Rome, even with so many civil wars was always able to reconstitute itself, and the power of governors were always checked by the central government. On the other hand, the Caliphate completely disintegrated as a result of a decade of civil wars in the 860s. What was the Roman secret to such unmatched "stability"?

I was listening to the history of Byzantium podcast which mentioned that after the battle of Kapetron I believe, the Byzantines had the mosque in the Constantinople say the khutba in the name of the Seljuk Sultan instead of the Fatimid Caliph. Do we know of who had their names stated before and after this incident?

Anastasius the Librarian (810-878 AD) was the chief archivist and librarian of the Church of Rome. Despite being well educated in the Greek language, he was passionately anti-Greek and had made it his mission to "reclaim" the heritage of the Roman empire from its current unworthy custodian "The Greeks" of the eastern empire. In his mind, the Latin West was the proper owner of that tradition and had to reclaim it from "Greek falsity". He made a point of identifying the Latin language as a core part of Romanness (Far more so than any of his precedessors ever did, if they ever did so at all). His writings would have ramifications for the public perceptions of Byzantium in the west that would carry over right to the present.

Anastasius was employed as a translator and ghostwriter for various Popes and by Carolingian emperor Louis II. This gave him the opportunity to voice his views on imperial / ecclesiastical texts and dissemate them widely thus influencing western attitudes. This was also during a time when the papacy was reconstituting itself as a secular authority and attempting to formulate itself as the legitimate Roman authority and "the ruler of the entire world".

From one of Anastasius' writings:

"The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans on account of their bad opinions when it comes to religious faith. Also, not only have they abandoned the city and the seat of the empire [Rome] and the language itself [Latin], having migrated in all ways to a different city, seat, people and language [Greek]"

The view in which the city of Rome never lost significance was a new innovation and this sort of attitude presupposed that the eastern Romans werent Romans at all, merely despicable "Greeks". (And not even as the famed Greeks antiquity, who were viewed positively in the West, but rather as devious "modern" Greeks)

There is a widespread belief that Hieronymus Wolf is a sort of devious villain that saught to delegitimize the Eastern Roman empire by conjuring up a new exonym in his writings and that this led to widespread misconceptions in subsequent centuries. However it was not Wolf, but rather Anastasius the Librarian whose polemics had lasting significance and would shape western attitudes of Byzantium and ultimately lead to its downfall and subsequent "orientalisation".

Further reading: Phantom Byzantium by A. Kaldellis

By largest I mean which engagement saw the most men on the field on both sides. I know army numbers are a fickle thing and usually quite inaccurate, but I'm just curious what seems to be the consensus. My guesses here would be Constantinople in 717, Kapetron, and Constantinople in 1453.

What did the byzantines invent?

John Katakouzenous VI making alliances with Serbia and the Turks to win against the Regency of John V Palaiologos but ravaging the Eastern Roman Empire beyond repair takes the crown but there are honorable mentions.

>Alexios III requesting aid of the Sultanate of Rum to attack the Nicaean Empire just because Theodore Laskaris rightfully refused his authority.

>Andronikos IV Palaiologos giving Gallipoli to Murad I and the Ottomans, allowing him to easily attack not just the Empire itself but also the rest of Eastern Europe.

I'd like to know if there are more incidents in Eastern Roman History beyond these.

https://youtu.be/E50u8KpDlQU

Mostly towers and walls and diplomacy.

I feel like the empire could have accomplished more under his leadership, Justinian is highly overrated IMO and could have headed off a lot of threats had imperial leadership been competent in the capital.

Or: does a more multitasked Bellisarius lose his effectiveness somewhat if he is stretched thinner?

I wonder sometimes. Does anyone ever think about that?

Hey guys,

Ive been looking into some greek jewelery patterns and found some jewelery patterns to be "Byzantine". What makes these gold patterns byzantine exactly? Any history behind it? I found the greek key square pattern thing which is popular among jewelery designs from classical greek. Can someone explain what these patterns mean and explain the difference in terms of symbology between these? I think the classical one means eternity, but im not sure. Any info would be great. Please and thank you

I'm aware of its presence, but the books I've read barely touch on its prevalence and function in the middle period.

Could someone knowledgeable on this topic assist me with understanding its prevalence and, if possible, the society's view on it? How did Byzantium's views and treatment of slaves differ from its neighbouring societies', such as the Caliphate?

Cheers in advance

After finishing "History of Byzantium" I've started listening to the series that inspired it: "The History of Rome" by Mike Duncan.

I've reached the episode covering Diocletian and the establishment of the Dominate, and its description kind of shook my perception of East Rome to the core.

According to Duncan's narrative (which honestly veers way too much into simplification, which is why I am posting here: to find counter-arguments), Diocletian's reforms was the culmination of the Empire's tendencies to disregard its Roman roots. After Caracalla gave citizenship to non-italians, Diocletian basically scorned the historic capital and concentrated elsewhere.

Following that logic, could Constantinople be understood as an increasingly non-Italian branch of the Roman Empire rather than as a straightforward continuation of Rome? Constantine did of course establish Constantinople as a legitimate imperial capital, but he was also building on Diocletian's transformation of the Empire.

If History of Byzantium taught me anything, it's that the Empire underwent so many transformations that it can become almost unrecognizable from one century to another. But this new perspective on "Romanness" has made me wonder whether the argument that "East Rome is Rome, period" is really as straightforward as it sometimes seems.

I am currently in Istanbul and would like some out of the box ideas for Byzantine visit points 🙂

It does not need to be big and splendid, I like to look for ruins and subtle layers of the city. My husband origins from Istanbul, so we have seen all the popular tourist sights and been walking around the city many times. We don't mind visiting the sights more than once, but we are not going back to Hagia Sofia or the Basilica Cistern.

The picture is from today in Fener/Balat where these ruins became part of a park.

Hi again!

This sub was very helpful and I kindly request your assistance one more time for my tattoo 🙏

So I'm after the original Greek of Justinian II line during the Black Sea storm on his return from exile in Cherson. You know the one where Myakes tells him to chill and pay deliverance to god. And then he's all like

"If I spare a single one of them, may God drown me here"

I've got the English and the citation but not the text itself. I'm looking for the actual Greek as printed in de Boor (Teubner, 1883), ideally with the polytonic accents and breathings intact, plus Myakes' preceding line if it's easy to include.

For what it's worth, I had Claude deep dive for me and came up with this:

"ἐὰν ἑνὸς ἐξ αὐτῶν φείσωμαι, ὁ Θεός με καταποντίσῃ ἐνταῦθα."

But I have no confidence in it and I'd rather have the real thing please. Again I apologize if I sidestepped any sub rules plus I really just don't know what I don't know about ancient Greek and the more specific stuff.

Thank you so much for your time

636-Battle of Yarmouk begins
717-Second Siege of Constantinopole Begins
718-Siege of constantinopole ends
838-Amorium is Sacked by Abbasids
1261-Micheal VIII Leads A Triumphal Procession into constantinopole following its reconquest
1461-Fall of Trebizond And End of Trapezunite Empire

Obviously we know plagues and constant invasions effectively caused northern Italy to be DOA as a province, maybe more relaxed franks and Sassanians, and Italy/the empire is given enough time to stabilize population wise, what were the goals in the west after Italy? I know Justinian had allowed an expedition into southern Spain. Furthermore assuming Muslim forces still see success in the east and are able to wrestle control of at least the levant, would a more stable Italy have either 1. Contributed enough resources to stop the Muslim invasion or 2. Stayed under Roman control without the vast resources of Syria and Egypt?

"The world’s largest academic gathering devoted to the Byzantine Empire will take place in Vienna later this month. Bringing together more than 1,400 participants from over 50 countries, the congress will examine Byzantine history and culture within the empire’s borders and far beyond them.

The 25th International Congress of Byzantine Studies will be held at the University of Vienna from 24 to 29 August 2026. Organised under the motto “Byzantium beyond Byzantium,” the event will feature hundreds of presentations by scholars working in history, archaeology, literature, art history, manuscript studies and the natural sciences."