Byzantium in both surviving 1000 years and outlasting most of its contemporaries displays a military robust and powerful enough to maintain its borders, so it's just baffling to me that in popular memory people only imagine a useless military. Where did this popular imagination come from?

“Here are the 10 reasons to why Byzantine history deserves to be popularized beyond academic circles:

1,100 Years of Stunning Art and Architecture

Advanced Science and Technology

Plots and Intrigues that Make a Colorful History

A Long History of Epic Battles

Contributions that we Still Live by Today

Fascinating Personalities and their Stories

A Lesser-Known Global Empire

Unique Fashion Styles

A Sophisticated Culture of Law and Literature

A History of Diplomatic Feats”

While imperial politics had always been to some degree unstable, it seems to me that, after the death of Romanos II, Roman politics was racked by a severe recurrence of attempts to unseat or sideline emperors, such as—off the top of my head:

1. The sidelining of Basil ii by both Phokas and Tzimiskes

2. the attempted assassination of Basil ii later in his reign

3. the deposition of Michael V

4. the repeated attempts to depose Monomachos

5. the deposition of Michael VI

6. a possible conspiracy against Isaac Komnenos, which apparently caused him to withdraw to Constantinople while taming the Pechenegs.

7. the attempted assassination of Constantine X

8. the usurpation of Romanos Diogenes and his subsequent deposition by the Doukas faction

If my observation is true, does anyone know of any current theories as to why Roman politics seems to take a turn towards egregiously chronic scheming.

Cheers in advance

Do You like it?

Hey everyone!

With the colder months approaching (at least for some of us), I thought it might be fun to start a series of discussions about every East Roman emperor and empress, starting with Arcadius and going all the way to Constantine XI in 1453.

No tier lists or ranking emperors from best to worst. Just a good old-fashioned historical discussion built around three simple questions:

1. What do you like about this emperor/empress?

2. What don't you like about them?

3. Looking back with hindsight, what could they have done differently to improve their reign?

The idea is to go through the entire imperial line, including those lesser-known emperors who tend to get overlooked. It'll be a chance to exchange perspectives, share sources, discover new books, and hopefully learn something new about periods we might not know as much about.

Who knows, maybe we'll even end up appreciating an emperor we previously knew very little about!

I'm thinking we could do this daily, or whenever people feel like discussing the next emperor. No pressure to keep a strict schedule.

So, what do you guys think? Should we start with Arcadius?

I made a family tree of the Palaiologos dynasty until 1350s, from Michael Ⅷ to John Ⅲ, but I removed illegitimate sons and daughters and unimportant persons. This deleting is because I want to emphasize the connection between Palaiologos and the nobles of Latines. So Although I want to add the daughters who got marriage to Khans of Golden Horde or Ilkhanate, I decided to remove them in this tree.

In this tree, I was very interested in March of Montferrat and County of Savoy. Particulary, in Montferrat, after John I of Montferrat, a old brother of Yorande, died without children in 1305, Theodre, the son of Yorande and AndronikosⅡ, succeded the March as TheodreⅠand marriaged the daughter of Spinola, which is the powerful noble of Genova. After that, his descendants ruled Montferrat for about 200 years and repeatedly intermarried with House of Savoy. For example, in this tree, Yorande Palaeologina, a daughter of TheodreⅠ, is the mother of Amadeus Ⅵ who initiated the Savoyard Crusade in 1366. Also, Amadeus Ⅵ is the cousin of JohnⅤ

I want to know the detail of March of Montferrat and County of Savoy !!!!!!!

Please tell me about this!!!!!

I'm researching the composition of Byzantine armies around 1341, and I've run into a contradiction about the Turkish troops Umur Beg of Aydın sent to Andronikos III during the Albanian revolt of 1337–38.

Mark Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army (1992), p. 93, describes Umur's 2,000 men on this campaign as infantry, "lightly armed and archers."

A Turkish MA thesis on Turkish mercenaries in the Palaiologan army (Hacettepe University) describes the same force as 2,000 cavalry, citing Ostrogorsky and Ian Heath's Byzantine Armies 1118–1461.

My guesses for the discrepancy: secondary works assuming "Turkish troops = horse archers", and the fact that Umur's forces usually came by sea, which would make shipping many horses difficult. Bartusis also says Umur's army of 1343 was "almost all infantry."

My questions:

What do the primary sources (Kantakouzenos, Gregoras, Enveri's Düsturname) actually say about the troop type on this campaign?

More generally, were Umur's contingents in Byzantine service in 1337–1345 mainly foot archers, cavalry, or mixed?

Bartusis (p. 330) argues that native Byzantines did not practise horse archery in combat in this period, while Heath and Nicolle suggest Byzantine archers were largely mounted under Turkish and Cuman influence. Which view is better supported for the 1340s?

Thanks in advance!

Okay, I was just playing one of the Age of Empires II scenarios, and Basil III was mentioned (probably a typo). That got me thinking: if Byzantine history had taken a different course, or if the Empire had survived for longer, which imperial names would you have liked to see continued with new regnal numbers?

Apart from Basil III, I'd probably go with Manuel III, Alexios VI, Demetrios I, and Nikephoros IV.

What about you? Which names would you have liked to see carried on by later Byzantine emperors?

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.