and New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1910. 28.

  16. #41
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,440


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I have edited my post upthread, but here is the link to the Fordham University site for Byzantine Studies:

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/

    Links on the site include a syllabus, but it is a bit out of date.

    What is invaluable for anyone actually interested in academic research is his list of primary sources:
    http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook1c.asp
    Just click on the topic.

    The person who runs this site is the author of 56 podcasts on the History of Byzantium.
    This is his list and review of current books on the subject:
    http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/bibliography/

    These look like good bets:
    Hellenism in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis ***
    A brilliant study of ancient sources and what they say about Roman and Greek identity. His quotations from ancient sources is very impressive.

    Justinian’s Flea: Plague, Empire and the Birth of Europe by William Rosen *

    The Byzantines by Averil Cameron **
    A brief but readable survey of the life of the Empire.

    Lost to the West by Lars Brownworth *

    The Making of Orthodox Byzantium: 600-1025 by Mark Whittow **
    If you don’t want to wade through every decade with Treadgold but want to cover all the important issues to do with Byzantium then this is the best book I’ve found. Whittow is easy to read and gets to the point quickly. He has an excellent eye for what survived from the ancient world and what were Byzantine innovations in every aspect of the life of the state.

    The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 by Chris Wickham **
    An excellent modern book covering the developments across Europe from the fall of Rome to the end of the Millennium. It’s an analysis rather than a narrative history but as long as you know the basic outline of the story this will enlighten and entertain.

    Or, you you can take the easier route and listen to his great podcasts:
    http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/

    I would add:
    Jonathan Harris: “Constantinople – Capital of Byzantium”
    Colin Wells: Sailing from Byzantium

    I can personally recommend the Rosen and Cameron books, and Sailing From Byzantium.

    Oh, this article is very interesting: What, if anything, is a Byzantine:
    http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.e...zantine.01.htm


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  17. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    20-11-12
    Posts
    562


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    WRONG

    the biggest hate was due to 4rth Crusade,
    Turks were already in minor Asia,
    Manjikert Mtzikert or how ever written battle was 1 century before,

    Turks with their Allies Kurds won the battle against Rums, Varrangians and their allies,
    that opened the road to Konya and West minor Asia to Turks,

    Schism has nothing to do, mostly in religious circles,
    if search General Maniakis story, his Orthodox army left from Orthodox south Italy, just to replace their General honor, the revolt of Arbanites,

    So schism was nothing,
    it was the lost of Battle of Majikert, and the crusaders, whom Byzantines believe that will help against Islam, sucked Con/polis.

    Crusades and especially 1204 is a catalytic date for East Roman empire and West Europe rise in sciences and politics,
    Although it started before, from Peter the Hermit
    not sure what your point is...
    but in case you are arguing that the transition from Latin to Greek was without consequences...How would people who speak Latin feel when their language goes from official to banned, and now they have to learn Greek against their will?

  18. #43
    Regular Member Diocletian's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-14
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by kamani View Post
    I understand the Latin-Greek duality of the Byzantine Empire up to the schism, but after that, speaking Italian-Latin was not such a good idea anymore. Also anything remotely related with Catholicism and Rome, was seen as heresy. So they stopped being friends and started competing for control over the mediterannean world, which culminated with the destruction of Costandinople by the Crusaders. When the turks came, they just "collected the bones" of a dead empire. The Turks were never that strong to match Byzant at its peak; as proof, for 25 years after the fall of Constandinople the whole Ottoman Empire was held back and defeated by a few thousand Albanians under Skanderbeg. So these guys still calling themselves Roman after the schism, would be more for political reasons on their part.
    If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
    Back then, "Roman" referred to the empire, not the Latin language and that remained true centuries later, when there was a German speaking Holy Roman Empire. The breach between Catholic and Orthodox was very real, and was used as a justification for the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders, who wanted to take the Roman empire away from Greek speaking Orthodox Christians. Religious differences were taken very seriously back then - neither the Byzantines nor the Crusaders wanted to help the Coptic Christians who still made up the majority of the Egyptian population at that time.

  20. #45
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
    I think Byzantines called themselves Romans to the end, even though everything was rather Greek in later periods.
    Welcome to Eupedia Diocletian.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,811

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by kamani View Post
    not sure what your point is...
    but in case you are arguing that the transition from Latin to Greek was without consequences...How would people who speak Latin feel when their language goes from official to banned, and now they have to learn Greek against their will?
    who said that were banned?
    Latin was not banned in Byzantium,
    Aromani speak Latin even today, Romania was part of byzantium and speaks Latin, Albania was part of byzantium and is Heavy in Latin,
    we see Latin loans although limited even in Pontic Greek,
    Latin slowly were replaced as Lingua Franca after The Flavians, and at the Times of Makedonian dynasty and after were not Lingua Franca,

    the replace of Latin with Greek happened centuries before the great schsim of 1054

    and noone banned Latin
    we see codex Justinianus at Flavians
    but χρυσοβουλον Τσιμισκη after

    simply after 4rth crusade the usage of latin as main/primary language was synonym of enemy, for Eastern Rums,
    even today All in Balkans we say the Aromanian as Armanesti Aromuni Vlachika Vlachisti But not Latin,

  22. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    24-08-14
    Posts
    467


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Byzantium was a small town up to the 4th Century AD, when the Emperor Constantine "redeveloped" it. Constantine called his new city, Nova Roma or New Rome, but the locals and inhabitants called it either Constantine's City [Constantinopolis], or just "The City". When the Turks took the place in 1453, they continued to call it "The City" [Istanbul in Turkish].

    The correct name of empire was Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire is a term used first by German historian Hieronymus Wolf in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae.The term Byzantine largely came to denounce that Empire's claim as heirs of Rome, since their Emperors ruled in an uninterrupted line straight to Gaius Caesar Augustus the first princes of Rome.

    The Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (excluding Balkans) was culturally closer to Persia than to Greece for most of it's existance. Roman Emperors, starting with Diocletian, introduced many "Persian-style" practices continued with his successors. The bulk of the Empire's citizens came from Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt, not Greece. Amongst a significant proportion of the population there was an anti-Hellenic backlash, especially when Greek was made the "official" language of the empire.
    The ancient Greek culture had minimal or no influence, merely that the lives of the bulk of the citizens of the empire, as opposed to the elites, were influenced more by eastern cultures, such as Persian.
    Tiberius II was the first Emperor to break with the old "Roman" Latin traditions and his sucessors, like Heraclius, continued the trend. By the time of the Comnenii, there was indeed a very strong Greek influence, mainly however, because Greece was just about all that was left of the Empire at that time. The empire's culture consisted of the sum of it's parts. True the Official language became Greek, but the basic system of government remained a blend of Romano-Greek and Persian/eastern traditions to the end, despite any cosmetic changes in titles. Commerce was carried on in the eastern style, fashions in clothing, armour and weapons tended to follow eastern patterns, etc. Yes, the intelligencia studied the Greek classics, but then again, so did muslim scholars in Damascus and Samarkand. They saw themselves either as Romans, or later, Hellenes, when most of their "empire" consisted of Greece and the greek speaking remnant of modern Turkey.
    To bluntly stated that the Roman-Byzantine Empire was hellenic, oversimplifies the rich and diverse cultural mixture that the empire was throughout most of its existence.

  23. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    20-11-12
    Posts
    562


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
    Since you brought it up...The Ottomans calling themselves "Romans" was the point when the plagiarism of this name became ridiculous. The Turks wanted to destroy Rome and fill it with minarets. But I guess that position makes sense in a twisted sort of way, they were going to get Rome "back" from the evil Crusaders and restore it as part of the Empire where it belonged.
    In the mean time Italian Rome was sitting back and laughing it. Albanian Skanderbeg went to ask them for help against the Turks around 1440-s. Ofcourse they gave him nothing, since they had no intention to support the Albanian Orthodox population or anything that smelled Byzantine. Do you know what Skanderbeg told them in the end: "Instead of the Turks, I should have fought you..."

  24. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-10-11
    Location
    Prishtinë, Kosovo
    Posts
    408

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b1a2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c3

    Ethnic group
    Kosovar-Albanian
    Country: Kosovo



    I found this very interesting: "There is some historical evidence that, 10 years after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II visited the site of Troy and boasted that he had avenged the Trojans by having conquered the Greeks (Byzantines)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

    Is it just a myth? Ottomans avenging the Trojans?

  25. #50
    Regular Member Diocletian's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-14
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by kamani View Post
    Since you brought it up...The Ottomans calling themselves "Romans" was the point when the plagiarism of this name became ridiculous. The Turks wanted to destroy Rome and fill it with minarets. But I guess that position makes sense in a twisted sort of way, they were going to get Rome "back" from the evil Crusaders and restore it as part of the Empire where it belonged.
    In the mean time Italian Rome was sitting back and laughing it. Albanian Skanderbeg went to ask them for help against the Turks around 1440-s. Ofcourse they gave him nothing, since they had no intention to support the Albanian Orthodox population or anything that smelled Byzantine. Do you know what Skanderbeg told them in the end: "Instead of the Turks, I should have fought you..."
    The Ottomans never called themselves Romans, although the maternal line of the dynasty was clearly Byzantine as the step-moter of Mehmed the Conqueror was Mara Brankovic, a Kantakouzene. Mehmed himself was thinking that he was related to John Tzelepes Komnenos. Mehmed was most probably an orthodox christian in the heart and perceived the conquest of Constantinople as uniting with his roots. Persians and Arabs regarded him as the Caesar of the Rum, since he declared himself that way and got recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinope. The claim of the Ottoman Empire being the continuation of Byzantium and the Third Rome is taking its arguments from this perspective.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •