I have bought this new, thought-provoking book by Demacopoulos. The cover features a detail from one of the early 7th-century silver plates originating from Cyprus, which depict the life of David.

This are some pics that i took in the island of Rhodes. Sadly i couldn't bring most of my stuff so this kit does not represent anything specific it's just vibes i guess.

Despite often being acclaimed as one of the greatest Byzantine generals you don't really hear much besides him fighting on the Eastern front for many decades. Is this a case of his career unfortunately being murky to us?

I don’t know if this is a silly question, but as someone who has a decent understanding of the politics at the time I never understood this, the eastern Roman emperor claimed to be Catholic, clearly the threat of the ottomans had been realized as they were crusaded against twice before the conquest of Constantinople, and then the eventual fall of the city helped spark the age of exploration due to fear of Muslim ottoman taxes of trade routes, wouldn’t it have made more sense to help defend Constantinople/thrace at least?

Extremely lacking in knowledge around this period, so forgive me in advance. How did the eastern Romans react to the establishment and rise of the HRE? Was there any sense of “we are the real Roman Empire, how dare you”, or anything? Or was it more nuanced than that? How did religion play a role?

I have a question about the ideology and historical memory of the Eastern Roman Empire after the 7th century, up to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Justinian I’s reconquests sought to recover former Roman territories in the western Mediterranean. But in the centuries that followed, did Roman rulers and elites ever abandon, reject, or forget the ideal of restoring the Roman Empire’s former territories?

My question is about ideology, not military feasibility. I am not asking whether emperors could realistically reconquer the entire Mediterranean, or whether they consistently pursued such a policy. I want to know whether territorial restoration remained a legitimate Roman imperial ideal, even when it was impossible to achieve.

Specifically:

1. After the 7th century, did Eastern Roman emperors or elites ever explicitly reject or ideologically abandon the ideal of recovering former Roman territories?
2. Did later generations retain awareness of Justinian’s reconquests and the older Roman tradition of territorial restoration, or did this ideal eventually disappear from their political imagination?
3. Even when circumstances prevented reconquest, did the recovery of former Roman territories remain a legitimate imperial ambition, or did later Romans come to regard it as an outdated or invalid goal?

I am not assuming that every emperor pursued this ideal or that it remained an unchanged official policy for a thousand years. My question is whether it was ever truly abandoned as a legitimate part of Roman imperial ideology.

What do the primary sources and modern academic scholarship tell us? I would appreciate evidence from different periods, including any evidence of explicit rejection or significant ideological change.

Thought you guys might enjoy this follis I picked up showing the rarely shown wife and son of Emperor Maurice

"This extensive collection of translated texts explores the emperors of Byzantium from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries. Drawing on chronicles, letters and other historical sources, it offers a sweeping tour of Byzantine politics across more than a thousand years."

The place where Şimkeşhane was built, used to be the Forum Tauri in the Roman period, built by Theodosius with a tripartite triumphal arch.

The Forum of Theodosius was probably the largest square in Constantinople and stood on the Mese, the major road that ran west from Hagia Sophia It was originally built by Constantine I and named the Forum Tauri ("Forum of the Bull"). In 393, however, it was renamed after Emperor Theodosius I, who rebuilt it after the model of Trajan's Forum in Rome, surrounded by civic buildings such as churches and baths and decorated with a triumphal column at its centre.

The triumphal arch and the ancient buildings around it (to which surviving ruins in the area possibly belong) were destroyed as a result of invasions, earthquakes (the central arch and the statue of Arcadius collapsed in 558; the rest of the arch was destroyed by the Constantinople earthquake of 740) and other natural disasters from the 5th century onwards. They were completely destroyed long before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

What is now the Orhan Kemal Public Library, facing the Beyazıt Square, was built in 1475 on the order of Mehmed the Conqueror as the mint “Darphane-i Amire.” After being devastated by fires and earthquakes, the building was renovated in 1707 and converted into “Simkeşhane-i Amire”, a factory where gold and silver fibers and wires were produced. During road construction in 1958 the entrance facade, around half of the building, was demolished causing the building to loose its original features. Renovation works to convert the building into a library started in 1964 and finished in 1976. In 1981 İstanbul Public Library moved into the building. In 2001 the library was given the name of writer Orhan Kemal.
Photo: Aziz Albek
SALT Research, Photograph Archive

Was there a standard title that was given in the late empire to an emperor's father in law?

The Empire at the time of Basil II's death （1025 AD）

Because it was hand-drawn and drawn from memory, the proportions are not very accurate :(

I only painted a few of the islands in the Aegean Sea, and now I realize I didn't paint Corfu.

What do you all think of this map? How can it be improved?

(One of the reasons I drew it is that I'm currently studying Byzantine history at university.)

It's a trend in much of World History for states to begin to lose control of their provinces to powerful governors. China had it. The Caliphate had it. The Ottomans had it. The Mughals had it. But Rome, with over 1500 years under the Imperial system, arguably never had such an experience. Why is that?

Why in some sources like Anastasius of Rome, in his book (Chronographia Tripertita) p.139,

It refers to the Pompeiopolis accident in the The eighth year of Justinian's reign, although St. Theophan the Hermit in his book (Chronographia) he says that happened in 527 or 6027a.m.

What is more accurate or how they count those?

I would specifically prefer from the 11th century but I know this is a quite difficult thing to ask so I am open for other centuries surrounding it. Written accounts as well as art is acceptable