/r/Byzantium

Some people say it’s not his fault,other people say he is the reason the Byzantine empire fell in 1453.what do you think?

Is there any book that talks about the war in detail?

Two questions.Why is Nikephoros hyped up so much even though John is the better commander and emperor?also how would the Byzantine empire have changed if he wasn’t poisioned or died?

Fashions certainly changed throughout Byzantine history, but one thing that (as far as I know) didn't seem to go out of fashion after the 7th century was facial hair, at least for emperors. Throughout ancient Roman history, you have emperors who preferred a clean-shaven look from Augustus to Trajan (with few exceptions). Starting from Hadrian up to the Tetrarchy you have bearded emperors, but then you get beardless emperors again from Constantine to Maurice. But throughout Medieval history, the only emperor I could think of without facial hair is Alexios II, a literal kid.

I know it’s broad question but am curious what an average Byzantine soldier look like. It’s easy to reference a western Roman soldier but it’s more difficult to distinguish them from their western cousins. I try to search for images of them online but it’s mostly mercenaries and Varangian guards.

My next question is where do the Byzantines pull most of their organic troops from? Greece, Anatolia, Armenia, Balkans, or is it roughly evenly split?

The pilot opens with a figure on horseback riding through the fog. It's Alexios V Mourtzouphlos, the last emperor of the Roman people. He arrives beneath the walls of Mosynopolis where he meets the former basileus Alexios III. Mourtzouphlos convinces Alexios to let him inside, and the two men then confer and talk about the sack of Constantinople and it's loss to the Crusaders. There is a tone of pressure and mistrust in the room, as Mourtzouphlos is wary of the pursuing Latins and only half trusts Alexios III.

Just when Mourtzouphlos believes that perhaps Alexios III will help him lead their people to freedom against the occupation and that they can work together in this endeavour, he is betrayed, blinded, and left behind by him. It seems that our historical protagonists journey to retake the queen of cities is not to be, something emphasised by his subsequent capture and trial by the Latins before his execution at the end of the pilot, setting the grim tone for the cut throat power struggle to come.

Imo the KEY thing I would do in this show would be to never actually show the entirety of Constantinople. When Mourtzouphlos is put on trial and then executed, the audience would only be shown his blind perspective or close up of the mouths condemning him to death. Any episode depicting things from the perspective of the Latin emperors in Constantinople would only show it from within the palace, not showing what has become of the capital.

The reason for not showing Constantinople would be to build up the mythos the Roman breakaway states have formulated about it. The Nicaeans, Trapezuntines, and Epirotes would all talk about the beauty and glories of the once mighty city, and then as the seasons roll on they would pass on these romanticisations to their children and the next generation. Constantinople effectively becomes a promised land of sorts in the minds of the Romans, and fuels their determination to get it back.

Except... then we come to the finale. 1261. The previous episode ended with Michael Palaiologos sending Strategopoulos on campaign. We open the finale with Michael being woken up with the news that Constantinople has been retaken. Our surprise is as great as his, and we remain aligned with him throughout the remainder of the episode as he enters the city.

We finally enter the city that has been hyped up so much over the entire show. And it's an absolute wreck.

Palaiologos tries to put on a brave face, but the disappointment is clear. This is no longer the promised land he was taught so much about. He hosts a triumphal procession, but the feeling is hollow. There is no practical way the Roman state can thrive and regain it's former glory when it's capital is in such ruin.

The finale would end with Palaiologos giving orders to blind John IV, mirroring the events from the pilot between Mourtzouphlos and Alexios III. Patriarch Arsenios would lament that even in their darkest hour, the Roman people are unable to stop mutilating and betraying each other, and that it will one day be their downfall.

So... what do you think?

I am very interested in these papers, but I found that the entire online database only has information sourced from John F. Haldon. Are there any other papers or sources from different scholars or countries about Constantine VII's military? Thank you.

I thought it was very interesting to hear such a list from someone who's spent so many years telling the historical narrative and interviewing various experts. It was also interesting to see how he limited the list to the years from 476 to 1204.

The list consisted of:

10) Nikephoras II Phokas

9) John I Tzimiskes

8) Romanos Lekapenos

7) Maurice

6) Constantine V (🗿)

5) Heraclius

4) Leo III

3) Alexios Komnenos

2) Basil II

1) Anastasius

Is Leo iii a very good emperor?How do you weigh his iconoclast policies against him?was he very heavy on iconoclasm?

So I want a favorite emperor pre 11th century and I set on Leo iii but now I’m a little shaky on him bc of iconoclasm.So do you think he is still a contender or not?also please give me other emperors to consider to

I want a good Byzantine emperor to be my favorite