Tambourmajor said:
Diocletian only briefly visited Rome once. His capital was Nikomedia. Rome is where Caesar is ...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Diocletian only briefly visited Rome once. His capital was Nikomedia. Rome is where Caesar is ...
Abdul Goatherd said:
Still arguing about that fiction ?
The pope wasn't the head of the Senate or of the city of Rome, at least not by right. (That's what the donation of Constantin is all about, giving him consular power (iirc) but it's a forgery).
Then, that as a head of the Church and a religious figure with enormous authority he was able to seize that power during this troubled period (with the help of false documents...) doesn't mean it was meant like that.
There was an exarchate and a roman emperor (the one in Constantinople) had the nominal authority over Rome and the pope.
When the pope decided he wasn't happy with who ruled (rather nominally in the case of rome) the empire (a women, but it was just the pretext he needed) and so that there was a vacancy, we can argue that there was room legally for him asking to the roman senate to proclaim a new emperor. It's true.
But the way how all that did happen isn't exactly crystal clear juridically...
Anyway, i am ready to accept that the carolingian empire is a roman state (in a way), that just doesn't stop the ERE to be roman too (and to have a better claim at being THE roman empire in my eyes).
Considering the evolution of the senatorial class during the empire (and especially after the dominate), the people being admitted to it (more and more knights) and then adding to that situation the fact that most of the patrician family who where the most aritocratic senatorial families were disapearing even at the time of Caesar... I seriously doubt that point.
Not that it matter much when we speak of the legitimacy of the senate at this time.
Last edited:
Abdul Goatherd said:
Theorically he was supposed to be apointed by the Emperor or the Exarch, wasn't he ?
Basileios I said:Ehh, Abdul, according to this site (and some others) the Roman Senate ceased to function after 603. After that there was only some city council in place.
Not that it matters though. The Roman Emperor resided in Constantinople.
I haven't read the site yet, but afaik the roman senate (curia romana) is still functionning, it's the college of cardinals now.
Although the fusion of the old assembly with the princes of the Church only came later in the middle ages as a way for the pope to secure his control over the city (with the roman aristocracy entering it as cardinals as a compensation and thanks to the donation).
That would led me to think that the senate never really ceased to exist. But i am not a specialist of the period.
I just briefly studied Roma a bit before the communal period and during it in a seminar about medieval capital cities.
Last edited:
That claim has been refuted earlier in the thread, AFAIK.Basileios I said:Diocletian only briefly visited Rome once. His capital was Nikomedia. Rome is where Caesar is ...
Tambourmajor said:
Which claim? Diocletian's capital was indeed Nicomedia -- his palace was there and that is where he ruled from. I can't remember if he only visited Rome once or not...
Keyser Pacha said:
According to this and other sites the Curia collapsed in 603 and there was only some sort of public meeting outside the ruins of the building.
Emperor of Europe said:Before I forget. Here's the Byzantian "legionnaire":
rgds/EoE
If anyone wants to know how the late Roman/early Byzantine army really looked like, look here .
Basileios I said:If anyone wants to know how the late Roman/early Byzantine army really looked like, look here .
Are you now claiming that this isn't a Byzantine soldier?
/EoE
Emperor of Europe said:
The pic you posted? No. It isn't a Byzantine soldier. Maybe an auxiliary, but a regular? No. Not even after 1261.
It's a very late byzantine soldier. The term "legionnary" probably refer to the attempt to recreate the legions, just before the city fell.
So it's probably from the XVth century.
So it's probably from the XVth century.
Keyser Pacha said:
Huh? The images I have from Byzantine militia of the 15th century look very different. They don't look like Roman legionnaries either, but they certainly didn't look like this ...
Basileios I said:
The pic you posted? No. It isn't a Byzantine soldier. Maybe an auxiliary, but a regular? No. Not even after 1261.
Listen mate, I'm aware of your fondness of colour books and cartoon pics, don't even go there. Should you ever grow tired of it and look for texts like Achmetis Oneirocriticon from the 10th century, you'll see that the typical infantry is described as wearing a turban over a thick felt cap and a coat (kavadion) made of coarse silk quilted with cotton wadding “as thick as can be stitched”. To avoid the encumbrance to movement that such a stiff, heavy garment would inflict, the arms are to pass out through openings in the armpits and the sleeves buttoned back to the shoulders.
The man pictured also wears padded leggings, kampotouva or touvia and the type of boot probably called mouzakia. These troops were to be armed with spears 4 to 5 metres long, “belt-hung swords” and either a mace or an axe. This variety of axe is called a tzikourion.
It is hardly surprising that the Byzantine Greeks quickly shed their Roman legacy and build up an army designed to face the threats of their particular situation.
/EoE
Why would yo use Achmetis Oneirocriticon as a source? A dream book that even
if it contains descriptions of clothing is considered unreliable.
if it contains descriptions of clothing is considered unreliable.
Last edited:
Emperor of Europe said:
What kind of soldier are you talking about? Specify, please. There were soldiers with an armour like the one you posted, but I've never heard of them wearing turbans, at least not as a part of the regular uniform.
And perhaps you should take a look at look at contemporary documents like the Joshua Roll or the Synopsis of Histories by John Scylizes or look at various carvings, bronze plates, mosaics and wall paintings. They show soldiers looking exactly like the ones on the "cartoon pics" you see. In fact, did you know that these illustrations are based on these sources and Byzantine military treatises? I can supply sources for the images I posted in the "Late Roman Army" thread if you want.
Anyway, I think the books I own are a much more reliable and accurate source of information about the Byzantine army than any of your, often unqualified posts about Romano-Byzantine armies (just look back a few pages).
Ohhh, just look at what I found:
How can that be a Byzantine soldier?
Emperor of Europe said:
What Roman legacy? Are you aware of the fact that the late Roman army looked nothing like it's classical predecessor (or that the Byzantine army of the 10th century -- concerning new strategies, such as the renaissance of heavy infantry (skutatoi) as an important, often decisive force -- had more in common with the classical Roman army than any Roman army inbetween)? Romans always adapted and copied military equipment. I don't see what makes the Byzantine army of the 10th century less "Roman" than the army of the 4th century.
EDIT:
And some text about dreams is indeed not the most reliable source. You should really take a look at some military manuals or pictorial sources. You will see that my "cartoon pics" are accurate ...
arc3371 said:
Because, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the technical descriptions of it are regarded as being quite valid. Especially since they mention the exact same equipment as the contemporary Praecepta Militaria by the Greek Byzantine Nikiphoros Phokas.
rgds/EoE
Basileios I said:
Do you have the full series of those comic books? Then you will probably have noticed that there's a substantial difference in equipment between the early, light armoured infantry and the later infantry of which some moves back to more armour, as the Empire regained some of its riches.
That soldier is a typical Byzantine Greek infantry man of his day and age.
/EoE
Emperor of Europe said:
First you said 10th century.
Emperor of Europe said:
But that is not true.
And no, turbans were not a part of the regular Byzantine military uniforms. Not even in the "Dark Age". The majority of soldiers wore helmets or leather caps.
I'm just curious, why did you bring up the dream book first?
Last edited: