history - rome and romania, 27 bc - 1453 ad

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc.

ROME AND ROMANIA,27 BC-1453 AD

Emperors of the Roman and the so-called Byzantine Empires; Princes, Kings, and Tsars of Numidia, Judaea, Bulgaria, Serbia,

Wallachia, & Moldavia; Sultâns of Rûm and Beys of Aydin

Rome casts a long shadow. I am writing in the Latin alphabet. I am using the Roman calendar, with its names of the months. I use Roman names for the planets in the sky. Sentences I write contain borrowed Latin words with some frequency [e.g. sententia, continêre, Latinus, frequentia, for example -- exempli gratia]. Nietzsche said, "The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived." But this is just the problem. What Nietzsche admired was unapologetic power, conquest, and domination. This no longer seems so admirable, and the Empire founded by Julius Caesar and Augustus, as a form of government, does not look like an advance in the course of human progress. Even to Machiavelli, the despotism of Caesar was a grave retrogression in comparison to the Roman Republic. While a thoughtful Emperor, like Marcus Aurelius, expressed ideals adopted from Stoic cosmopolitanism, the unity and universality of Rome soon expressed itself as the unity and universality of a state religion, Christianity, whose intrinsic exclusivism and intolerance became characteristic of the Middle Ages. This is also no longer to be regarded as admirable. Nevertheless, the very success of Rome makes us, like it or not, her heirs, in countless matters great and small. Indeed, the Romans were rather more successful than is usually thought. The corpus of Roman law, let alone Greek literature, was not preserved at Rome, but at Constantinople,

Roma Nova. What most people would probably regard as an obscure footnote to Mediaeval history, the Byzantine Empire, was in fact still the Roman Empire, known to Western

Europeans, "Latins" or "Franks" at the time, as Romania, already the name of the Empire in Late Antiquity. The Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, and then refugees from the fall of the City to the Ottomans in 1453, rather crudely, but effectively, brought the heritage of the Roman East back into the hitherto poorer Mediaeval civilization of the West.

This is getting to be a large text file, but it may take an especially long time to load because of all the maps and genealogical charts, which are large graphic files. There is also an audio file, if anyone wants music. Despite that overall size, the file has not been broken up, so as to preserve and emphasize the continuity of the history of Rome and Romania from Augustus all the way to Constantine XI. It is a long story -- Gibbon's version is now published in three large volumes, and he only began with the Antonines.

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (1 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

http://www.friesian.com/machiav.htm

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#hellen

http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm

http://www.friesian.com/sounds/rome.mp3


Index

● Introduction ● Animated History of Romania ● Consuls of the Roman Republic ● Sources

● I. First Empire, "Rome," 27 BC-284 ❍ A. "PRINCIPATE," 27 BC-235, 261 years

■ 1. JULIO-CLAUDIANS ■ Roman Coinage

■ 2. The Bosporan Kingdom ■ 3. Armenia, 401 BC-428 AD

■ The Patriarchs of Armenia ■ 4. Numidia ■ 5. Judaea ■ 6. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES ■ 7. SEVERANS

❍ B. CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284, 49 Years ■ Crisis of the Third Century Chart

● II. Second Empire, Early "Romania," 284-610 ❍ A. "DOMINATE," 284-379, 95 years

■ 1. TETRARCHS ■ Chart of the Tetrarchy ■ Late Roman Capitals

■ 2. CONSTANTIANS ■ The Approaches and Environs of Constantinople ■ The Theodosian Walls of Constantinople

■ Cross Section of the Walls ■ The Patriarchs of Jerusalem ■ The Patriarchs of Antioch ■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople

■ 3. VALENTIANS ❍ B. CRISIS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, 379-476, 97 Years

■ 1. THEODOSIANS ■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon ■ Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch ■ King Arthur


http://www.friesian.com/coins.htm#roman

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#bosporus

http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#armenia1

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#constantinople

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#jerusalem

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#antioch


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#maronite

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#syrian


■ Visigoths ■ Burgundians ■ Vandals ■ Western Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD ■ Eastern Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD ■ The Roman Army, c. 408 AD

■ 2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS ❍ C. THE EAST ALONE, 476-518, 42 Years

■ 1. LEONINES ■ Ostrogoths ■ Roman Coinage

❍ D. RETURNING TO THE WEST, 518-610, 92 years ■ 1. JUSTINIANS

■ Lombards ■ Provinces at the Death of Justinian, 565 AD

■ 2. Georgia, 588-1505

● III. Third Empire, Middle "Romania," Early "Byzantium," 610-1059 ❍ A. THE ADVENT OF ISLAM, 610-802, 192 years

■ 1. HERACLIANS ■ The Organization of the Themes and Exarchates, at the Death of Constans II, 668

AD ■ 2. Armenia, 628-806 AD

■ Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem ■ 3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS) ■ 4. Doges (Dukes) of Venice, 727-1797

❍ B. REVIVAL AND ASCENDENCY, 802-1059, 257 years ■ 1. NICEPHORANS ■ 2. AMORIANS (PHRYGIANS) ■ 3. Bulgaria before Roman Conquest

■ Macedonian Bulgaria ■ 4. MACEDONIANS ■ 5. Armenia, 806-1064

● IV. Fourth Empire, Late "Romania/Byzantium," 1059-1453 ❍ A. THE ADVENT OF THE TURKS, 1059-1185, 126 years

■ 1. DUCASES ■ 2. Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm ■ 3. COMNENI ■ 4. Lesser Armenia



http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#georgia






■ 5. Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1099-1489 ■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem ■ County of Edessa ■ Principality of Antioch ■ County of Tripoli ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem ■ Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem

❍ B. THE LATIN EMPIRE, 1185-1261, 76 years ■ 1. ANGELI ■ 2. Bulgaria, Asens ■ 3. LATINS

■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople ■ Kings of Thessalonica ■ Dukes of Athens ■ Princes of Achaea

■ 4. Epirus ■ 5. Trebizond ■ 6. LASCARIDS

❍ C. THE LAST DAYS, 1261-1453, 192 years ■ 1. Serbia ■ 2. Bosnia ■ 3. Bulgaria, Terters ■ 4. Begs (Beys) of Aydïn ■ 5. PALAEOLOGI

■ The Flag of ROMANIA ■ 6. Romanians

● V. Fifth Empire, Ottomans, Islamic Byzantium, 1453-1922, 469 years ❍ The Patriarchs of Constantinople ❍ Animated History of Turkiya ❍ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD ❍ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

● Modern Romania, Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans ■ 1817, Serbian Autonomy ■ 1834, after Greek Independence ■ 1858, after the Crimean War

❍ România, 1611-present ■ 1875


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#jerusalem

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#jerulatin

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#edessa

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#antioch

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#tripoli

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#malta

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#templars

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#teutonic

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#latinpat

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#montferrat

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#athens


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#bosnia

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#ottoman


■ Congress of Berlin, 1878 ❍ Montenegro, 1697-1918

■ 1908 ❍ Greece, 1821-present

■ 1912, before the Balkan Wars ❍ Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present

■ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I ❍ Bulgaria, 1879-present

■ 1925, after World War I ❍ Albania, 1914-present

■ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II ■ 1947, after World War II

❍ Macedonia, 1991-present ■ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing

❍ Armenia & Georgia, 1991-present

Philosophy of History

Home Page

Sources

Discussion of the period covered by this page, with sources on Roman and "Byzantine" history, upon which the actual tables and genealogies are based, may be found in "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History." One Roman source not mentioned there is the handy Who Was Who In The Roman World, edited by Diana Bowder [1980, Washington Square Press, Pocket Books, 1984]. That was the first book I ever saw that organized Roman Emperors into logical dynastic or event centered groups. Other sources are given here at the points where they are used. This page is continued and supplemented by the material in "Successors of Rome: Germania", "Successors of Rome: Francia", "Successors of Rome: The Periphery of Francia", "Successors of Rome: Russia", and "The Ottoman Sultâns". Some material on earlier history may be found at "Historical Background to Greek Philosophy" and "Historical Background to Hellenistic Philosophy".

The maps are originally those of Tony Belmonte, edited to eliminate references to "Byzantium" and with corrections and additions. Tony's historical atlas (with Tony) disappeared from the Web. It was painstakingly reassembled by Jack Lupic, but then his site has disappeared also. Corrections and additions are based on The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History (Colin McEvedy, 1967), The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin McEvedy, 1961), The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin McEvedy, 1992), The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth


http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#armenia

http://www.friesian.com/#contents

http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#history

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#monarch


Bukor, 1974), and various prose histories. My graphics programs do not seem to be quite as sophisticated as Tony's, so maps I have modified may not look as professionally done as his originals.

Note that Greek words and names are not phonetically transliterated but are actually Latinized in both spelling and morphology. Thus, the name that could be transliterated from Greek as "Doukas," is written "Ducas." The epithet of Basil II, "Bulgaroktonos," "Bulgar Slayer," is rendered "Bulgaroctonus." This is contrary to increasing usage but is, as Warren Threadgold says [A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997, p. xxi], what the Romans would have done themselves when writing in the Latin alphabet. Since the Latin alphabet is used here, and since the Roman Empire originally used Latin as its universal language, never forgotten in Greek Romania, that is the practice here. Exceptions would be for Greek words that simply have Latin translations. Thus, Greek Rhômaioi, "Romans," corresponds to Latin Romani (not "Rhomaeoe"). A kind of exception to this would be when the Greek word is part of a compound. For instance Tsar Kalojan of Bulgaria was called the "Roman Killer," Rhômaioktonos. This would Latinize as Rhomaeoctonus.

Rome and Romania Index

I. FIRST EMPIRE, "ROME," 27 BC-284, 310 years

The "First Empire" is what often would be considered the entire history of the "Roman Empire." It is definitely the end of the Ancient World. If "Rome" means paganism, bizarre Imperial sex crimes, and the Pax Romana, then this would indeed be it. A later Empire that is Christian, more somberly moralistic, and more beset with war, sounds like a different civilization, which it is, and isn't. That the earlier civilization didn't "fall" but merely became transformed is a truth that both academic and popular opinion still hasn't quite come to terms with. If the decadence of pagan religion and despotic emperors was going to be the cause of the "fall" of Rome, then it certainly should have fallen in the Crisis of the Third Century. That it didn't would seem almost like a disappointment to many. But the greatest of the 3rd century Emperors, like Aurelian, don't get popular books, movies, and BBC television epics made about them. They begin to pass into a kind of historical blind spot. The Pax Romana seems real enough in certain places, but there were not many reigns without some major military action. As long as these were remote from Rome, people would have thought of it as peace. Once Aurelian rebuilt the walls around Rome, things had obviously changed.


A. "PRINCIPATE," 27 BC-235, 261 years

1. JULIO-CLAUDIANSThis is the period that fits everybody's main idea of the "Roman Empire." Caligula and Nero, and Robert Graves's version of Claudius, are objects of



Augustus 27 BC-14 AD

Tiberius I 14-37

Caligula 37-41

Claudius I 41-54

Invasion of Britain, 43

Nero 54-68

non-dynastic

Galba 68-69

Otho 69

Vitellius 69

endless fascination, moralizing, guilty pleasure, and not-so-guilty pleasure. Whatever these emperors were actually like, this approach began with the Romans themselves, with Suetonius's list of Tiberius's sexual perversions, lovingly reproduced in Bob Guccione's movie Caligula (1979, 1991). Whether Tiberius was really guilty of anything of the sort is anyone's guess, but we don't hear much in the way of such accusations about subsequent Emperors, except for a select few, like Caracalla and Elagabalus. Meanwhile, Augustus had secured the Rhine-Danube frontier, and Claudius conquered most of Britain. Augustus originally wanted an Elbe-Danube frontier, but his forces were caught in a catastrophic ambush and destroyed. The Romans gave up on the Elbe permanently. Only Charlemagne, by the conquest of Saxony, would secure what Augustus had wanted. The shadow of the Republic persisted during this period, as Augustus adapted Republican forms to his own concentration of absolute power, and someone like Claudius could still dream of restoring the Republic. The year 69 pretty much ended these dreams, since the first free-for-all scramble for the throne revealed that the army, and only the army, would determine who would be Emperor. Strangely enough, despite the occasional anarchy, this would be a source of strength for the Empire, since it always did the best with successful

soldiers at its head. Unsuccessful soldiers faced the most merciless reality check (whether killed by the enemy or by their own troops); but purely civilian Emperors, like Honorius, could endure one disaster after another without their rule necessarily being endangered.

The family of the Julio-Claudians seems like one of the most complicated in history. This chart eliminates


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#caroling


many people in the family to focus on the descent and relation of the Emperors. Caligula and Nero are descendants of Augustus, through his daughter Julia (from his first marriage); but Claudius and Nero are also descendants of Mark Antony, who of course committed suicide, shortly before Cleopatra, rather than be captured after his defeat by Augustus.

The use of crowns to indicate the emperors is at this point anachronistic, but it is convenient. The crown for Christian Roman Emperors, which of course will not occur until Constantine, is shown with a nimbus, like deified earlier

Emperors, because they are always portrayed with halos, like Saints, and are said to be the "Equal of the Apostles."

4. KINGS OF NUMIDIA

Masinissa c.215-149

Gulussa &Mastanabal

149-c.145

Micipsa 149-118

Adherbal &Hiempsal I

118-116

Jugurtha 118-105

No less that four foreign cultures have been planted into North Africa over the centuries. The Kingdom of Numidia was originally promoted by Rome as an ally against the Carthaginians. In the Second Punic War (218-201), Masinissa went from fighting effectively for Carthage to an alliance with Rome. His cavalry is largely what enabled Scipio Africanus to defeat Hannibal at Zama in 202. He was then supported by the Romans in eliminating his Numidian rivals. However, when he wanted to marry the wife of the great Numidian king Syphax, the Cathaginian princess Sophonisba, the Romans demanded that she be handed over to them. Masinissa enabled her to poison herself instead. Rome supported Masinissa the rest of his life. He died shortly before Carthage itself was exterminated in 146. Numidian allies thus enabled Rome to overthrow the



War with Romans,112-106

Gauda 105-?

Hiempsal II c.88-c.50

Juba I c.50-46

Juba II c.30 BC-c.22 AD

Ptolemy c.22 AD-40

Roman Province

first foreign culture in North Africa, the Phoenician (or "Punic" to the Romans). The Numidians then, of course, discovered what being an "ally" of Rome really meant, and war resulted as later Kings tried to preserve their independence -- especially the War of Jugurtha (112-105). Like the native kingdoms of Anatolia, Numidia was soon converted into a Roman province, opening the way for the introduction of a Latinate culture. If no other events had intervened, North Africa today would probably boast its own Romance language, like Spanish or French. This, however, was not to be. The Vandals interrupted Roman rule, but not long enough to make any lasting difference, if Islam had not soon arrived. When it did, this became the most durably planted foreign culture, with a large colonial element, as the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt later directed an invasion of ethnic Arab tribes -- in revenge for North African defection from the Fatimids, and from the Shi'ite cause. The last culture planted was that of France, beginning with the occupation of Algeria in 1830. Eventually, something like 30% of the population of Algeria was French colonials, who began to fight as the era of de-colonization threatened their position. This brought about the fall of the French Fourth Republic in 1958. Interestingly, the two greatest French Existentialist writers and philosophers were on opposite sides of the issue. Jean Paul Sartre had become a dogmatic Marxist who demanded Algerian independence at any cost, while Albert Camus, whose most famous book, The Stranger, is set in Algeria, could not so easily dismiss the poor French farmers who had lived in Algeria for nearly a century -- Camus also suspected that Sartre's doctrinaire leftism concealed a bit of collaboration with the Germans in World War II. The return of Charles de Gaulle to power in 1958 ushered in harsh medicine about Algeria. De Gaulle decided that France should cut her losses, and the colony was abruptly granted independence in 1962. This began a bitter exodus of the French colonials and the nauseating torture and massacre of all those Algerians who were associated with the colonial regime. The cycle of terrorism continues even today, as leftist ideology has collapsed into an unhappy civil conflict between military rule and Islamic fundamentalism, and frightened Algerians have increasingly fled....to France.

5. LEADERS & KINGS OF JUDAEA

Hasmoneans

Judas Maccabaeus 167-161

Jerusalem Occupied, 164

Jonathan 161-143

Simon 142-135

John Hyrcanus I 135-105

Aristobulus 104-103

The success of the great struggle of the Maccabees to free the Jews from the Seleucid Kings is still commemorated in the holiday of Hanukkah, based on an incident when the Temple was reconsecrated after the liberation of Jerusalem. Little oil was available for the Temple lamps, but what there was burned miraculously for eight days. The burning of candals for Hanukkah coincides, however, with similar fire rituals of many people at the darkest time of the year, in December, and Hanukkah has also taken on the gift-giving attributes of Christmas -- exemplifying the adapation of religious rituals to several purposes. Explanations of Hanukkah often awkwardly refer to the "Syrians" instead of to the Seleucid Greeks -- but it would certainly seem more politic today to risk offending the Greeks than to have the modern Syrians, who had nothing to do


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#siege-1

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#fatimid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#imams

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#4rep

http://www.friesian.com/existent.htm

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#text-8


Alexander Jannaeus 103-76

Salome Alexandra 76-67

Aristobulus II 67-63

Pompey captures Jerusalem, 63

Hyrcanus II 63-40

Antigonus 40-37

Herodians

Herod I the GreatKing,37-4 BC

ArchelausEthnarch,4 BC-6 AD

Herod II AntipasTetrarch,4 BC-39 AD

PhilipTetrarch,4 BC-37 AD

Herod Agrippa IKing,37-44

Agrippa IIKing,50/53-100?

Jewish Revolt & War, 66-73:Destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD;

Fall of Masada, 73;Revolt of Bar Kokhba, 132-135

with the Seleucids, feel accused of ancient tyranny. Modern Israel and Syria have enough recent issues to deal with.

The hard won independence of Judaea fell within a century to Rome, which for a time, as elsewhere, tolerated a fiction of local rule -- the Herodian dynasty owed its power entirely to Roman favor. This did not mollify the Messianic hotheads, who inevitably sparked a rebellion that led to the final destruction of the Temple, the end, in a sense, of ancient Judaism, massacres and mass suicides, as at Masada, and the increasing Diaspora of Jews into the Roman world. Out of this also came the story of a peaceful Messiah, who had been executed and resurrected, whose cult eventually overwhelmed Rome itself, transforming Hellenistic Romanism into a culture of both Athens and Jerusalem. Jews themselves derived little enough benefit from this transformation, since Pauline Christianity had repudiated the ritual requirements of the Law and the new religion became increasingly estranged from the old. Once the new religion became the State Religion of Rome, the rigor with which Judaism had rejected the old gods now became public policy, to their own disability. Christianity never had the provision found in Islam, however grudging, for the toleration, within limits, of kindred religionists. The fate of Jews in Christendom thus became a matter of local preference, though no less an authority than St. Augustine said that Jews should be tolerated so that the Biblical prophecies of the Coming of Christ would be preserved by a disinterested, or even hostile, source. Augustine, interestingly, did not doubt that Jews could be trusted to faithfully preserve the Hebrew text of the Bible -- as they did.

The genealogy of the Hasmonaeans is from The Complete World of The Dead Sea Scrolls (Philip R. Davies, George J. Brooke, & Phillip R. Callaway, Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2002, p.42). The incestuous marriages of the children and grandchildren of Herod the Great, perhaps typical of a Hellenistic dynasty, like the


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#israel


Ptolemies, were very hard to understand. The chart in my edition of Josephus (The Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1960, p.410) did not make things very clear, but then my colleague Don Smith helped straighten things out for me. There seems to be some question about the parentage of Herodias and Agrippa I -- with Davies, Brooke, & Callaway going for Aristobulus. Aristobulus and his brother Alexander, descendants of the Hasmonaeans through their mother, were both excecuted by Herod.

Since Mediaeval Jews shared in the continuing trade and commercial culture of the Middle East, and were often its only representatives in impoverished and ruralized Latin Europe, they became fatefully associated in European eyes with the commercial and financial practices that Europeans at once needed, wanted, misunderstood, and resented. A similar problem

later occurred all over again in Eastern Europe,

where the Kings of Poland were eager to bring in a more sophisticated population, unwelcome in Western Europe, to develop the country and strengthen the throne. Such resentments in time found theoretical expression in Marx's view that the Jews embodied the archetype of grasping and exploitive capitalism. This made them class enemies, but that was

soon enough converted into race




enemies when Marxism mutated into Fascism and Naziism. Jews who thought they had escaped the class and race animus in the Soviet Union soon came to be suspected, purged, and, increasingly, murdered by Stalin, while Hitler, of course, decided to kill them all. This helped promote the idea, not surprisingly, that all Jews should return to Palestine and found a Jewish State, which is what happened. After 2000 years, however, the Zionists found that they didn't have a lot in common with the modern Arabic speaking population of the place they returned to -- rather than learn Arabic, they even decided to revive Hebrew, which was already dying out as a spoken language in the days of the Hasmoneans, and which some Jews refused to speak as being a sacred language (they still speak Yiddish). After fifty years, this conflict between Israel and Arab Palestinians has still not been resolved.

By some estimates, e.g. Paul Johnson in his A History of the Jews [HarperPerennial, 1988], Jews constituted as much as 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. I am not familiar with the basis of this estimate, but I am familiar with the difficulty of estimating Roman population at all. I find so high a figure inherently improbable. Judaea, although the "land of milk and honey" in the Bible, is a pretty barren place. This is not going to support a large population, especially on the basis of ancient agriculture. That there should be as many Jews there as, for instance, Egyptians is impossible. Of course, a large part of the estimate is based on the Diaspora population. Even in the time of the Ptolemies, Alexandria already had a very large Jewish population. But that is a key point: the Diaspora population is mostly going to be urban; but the urban population of the Roman Empire is unlikely to have been more than 20% of the whole. Even today, 85% of the population of Tanzania, whose growth was ruined by the socialism of its post-independence government, is still in agriculture. If the population of the Empire was as much as 20% urban, and Jews were 10% of the population, then Jews would have to constitute nearly half of the population of every city, especially including Rome itself (which may have had a population of over a million people at one point -- it could only be fed by surplus grain from North Africa and Egypt). That is nothing like the impression we get from the records, where so large a group in Rome would be felt on a constant basis. So this "10%" seems like a gravely inflated figure, though we may never have a really accurate one.

When Jerusalem fell to Titus, the Temple and most of the city were demolished. The furniture and sacred vessels of the Temple, including, Josephus says, the red curtains of the Inner Sanctuary, were carried off to Rome -- portrayed on the Arch of Titus (through which mediaeval Jews refused to walk). They remained there until 455, when the Vandals sacked the city and removed their loot to Carthage. When Belisarius overthrew the Vandals for Justinian in 533 and found the items from the Temple in Carthage, they were sent back to Constantinople. There they disappear from history. There is no reason not to think that they were safely kept, along with all the rest of the Classical heritage, at Constantinople, at least until the looting of the city by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. At that point many treasures were carried off, largely to Venice. There is no mention, however, except for the fabulous stories about the Templars, of anything, generally or specifically, from the Temple in Jerusalem being found by the Crusaders, and nothing of the sort has ever subsequently been noticed kept at Venice or elsewhere. The great Menôrâh of the Temple, described in detail by Josephus and shown on the Arch, is certainly not something to be easily overlooked. We are thus left with a considerable mystery, and it is a little surprising that there are not, at least, legends about the fate of the Temple items.

Since it has previously been noted that the Ark of the Covenant, despite Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), was not carried off to Tanis, one might wonder what subsequently happened to it. Although Josephus speaks of





http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#22


Titus taking away "the Law," he describes nothing like the Ark. Later, Mediaeval sources (e.g. Mirabilia Urbis Romae, c.1143, The Marvels of Rome, Italica Press, New York, 1986, p.29) speak of the Ark having been in Rome, but this was long, long after the fact. It must not be forgotten, however, that the Temple had once before been destroyed, by Nebuchadnezzar, in 587 BC. It is not clear that anything of the Temple survived, and so the Ark could well have been destroyed then -- or concealed on the Temple Mount, where the Templars supposedly found it.

The maps here begin with Rome at its height under Trajan. The traditional notion that Trajan marched all the way down to the Persian Gulf now seems open to question, but he certainly annexed a good part of Mesopotamia, as well as Armenia and Dacia. These, as it happened, were all the most organized states on the borders of Rome, exceptingly only Kush. The Pax Romana thus was often a matter of war on the frontiers in order to preserve the peace within. But when Hadrian withdrew from some of Trajan's conquests, he was then troubled by the revolt of Bar Kochba in Judaea.

6. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES

Vespasian 69-79

The Flavians Vespasian and Titus were both great soldiers and, to the Roman historians, virtuous and admirable men. Unfortunately, Titus's brother Domitian was not quite of the same stamp, and then went on to reign longer than his father and brother. He was succeeded by a


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#babylon



Jewish Revolt & War, 66-73:Destruction of Jerusalem,70 AD; Fall of Masada, 73

Titus 79-81

Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, 79;Colosseum dedicated, 80

Domitian 81-96

Nerva 96-98

Trajan 97-117

Dacia conquered, 101-106;Nabataean Petra annexed,

106; Armenia & Mesopotamiaannexed, 114; Jewish

Revolt, 115-117

Hadrian 117-138

Bar Kochba's Revoltin Judaea, 132-135

Antoninus Pius 138-161

Lucius Verus 161-169

Parthian War, 162-168

Marcus Aurelius 161-180

German War, 168-175

Commodus 177-192

non-dynastic

Pertinax 193

Didius Julianus 193

buys throne fromPraetorian Guard for 25,000

sesterces per man

fraternity of soldiers who adopted each other to secure competent and peaceful succession. The "Five Good Emperors" (in boldface) became the ideal of generations, all the way to Gibbon, for peaceful and benevolent government. Trajan was the first Emperor born in the provinces (Spain) and briefly, with his Mesopotamian campaign, expanded the Empire to its greatest extent. In the Middle Ages, Trajan had such a powerful reputation for goodness that the story began to circulate that God had brought him back to life just so he could convert to Christianity. Dante even includes that in the Divine Comedy. Antoninus Pius became the only Roman Emperor in 1500 years to be called "the Pious," but we really know precious little about his reign, which is only covered by the poor Historia Augusta. This may simply illustrate the principle that goodness and peace (the height of the "Pax Romana") is boring. The peace ended under Marcus Aurelius, the closest thing to a "philosopher king" until Thomas Jefferson, but also a very competent general, who smashed a major German invasion across the Danube, while consoling himself with Stoicism for the miseries of war, plague, and personal loss. Marcus's only real failure was to leave the Empire to his worthless son, Commodus. Hereditary succession, although eventually stabilized in Constantinople, would prove a dangerous principle at many moments in Roman history. The incompetence and viciousness of Commodus then set off his assassination and the second great free-for-all fight for the throne, in 193. This was not without its comic aspect, when the




Niger, in Syria 193-194

Clodius Albinus,in Britain & Gaul

193-197

Praetorian Guard killed the disciplinarian Pertinax and literally put the throne up for sale. The wealthy Didius Julianus made the best bid but had no other ability to secure his rule. He was killed by Septimius Severus, a notably humorless man, who arrived in Rome promptly -- and then also abolished the Guard.

Although Hollywood, and Italian cinema, used to turn out one Roman themed movie after another, frequently with religious overtones (called "sword-and-sandals" epics), the genre all but died with a 1964 movie about Commodus, The Fall of the Roman Empire (a tad premature there on the "Fall"). Except for Fellini's strange Satyricon (1970), the pornographic Caligula (1979), and the comic Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), the next Roman movie would not be released until 2000, with Ridley Scott's big budget and successful Gladiator. This is also, as it happens, about Commodus. The closing implication of Gladiator is diametrically the opposite of the 1964 movie, with the good guys apparently having won and a hopeful future in the offing. Neither movie, of course, gets it quite right. The competition for the throne in 193 was not very edifying, and absolutely none of the players appear in Gladiator, not even Pertinax, the prefect of the city of Rome. On the other hand, the story does not pretend to historical accuracy about the events. Commodus did like to fight gladiators, but he was not killed that way, and certainly not by a wronged general. There is no evidence that Commodus killed his father, or any hint that Marcus considered a non-hereditary succession. Even in the movie it is clear that his provision for such a thing came far too late to be effective. Gladiator is a good movie and a good story, but it is not a serious attempt to present real Roman history. Because of its success, however, one can hope that other events in Roman history, however fictionalized, will have a chance to make it onto the screen.

7. SEVERANS

Septimius Severus 193-211

prohibition ofconversions to Judaism

or Christianity, 202

Caracalla 198-217

Geta 209-211

Roman Citizenshipto all free persons, 212

Macrinus 217-218

Diadumenian 218

Elagabalus 218-222

Alexander Severus 222-235

It took a little time for Septimius to put down all the would-be Emperors in the provinces, but he did so with determination and ferocity. The virtues of nobility reputed to Trajan, of culture to Hadrian, of piety to Antoninus, and of philosophy to Marcus Aurelius were all missing in Septimius Severus. He also doesn't seem to have considered anything other than hereditary succession, despite having a particularly nasty son, Caracalla, as the candidate. His attempt to ballance Carcalla with his brother Geta simply got Geta murdered. Another factor, however, was the loyalty inspired in the troops to the family, and Caracalla himself maintained that popularity reasonably well, until his inevitable murder. This set off another brief free-



for-all, until loyalty to the Severan family prevailed. The "family," however, turned out to be the entirely matrilineal creation of Severus' sister-in-law, Julia Maesa, who brought her two grandsons, entirely unrelated to Severus, to the throne. The bizarre Elagabalus (sometimes "Heliogabalus"), styling himself the god of his grandmother's Syrian solar cult, and then the amiable and reasonably effective Alexander thus wrapped up the dynasty. Alexander was killed after the overdue reality check of battle, against the newly aggressive Persians. He was not that bad, but evidently not good enough for his own troops, who killed him and his mother. Septimius Severus himself was one of the two Roman Emperors (Constantius Chlorus was the other) to die (a natural death) at York (Eboracum) in Britain.

A bit of an intellectual revival took place at the court of Septimius Severus. This has been called the "Second Sophistic" and was largely due to the interests of Julia Domna. In a history of the sophists written at the time, by Philostratus, he says that Julia attracted a circle of mathematicians and philosophers. However, this actually meant something more like "astrologers and sophists," and the revival was more of a retrospective on ancient philosophy than a movement that contributed much original or of interest to it. Nevertheless, such an inspiration and preoccupation has been compared to similar concerns in the Renaissance.


B. CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284, 49 Years


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#shahs

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#rebirth


This map looks like it should be from the Fifth

Century. The Goths, not yet divided, are here, but they come in part by boat, which we will not see with them later. The

Franks here duplicate the later course of the Vandals, through Gaul, Spain, and North Africa, but without the same effects. Later, the Franks will not be a principal invader but will be the ultimate beneficiary of the invasions. The Alemanni also will be less active later, remaining in Germany and leaving their name as the word for "German" in Romance languages. Rome is weakened by revolt in the West and a Palyrmene takeover in the East. But in this era Roman institutions prove resilient enough to restore the status quo ante (with troubling strategic withdrawls). But the Germans remain across the Rhine and Danube, growing in numbers and sophistication. One might even say that all this was a dress rehearsal for the later invasions. In the theater, if the dress rehearsal goes poorly, the opening will go well. This is what happened.

The chaos that had threatened in some earlier successions

Maximinus I Thrax 235-238 SONS, BROTHERS, etc.

Gordian I Africanus 238 Gordian II 238

Balbinus & Pupiens 238

Gordian III 238-244

(in 69 and 193) now arrived in 238, when we can say that there were five Emperors in one year. The complexity of the following period can only be appreciated, or even understood, by reviewing the "Crisis of the Third Century" chart. Few Emperors reigned long or died natural deaths. Gordian III's six years would count




Philip I the Arab 244-249 Philip II 247-249

Decius 249-251Herennius 251

Hostilianus 251

Trebonianus Gallus 251-253 Volusianus 253

Aemilianus 253

Valerian I 253-260Valerian II 253-255

Saloninus 255-259

Gallienus 253-268

260, defeated and capturedby the Sassanid Shâh Shapur I

Postumus, in Gaul 259-268

Claudius II Gothicus 268-270 Quintillus 270

Defeat of Goths, 269

Victorianus, in Gaul 268-270

Tetricus I, in Gaul 270-273 Tetricus II 270-273

Zenobia, of Palmyra 267-272 Vabalanthus 270-273

Aurelian 270-275

Withdrawl from Dacia, 271

Tacitus 275-276 Florianus 276

Probus 276-282

Carus 282-283Numerian 283-284

Carinus 283-285

as lengthy for the period, but his murder would prove all too typical. The musical chairs of murders did not help prepare the Empire for increased activity by the Germans and Persians. Decius and Herennius were killed in battle by the Goths in 251 -- the only Roman Emperors to die in battle (against external enemies) besides Julian (against the Persians, 363), Valens (against the Goths again, 378), Nicephorus I (against the Bulgars, 811), and Constantine XI (with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, 1453). Valerian's relatively long reign ended with the unparalleled ignominy of being captured by Shapur I -- the only Roman Emperor captured by an enemy until Romanus IV in 1071. His son Gallienus then endured one invasion and disaster after another, with the Empire actually beginning to break up. Despite a short reign (and a natural death), Claudius II began to turn things around by defeating the Goths, commemorated with a column that still stands in Istanbul. His colleague Aurelian then substantially restores the Empire, only to suffer assassination, initiating a new round of revolving Emperors. This finally ended with Diocletian, who picked up reforming the Empire, militarily, politically, and religiously, where Aurelian had left off.


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#shahs-2


Not much in the way of dynasties in this period. Many Emperors, of course, wanted to associate their sons with them to arrange for their succession; but in the violent ends of most Emperors, the sons usually died with them. Gordian III, Gallienus, and Carinus are the principal exceptions, ruling in their own right after the death of fathers or, with Gordian, uncle and grandfather.

The invasions and political troubles of the Third Century shook the religious and philosophical certainties upon which Rome had previously thrived. Exotic religious cults, like Mithraism and

Christianity, now began to exert wide appeal; and a profound shift occurred in philosophy. We no longer hear much of Stoics or Epicureans, but whole new perspectives and concerns are ushered in by the mystical Egyptian Plotinus (d.270), who even enjoyed some Imperial patronage under Gordian III and Philip the Arab. He makes the Second Sophistic look superficial indeed. With his return to the epistemology and metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, Plotinus, as such the founder of Neoplatonism, picks up the mainstream of development of the Western philosophical tradition, which had somewhat detoured in the Hellenistic Period through revivals of Presocratic doctrine (Heraclitus for the Stoics, Atomism for the Epicureans). Plotinus's student, disciple, and Boswell Porphyry (d.>300), who enjoyed patronage from Aurelian, promoted Neoplatonic principles, wrote an introduction to Aristotle's logical works, the Isagoge, which became an indispensable text in the Middle Ages, and even began organizing the defense of traditional religion in his Against the Christians -- though the Neoplatonic version of traditional religion now looks much more of a piece with Christian sensibilities than with things like the peculiar and archaic practices examined by Frazer in The Golden Bough. The cultural and intellectual sea change of the period, soon followed by Diocletian's reforms, usher in the world of Late Antiquity. Classicists start to become nervous and irritable.


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#late

http://www.friesian.com/history.htm#hellen


275 AD


II. SECOND EMPIRE, EARLY "ROMANIA," 284-610, Era of Diocletian 1-327, 326 years

The "Second Empire" is a period of transformation whose beginning and end seem worlds apart. Even at the beginning, however, Classicists find themselves becoming uncomfortable, in large part because they are now rubbing shoulders with Byzantinists, Mediaevalists, and, worse, historians of religion and, gasp, even of the Church. In the Middle Ages, this was regarded as a triumphant period, when the Roman Empire was redeemed and ennobled with its conversion to and transformation by Christianity -- becoming a "Romania" whose name is now not even familiar as the name of the Roman Empire. In Modern thought, this construction tends to be reversed, with the superstition and dogmatism of Christianity dragging the Classical World down into the Dark Ages. At the same time, however, there is still a strong attraction to the idea of blaming the collapse of the Empire on the characteristics of pagan Roman society -- slavery, the Games, sexual license,



corruption, etc. Since this is more or less the Christian critique of pagan society, we have the curious case of critics maintaining the perspective of Christian moralism even while rejecting Christianity as the appropriate response. This not entirely coherent approach also results in the doublethink of moral satisfaction with the "fall" of the (Western) Empire in 476 while carefully ignoring the survival and resurgence of the Empire in the East. The truth, as it happens, is one of continuity. The very same institutions, both Roman and Christian in sum and detail, that failed in the West in the face of the German threat, did just fine in the East, long outlasting, and in two dramatic cases defeating, the German successor kingdoms. What neither Trajan nor Constantine nor Justinian could have anticipated were the blows that would fall next.


A. "DOMINATE," 284-379, 95 years

290 AD

1. TETRARCHS

DiocletianAugustus 284-305,286-305 East

retired 305,died 311 or 313

Intrinsically one of the most interesting and important periods in Roman history, the Tetrarchy unfortunately



Maximian Augustus 286-305 WestUsurper 306-308,310 West

Constantius I Chlorus Caesar 293-305 West Augustus 305-306 West

Galerius Caesar 293-305 East Augustus 305-311 East

Maximinus II Daia Caesar 305-309 East Augustus 309-313 East

Severus Caesar 305-306 West Augustus 306-307 West

Constantine Ithe Great

Caesar 306-307 West,308-309 West

Augustus 307-308 West,309-337 West,324-337 East

[Maxentius] Usurper 306-312, Italy

Licinius Augustus 308-324 East

[Domitius Alexander] Usurper 308-311, Africa

suffers from the relative poverty of the sources we have for it. Despite the rich literature of the 4th century, Diocletian never got a Tacitus or Suetonius, and what Ammianus Marcellinus may have said about him is now lost. Part of this may be because history moved so quickly after Diocletian. He could still have been alive when Constantine legalized Christianity, and it was, of course, Constantine whom subsequent Christian writers wanted to glorify. But Diocletian created a system that was the closest to a constitutional order than

Rome ever had. Its enemy was hereditary succession, which had triumphed in Constantine, if imperfectly, by the end of the period. So here, not just in religion, we have a turning point. The succession by appointment, adoption, or marriage of the Antonines is now seen for very nearly the last time. The complexity of this, and of events, can be seen, not just in the following genealogy, but in the Chart of the Tetrarchy. As the first Emperor with a very clearly Greek name (Dioclês, before being Latinized to Diocletianus), Diocletian foreshadows the later Greek character of the Empire. It is also from this point that the status of the Emperor is elevated far beyond that of a mere official to a being with semi-divine status, altering the form of government from "Principate" (from princeps, "prince" or "first") to "Dominate" (from dominus, "lord"). The fiction that the Emperor is actually a kind of Republican official is now gone. This elevation was simply transformed, not rolled back or abolished, by the Christianization of the office.

In 305 Diocletian actually retired from office, going to live at his retirement villa (more like city) at Split (Spalatum) near Solin (Salonae) in Dalmatia (now Croatia) -- see J.J. Wilkes, Diocletian's Palace, Split: Residence of a Retired Roman Emperor [Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1986, 1993]. This may have been at the urging of Galerius, who was eager for full power, and was taken with ill grace by Maximian, who tried to return to power twice and was finally killed. By 308, with Severus killed by Maximian's son Maxentius and Constantine proclaimed Augustus by his troops, Diocletian was called to a conference at Carnuntum on the Danube in Upper (Superior) Pannonia (just down the river from modern Vienna, Roman Vindobona). Diocletian was even offered the throne, but declined it -- saying he would rather grow vegetables. The result of the conference was the demotion of Constantine to Caesar (again), the appointment of Lincinius as Augustus, the second retirement of Maximian, and the declaration of Maxentius as an outlaw. A noteworthy act at the conference was the dedication of an altar to the god Mithras, as the fautor imperii, "protector of the Empire." Mithraism consider Mithras to be a sun god, associated and assimilated with Sol Invictus, the "Unconquered Sun," whose cult existed independently of Mithras and had been promoted since Aurelian. Mithraism, although popular in the Army (only men were initiated), was not an Imperial or prestige cult, until


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#croatia


this dedication, Deo Soli Invicto Mithrae, "to the god Mithras the Unconquered Sun." We might see this as one of the last acts in the development of state paganism, before Constantine becomes a patron of Christianity and gods like Mithras disappear.

One of the most famous aspects of Diocletian's rule is the famous "Edict on Maximum Prices" of 301 AD. Since Diocletian himself explains the law as needed to prevent some from profiteering off of the basic needs of others, this is turns out to be relevant to many modern debates. The "greed" of those who make a profit while prices rise is still a point of useful political appeal for many politicians and leftist activists. It looks,



however, like prices, especially agricultural prices, were rising under Diocletian because the tax burden had become so large that many people simply abandoned their farms -- Diocletian also tried forbidding this. Since Dioceltian himself was not a sympathetic person to Christian writers, the charge of "greed" tends to get turned around, as the contemporary writer Lactantius, appointed by Diocletian himself as a professor of Latin literature in Nicomedia, the capital, says, "...Diocletian with his insatiable greed..." Lactantius' account of bureaucratic excess and behavior could apply in many modern situations:

The number of recipients began to exceed the number of contributors by so much that, with farmers' resources exhausted by the enormous size of the requisitions, fields became deserted and cultivated land was turned into forest. To ensure that terror was universal, provinces too were cut into fragments; many governors and even more officials were imposed on individual regions, almost on individual cities, and to these were added numerous accountants, controllers and prefects' deputies. The activities of all these people were very rarely civil... [J.J. Wilkes, Diocletian's Palace, Split: Residence of a Retired Roman Emperor, op. cit., p.5]

Not only now are there whole countries where the dependent classes exceed the numbers of the productive classes (e.g. Italy or France), but in the United States the fate of the Social Security system will probably be sealed when the number of beneficiaries exceeds the number of contributors. These modern systems, although voted in by popular majorites who like "free lunch" welfare politics, are run by bureaucrats whose behavior, of course, is "very rarely civil" either to contributors or beneficiaries. And modern bureaucrats are protected from accountability by "Civil Service" status and their own politically active and powerful public employee labor unions. Yet politicians rarely characterize or criticize such people for their own self-interest or greed, although this phenomenon is now well understood and described in Public Choice economics. While the behavior of the bureaucrats is understandable, the harshest truth is that, with sovereignty no longer invested in a autocrat like Diocletian, the ultimate "greed" today is derived from the voters.


http://www.friesian.com/rent.htm


330 AD

2. CONSTANTIANS

Constantius I Chlorus 293-306 W

Constantine I the Great 306-337 W+E

Christianity legalized, 312; EcumenicalCouncil I, Nicaea I, Nicene Creed, 325;Constantinople, Roma Nova, founded,construction begun, 4 November 328;Constantinople dedicated, 11 May 330

Constantine II 337-340 W

Constans I 337-350 W

[Magnentius] 350-353 W

Constantius II 337-361 E+W

If the Tetrarchy was a major turning point in Roman history, with Constantine we are right around the corner and looking down a very different avenue of time. Here is where the die-hard paganophile Romanists check out, and where the Byzantinists check in. But the changes that take place are mostly, as they had been for some time, gradual. Even Constantine's Christianity was a gradual affair. He did not actually convert until on his deathbed; and although he outlawed pagan sacrifice, he did not close the temples or otherwise show disrespect or hostility to the old gods, and in fact seems to have long still invoked Sol Invictus, the "Unconquered Sun" of Aurelian and Diocletian. He may have imagined a sort of syncretism such as had been common in the old religions but that was not going to be tolerated in Christianity. When Constantinople was built, the old acropolis was left alone. Indeed, it may have been left alone for much of the Middle Ages. A statue of Athena is supposed to have still been standing when the Fourth



Gallus 351-354 E, Caesar

Julian the Apostate355-360 W, Caesar;360-363, Augustus

non-dynastic

Jovian 363-364

Crusade arrived in 1203. Remarkably, this may have still been the bronze statute of Athena Promachos which had stood in the open on the Acropolis at Athens, reportedly visible from out to sea, and was moved to the new city by Constantine. The statue was only then torn down because some thought she was beckoning to the Crusaders. It is now hard to tell what may have been on the acropolis all that time because the site was finally put to a new use by the Ottomans, who built the great Topkapï Palace there. It is

certainly the right place for such a building, and so one is a little surprised to learn that no major building, as far as we know, was put there all the years of Romania. Even the beginning of Constantine's attachment to Christianity is obscure. The story that he saw a vision of the Cross in the sky with the inscription Hôc Vince ("By this [sign, signô] Conquer") before (or during) the battle of the Milvian Bridge, when he defeated Maxentius in 312, comes very much later in hagiography. The earliest mention of anything of the sort, by Lactantius again, is that Constantine had a dream where he was shown the "cypher of Christ," the Greek letters Chi and Rho, which he caused to be put on the shields of his soldiers. Later versions thus increase the dramatic and miraculous elements of the event, using what later would become the most symbolic of Christianity, the Cross. Using a Christian symbol in any form, however, and for any reason, would have been dramatic enough. Constantine's Empire went to his three sons, who might have shared it with their cousins, but killed them instead. The sons, however, ended up with no heirs themselves, and the last family member on the throne, Julian, was one of the cousins who had escaped the massacre. Julian, whose own writings have been preserved, is one of the better known but stranger figures of the century. Quixotically trying to restore paganism, he only seemed to demonstrate that the old gods were spent and nobody's heart was really in it anymore. Although apparently a fine enough military commander against the Franks, Julian's short reign ended with another Quixotic effort, against Persia. It was not so much the war itself as the ill conceived scale of the invasion, which left Julian all but stranded with his army, deep in Mesopotamia, with the Persians avoiding battle but constantly harassing him. Somehow this had not happened to Alexander, Trajan, Heraclius, or the forces of the Caliph Omar. It cost Julian his life, and his religious cause, since the Christian Jovian was then chosen by the Army.


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#great

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#umar


378 AD

3. VALENTIANS

Valentinian I 364-375 W Valens 364-378 E

Gratian 367-383 W

great earthquakein Crete, 365;

defeated and killed bythe Visigoths, Battleof Adrianople, 378

Theodosius I,the Great

379-395 E

[Magnus Maximus] 383-388 W

Valentinian II 375-392 W

[Eugenius] 392-394 W

394-395 W

With Valentinian and his brother Valens, the Christian nature of the Empire was sealed. But the future seemed secure enough. Valentinian was vigorous and competent, even if his brother wasn't so much. Unfortunately, Valentinian apparently died of a heart attack (or perhaps a cerebral hemorage) in a fit of anger over the insolence of some representatives from the Huns. With Valens as the senior Emperor, he didn't wait for assistance before moving to put down a revolt by the Visigoths, who had recently been admitted as refugees from the Huns but were now rising up against mistreatment by their hosts. The resulting battle was close and hard fought but turned



into a catastrophic rout, with Valens himself falling. Gratian appointed Theodosius as the new Eastern Emperor to restore the situation (marrying him to his sister), which seems to have about the most useful thing he accomplished, before his murder. His brother Valentinian, secured on the throne against the usurper Magnus Maximus by Theodosius, then mostly seems to have been a pawn, until his own death drew Theodosius west (again) to put down the usurper Eugenius. Things thus went steadily down hill after Valentinian. Although the Battle of Adrianople need not have fundamentally affected the strength of the Empire, it acquires great symbolic meaning in retrospect because of the more permanent damage subsequently done by the Visigoths and the weakening of the Empire that attended it.

A great earthquake on Crete in 365, which thrust up the coast some 20 feet, has recently become a matter of interest for modern geologists. An account of it by Ammianus Marcellinus includes what may be the first detailed description in history of the phenomenon of a tsunami:

...the solid frame of the earth shuddered and trembled, and the sea was moved from its bed and went rolling back. The abyss of the deep was laid open; various types of marine creatures could be seen stuck in the slime, and huge mountains and valleys which had been hidden since the creation in the depths of the waves then, one must suppose, saw the light of the sun for the first time. [Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, (A.D.354-378), Penguin Classics, 1986, p.333]

Not realizing that the sea would come back, people wandered down to the revealed places. As the water "burst in fury" and surged up onto the land on its return, thousands were killed, towns were levelled, and "the whole face of the earth was changed" [ibid.]. As far away as Alexandria, the tidal wave tossed ships onto the tops of buildings; and Ammianus himself later inspected a decaying ship that had been carried inland ad secundum lapidem, "to the second milestone," near Mothone (or Methone) in the Peloponnesus. Edward Gibbon, contemptuous of the Late Empire and its historian, and apparently never having heard of such phenomena, didn't believe Ammianus:

Such is the bad taste of Ammianus (xxvi.10), that it is not easy to distinguish his facts from his metaphors. Yet he positively affirms that he saw the rotten carcase of a ship, ad secundum lapidem, at Methone, or Modon, in Peloponnesus. [The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Modern Library, p.899].

Tsunamis are not so rare, however, that it is not in the living memory of many to have seen the seafloor bared or ships thrown about in just the manner described. The modern historian might do well to consider how the death and destruction of the great earthquake may have weakened the resources of the area on the crucial eve of the struggle with the Visigoths.


B. CRISIS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, 379-476, 97 Years



410 AD



One of the most interesting people in the diagram is the Empress Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius I, the wife of Constantius III, and the mother of Valentinian III. With Honorius and Constantius she was buried in the chapel of Saints Nazarius and Celsus in Ravenna. J.B. Bury (History of the Later Roman Empire Vol. 1, Dover 1958, p. 263) says that "her embalmed body in Imperial

robes seated on a chair of cypress wood could be seen through a hole in the back till A.D. 1577, when all the contents of the tomb were accidentally burned thourgh the carelessness of children." Mosaics in Ravenna from this period already show the books of the Bible bound in codices, i.e. familiar bound books rather than scrolls.

1. THEODOSIANS,WEST

WESTERNCOMMANDERS

1. THEODOSIANS,EAST

394-395,West

Theodosius I, the Great379-395,East

Council II, Constantinople I, Arianism condemned, 381; Destructionof the Serapeum, 391; Abolition of the Olympic Games, 394 (?)

Stilicho 395-408

Arcadius 395-408 E

Theodosius may have been called "Great" mainly for establishing Athanasian Orthodoxy and for actions against paganism like closing and sometimes destroying temples and ending the Olympic Games (which, however,


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#christ


Honorius 395-423 WSuevi, Vandals,

& Alans cross Rhine,1 January 407

Constantius III410-421

TheodosiusII

408-450 E

421 W

Castinus 422-425

Gadiatorial combatended in Colosseum,404; Rome sacked by

Visigoths, 410

[Constantine(III)]

407-411in Britain,Gaul & Spain

John 423-425 Wdefeated by Vandals

in Spain, 422

Council III, Ephesus,Nestorianism condemned, 431

ValentinianIII

425-455 WFelix 425-430

Aëtius 430-454

Attila the Hun halted at Châlons, 451;Rome sacked by Vandals, 455 Marcian 450-457 E

Council IV, Chalcedon, Monophysitism condemned, 451

seem to have continued in some form for another century). Otherwise, he did get the Goths under control and left the Empire, to all appearances, sound and prepared for the future. Unfortunately, there were two very serious problems. One was that the Goths remained a unified and aggressive tribe within the Empire, ready to begin rampaging again at any time. Another was that Honorius and Arcadius, the two sons between whom Theodosius divided the Empire, were young and inexperienced. Leaving the Army in the hands of the German commander Stilicho set the stage

for all the evils of divided authority and palace intrigue. The result of this would be disaster. When the times called for a strong soldier Emperor, there wasn't one -- and there would not be one for some time, perhaps not until Heraclius. With the Goths running wild, and an alliance of German tribes crossing the frozen Rhine on New Year's Eve of 407, the institutions were not prepared to bounce back the way Rome had in the 3rd Century. A characteristic moment came when the commander Aëtius, sometimes called "the Last Roman," who had defeated the Huns at Châlons (with substantial help from the Visigoths, whose King Theodoric I was killed), was murdered by the incompetent and jealous Emperor Valentinian III. Valentinian's own murder, as the Vandals symbolically arrived to plunder Rome, then left the throne completely at the mercy of the next person to get control of the Army, who was the German Ricimer. Ricimer could not himself, as a German, become Emperor, so he could only retain power by keeping the Emperors as figureheads, or killing them. This was not a formula for retrieving the situation. The Theodosian dynasty thus ends in the West with a combination of triumph, betrayal, and chaos.



It is noteworthy that the Venerable Bede (673-735) numbered Theodosius II as the 45th and Marcian as the 46th Emperors since Augustus. This is considerably less than the count we might make now and it interestingly implies that Bede possessed a sort of "official" list from which many ephemeral Emperors were excluded [note]. After Roman Britain disappeared from history, when the usurper Constantine "III" took his troops to Gaul, Bede's History of the English Church and People is just about the first that we then hear of it, three hundred years later. What events filled that time became strongly mythologized, especially around the figure of King Arthur. Bede does not mention Arthur, but he does talk about a British leader against the Angles, Ambrosius Aurelius, who gained a period of peace after defeating the invaders at Badon Hill in about 493 (or 518). This becomes an element of the Arthur story. I suspect that the vividness of the Arthur stories, like that of the Greek epics and of the Mahâbhârata in India, is an artifact of a literate society that for a time lost its literacy but remembered, after a fashion, what it was like. The literature on the problem of Arthur and Britain in this period is vast. Two of the more interesting recent books might be The Discovery of King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe [Guild Publishing, London, 1985] and From Scythia to Camelot, A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail by C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor [Garland Publshing, Inc, New York, 1994]. Littleton and Malcor made the significant discovery that the scene of Arthur's death in Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, where the sword Excalibur was thrown into a lake, occurs in almost identical terms in the legends of the Ossetians in the Caucasus. There is a possible connection, since the Ossetians are descendants of the Alans, and Marcus Aurelius had settled a tribe of Alans, the Iazyges, whom he had defeated in 175 and taken into Roman service, in the north of Britain, where many of them settled at Bremetenacum Veteranorum, south of Lancaster. The legion to


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#salzburg

http://www.friesian.com/gita.htm#bharat


which the Iazyges were assigned, the VI Legion Victrix, was commanded by one Lucius Artorius Castus. "Artorius" looks like the Latin source of the name "Arthur." There is nothing certain about the speculations and disputes over all this, however, except that they will be endless [note].

2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS[names in brackets

not recognized by East]WESTERN

COMMANDERS

[Petronius Maximus] 455 W

Avitus 455-456 W

Ricimer 456-472

Majorian 457-461 W

[Libius Severus] 461-465 W

interregnum 465-467 W

Anthemius 467-472 W

Joint E/W expedition againstVandals fails, 468

[Olybrius] 472 W

interregnum 472-473 W Gundobad,King ofBurgundy

472-473[Glycerius] 473 W

Julius Nepos 473-480 WOrestes 473-476

[Romulus "Augustulus"] 475-476 W

Odoacer 476-493

The last twenty years of the Western Empire are mainly the story of the commander Ricimer. The last Western Emperor really worthy of the name was probably Majorian, who was a military man in his own right and operated in Gaul. He suffered a defeat and was murdered by Ricimer. Henceforth, the Emperors were mainly puppets and operations were confined to Italy. More than the coup of Odoacer in 476, this signaled a real institutional change in the Western Empire. The German Ricimer would now hold the real power, with little better than figurehead Emperors. With Ricimer either unconcerned or distracted, the rest of the Western Empire fell by default to the Vandals, Visigoths, and Burgundians. A Roman pocket under local commanders remained in the north of Gaul until the Frankish King Clovis subjugated it in 486. Britain had been abandoned to illiterate mythology. Ricimer was once perusaded to accept an Emperor from the East, Anthemius, and to participate in an assault on the Vandals; but this was a disaster, and he ended his "reign" with another figurehead on the throne. After a King of

Burgundy, Gundobad, briefly had his own figurehead on the throne, a new nominee of the Eastern Emperor, Julius Nepos, and a new commander, Orestes, were installed. But, rather than work together to get things organized again, Nepos was chased out to Dalmatia by Orestes, who put his own son, a child, on the throne. In 476, when Orestes and his son were then deposed by Odoacer, who decided to do without a figurehead Emperor, this was the rather anticlimactic "Fall of Rome." Odoacer even returned the Western Regalia to Constantinople. Nepos, meanwhile, was still in Dalamatia. Odoacer got rid of him by 480. Since Odoacer, de jure, was a faithful officer of the Emperor in Constantinople, one could say that the last institutional existence of the Western Empire surived until Odoacer was overthrown by the Ostrogoths in 493. The real difference, however, had come in 456, when Ricimer gained control of the army.


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#clovis


476 AD


C. THE EAST ALONE, 476-518, 42 Years

1. LEONINES

Leo I 457-474 E

Joint E/W expeditionagainst Vandals fails, 468

Leo II 473-474 E

Zeno the Isaurian(Tarasikodissa)

474-491 E+W

[Basiliscus] 475-476 E

Anastasius I 491-518

Leo I purged the Eastern Army of Germans and so turned the East away from the process of barbarization that had rendered the Western Army useless. A last chance to recoup things for the whole Empire came in 468, after Leo had gotten Ricimer to accept the Theodosian relative Anthemius as Western Emperor. A joint amphibious campaign was put together to recover Africa from the



reforms coinage, 498Vandals. This should have succeeded, but it failed through a combination of incompetence, treachery, and bad luck. Ricimer may not have really wanted it to succeed, and it wasn't long before he got rid

of Anthemius. After Odoacer decided not to bother with a Western Emperor, Leo's Isaurian son-in-law, Zeno, found himself as the first Emperor of a "united" Empire since Theodosius I, but little was left of the West. Only Odoacer in Italy vaguely acknowledged the Emperor's suzerainty -- we don't know what allegiance, if any, remained in the Roman pocket in northern Gaul. Nothing was done about this at the time, and Anastasius, by temperament or by wisdom, concentrated on allowing the East to rest and build up its strength. Part of that involved reforming the coinage, which is one of the benchmarks for the beginning of "Byzantine" history.

Also noteworthy as a benchmark for the beginning of Byzantine history in the time of the Leonines is the apparent disappearance of the traditional Roman tria nomina, the three names of praenômen, nômen, and cognômen. For instance, the full name of Marcus Aurelius was M. Aurelius Antoninus, of Diocletian, C. Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, and of Constantine, Fl. [Flavius] Valerius Constantinus. The last Emperor with three full names may have been Majorian, Julius Valerius Majorianus. In general, the Valentian and Theodosian Emperors only had two names, like Valens, Fl. Valens, and Theodosius I & II, both Fl. Theodosius. From Marcian onward there is no evidence of any traditional Roman nomenclature. Why is this happening? Well, even though it had been some time since the nômen had lost its connection to the actual ancestral gens (the clan), and all the names were becoming like titles, the system of the tria nomina still bore





an essential connection to the Roman family cult of ancestor worship. No Confucian venerated ancestors in a household shrine more devoutly than the pious Roman. But this could not survive with the adoption of Christianity. A Christian receives a single Christian name. Indeed, it is a while before we get names, like Michael or John, that look more Christian than Roman and Greek, like Leo or Heraclius (still commemorating Heracles -- and so Hera); but the trend is obvious. Eventually we get the return of surnames, at first for nobility. The first Dynasty with a family name will be the Ducases in the 11th century. It took a few more centuries before surnames became common among European Christians of all classes.

Another momentous transition is in architecture. The lovely temples of Classical antiquity, like jewels in the landscape, disappear. Christian churches of the period often look like piles of bowls or dark fruitcakes. Or we simply get the basilica, a Roman courthouse. Churches often are not even visible from a distance, because they may be packed around with other buildings. Why is this happening? Were Christians just anaesthetic? No. The aesthetic was certainly changing, but the most important difference was just the difference in purpose between a temple and a church. A temple was the house of a god, with little space inside but for the god and a few priests. It was not supposed to contain a body of worshipers. The public side of the temple was the exterior, the visible sign of the god's presence. With a church, however, the purpose was not to house God, whose presence was ineffable, but to house the congregation, the ekklêsía, the "assembly" that gave its name in many modern languages for "church" (which itself seems to be from kyriakos, "of the Lord"). The public side of a church is thus the interior, not the exterior, and the outwardly ugliest early churches often contain marvelous inner spaces, with rich decoration. These quickly become awesome spaces, as in Sancta Sophia, for centuries the greatest church of Christendom. Roman domes could do what most Roman temples did not try to do.

Eventually, a form of church evolved that transformed the basilica into a building with a monumental external face and a monumental internal space. These would be the Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, but it would be centuries before the technology could handle the spidery supports, of walls pierced with windows and held by buttresses, that both size and relatively lightness required. Then the basilica and the dome would be combined, to produce in the Renaissance the new largest church in Christendom, St. Peter's in Rome. But this would happen as culturally Francia surpassed Romania. All this bears interesting comparison with the practice in Islâm, where the purpose of a mosque was similar to that of a church. This can be seen in the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, based on Syrian churches, which is all but invisible from the outside, hidden in the midst of the city, but contains two marvelous spaces, a courtyard and the lovely interior of the prayer hall, with mosaics as in churches of the time. On the other hand, a monument of the same era, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, stands conspicuously like a pagan temple, high on the Temple Mount itself. But the purpose of the Dome is more like a temple. It was built less for a congregation than for the Rock itself, commemorating the Temple of Solomon and the site of the Prophet Muh.ammad's "dream journey" to heaven. Finally, the Ottoman mosques of Sinan (c.1500-1588), based on the model of Sancta Sophia, produce the monumental Islâmic equivalent of the cathedral.


D. RETURNING TO THE WEST, 518-610, 92 years


http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm

http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm#text-3




565 AD

1. JUSTINIANS

Justin I 518-527

Justinian I 527-565

Plato's Academy closed, 529;North Africa regained, 533;

Rome regained, 536; endof dating by Consuls, 537;Ostrogoths defeated, 552;

Council V, Constantinople II,Monophysitism condemned

again, 553; Andalusiaregained, 554

Justin II 565-578

Lombards Invade Italy, 568

Tiberius II574-578, Caesar;578-582, Augustus

Justinian took the rested strength of the East and threw it, commanded by his great general Belisarius, against the Vandals and Ostrogoths. The Vandals, caught off guard, collapsed quickly. In 540 the Ostrogoths surrendered to Belisarius, who had to rush East to meet a Persian invasion. He was too late. Khusro I had already sacked Antioch (540). Then in 541 the resistance of the Ostrogoths revived, and the plague hit the Empire. The campaign in Italy then took another 11 years, with men and money very short. Successful, if exhausted, Justinian was then able to secure part of southern Spain. Meanwhile he had built the greatest church in Christendom, Sancta Sophia [note], codified Roman Law, and driven the last pagans, at Plato's Academy, out of business. This wore out the Empire, but it could easily have recovered to new strength if further blows had not fallen. The Lombards invaded Italy in 568; and although they were unable to secure the whole peninsula, or the major cities (except in the Po valley), they became a source of constant conflict for most of the next two hundred years. Meanwhile, the Danube frontier had become very insecure. As early as 540 (again) Bulgars and Slavs were raiding into the Balkans. Maurice not only restored the frontier but crossed it to apply the "forward defense" of the Early Empire. Unfortunately, this hard campaigning became unpopular with the troops; and in 602 they murdered Maurice and his whole family. Under Phocas,


http://www.friesian.com/euthyph.htm#one



Sack of Athens by Slavs, 582

Maurice 582-602

non-dynastic

Phocas 602-610

things began to unravel. The Persians began the campaign that would net them the Asiatic part of the Empire, recreating the Persia of the Achaeminids, and the Danube frontier collapsed so completely that it would not be restored for almost four hundred years.




III. THIRD EMPIRE, MIDDLE "ROMANIA," EARLY "BYZANTIUM," 610-1059, Era of Diocletian 327-776, 449 years

To most people thinking of the "Roman Empire," we are well into terra incognita here. Yet in 610 the character and problems of the Roman Empire would not have been unfamiliar to Theodosius the Great. A Persian invasion was nothing new. How far it got, all the way to Egypt and the Bosporus, was. Meanwhile, the collapse of the Danube frontier was not now the doing of Germans but of Slavs and Steppe people -- the latter beginning with the Altaic Avars, whose kin would dominate Central Asia in the Middle Ages. The Persians were miraculously defeated; but before the Danube could be regained or the Lombards overcome in Italy, a Bolt from the Blue changed everything. The Arabs, bringing a new religion, Islâm, created an entirely new world, which both broke the momentum of Roman recovery and divided the Mediterranean world in a way whose outlines persist until today. Nevertheless, the Empire, restricted to Greece and Anatolia, rode out the flood. It must have been a hard nut, since the Arab Empire otherwise flowed easily all the way to China and the Atlantic. It was hard enough, indeed, that by the end of the "Third Empire" it had been in better health than any Islamic state. The promise of new ascendency, however, was brief.




A. THE ADVENT OF ISLAM, 610-802, 192 years

1. HERACLIANS

Heraclius 610-641

invasion and conquest of Syria,Egypt, & Anatolia by Shâh

Khusro II, 607-616; his defeat,623-628; Salona destroyed by

Avars, residents move toSpalatum, 620; Cartagena fallsto Visigoths, 624; Avar Siege

of Constantinople, 626;occupation of Armenia, 633;Palestine lost to the Caliph'Umar, 636; Syria lost, 640;

Egypt invaded, 640

Constantine III& Heracleon

641

Constans II Pogonatus

641-668,last Emperorto visitRome as apossession

Egypt lost, 642; Genoa (Liguria)lost to Lombards, 642; campaign

against the Lombards, 663

Constantine IV 668-685

Siege of Constantinople bythe Caliph Mu'âwiya, 674-677;Council VI, Constantinople III,

Monotheletism condemned,680-681

Justinian II Rhinotmetus685-695,705-711

Seldom has fortune and ability so blessed a ruler only to turn so completely against him in the end. With the Persians in Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia, and the Avars at the walls of Constantinople, the Roman Empire seemed doomed to complete collapse. Things even got worse after Heraclius arrived from Africa and seized the throne. But then in one of the most brilliant, but far more desperate, campaigns since Alexander, Heraclius audaciously invaded Persia itself. Confident that Constantinople was impregnable, he even wintered with the army in the field, until the Shâh Khusro II's own nobility rose up and overthrew him. The peace restored the status quo ante bellum; and Heraclius began to use the title of the defeated monarch, the traditional Persian "Great King." Thus Basileus, the Greek word for "King," became the mediaeval Greek word for "Emperor" -- as Greek now (or hereabouts) replaces Latin as the Court language. But then, barely eight years after this exhausting victory, the Arabs, united by Islâm, appeared out of the desert and quickly conquered Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. Jerusalem would never be recovered, except temporarily by the Crusaders. Old and ill, Heraclius had to watch his life's work largely melt away, while people said it was the Judgment of God because he had married his niece. But a core for the Empire had been saved.


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#khusro

http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#khusro






Loss of Armenia, 693

non-dynastic

Leontius 695-698

Carthage falls, 698

Tiberius III 698-705

Philippicus Bardanes(Vardan)

711-713

Anastasius II 713-715

Theodosius III 715-717

Constans II was the last Emperor to campagin in northern Italy and visit Rome as an Imperial possession (later the Palaeologi went to beg for help). He was also the last to exert real control over the Popes, arresting Martin I (649-653, d.655) and exiling him to the Crimea. Under either Heraclius or Constans II the Roman Army was basically restrucured. As the traditional units, largely familiar from the 5th Century, fell back from the collapsing frontiers, they were settled on the land in Anatolia, to be paid directly from local revenues instead of from the Treasury, whose tax base from Syria and Egypt had disappeared. The areas set aside for particular units became the themes, which remained the bedrock of Romania until the end of the 11th century. After Constantine IV withstood the first Arab siege of Constantinople, burning the Arab fleet with the famous and mysterious "Greek Fire" (which sounds like nothing so much as napalm), it looked like the Empire would survive. With the last member of the dynasty, Justinian II, we have a curious experiment in humanity. When the Emperor was deposed in 695, instead of being killed, his nose was cut off. Hence his epithet, Rhinotmetus, "Cut Nose." It was expected that this would disqualify him from attempts at restoration. It didn't, and Justinian returned to power in 705. Henceforth, deposed Emperors, or other politically threatening persons, would be blinded. This was effective, though now it may not seem particularly more humane than execution.


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm


The maps of Romania now become much smaller. Egypt, Palestine, Spain, and North Africa are gone forever. Footholds in Italy and the Balkans remain. Greece and the Balkans would be recovered in time, but everything in Italy would eventually be lost also. For the time being, the heartland of the Empire will be Asia Minor. Although this would provide the resources for revival,

even for colonization back into Greece, it was still open to Arab raids. They could not be precluded for a couple of centuries.

3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS)

Leo III 717-741

Siege of Constantinopleby the Caliphs Sulaymân &

'Umar II, 717-718Tax Revolt in Italy, end of

Imperial authority inExarchate, Exarch Paulicius

assassinated, 727; Edictestablishing Iconoclasm, 730

Constantine VCopronymus

741-775

Ravenna Falls to Lombards,751; Iconoclast Council,

754

Leo IV the Khazar 775-780

Constantine VI 780-797

Irene

780-790,Regent

792-802

While Leo III held off another Arab siege of Constantinople, the position of Romania in the West deteriorated. With Africa gone, it became harder to project authority into Italy and harder to resist the Lombards. John Julius Norwich (A History of Venice, Vintage, 1989) links the election of the first Doge of Venice with Leo's prohibition of images; but the election was in 727, during a tax revolt, not in 730, when Leo did prohibit images, alienating the Western Church.

The prohibition of religious images began the Iconoclasm controversy. One way to understand it is to realize that the conflict between Islâm and Christendom was not just a contest of arms but, mutatis mutandis, an ideological struggle. Christians were not being accused, to be sure, of oppressing the workers, but they were being accused of being polytheists (because of the Trinity) and idolaters (for making and venerating images). Indeed, some Islâmic attitudes are familiar from later religious ideological conflict, since disgust and condemnation of a priesthood and celibacy, not to mention the use of images, could later draw sympathy from Protestantism. The Thousand and One Nights derives great humor from the notion that the incense burned by Christians (but not, of course, by later Protestants) was made from the dung of bishops.





Council VII, Nicaea II,Iconoclasm condemned, 787

Since Leo III is considered to have come from either Syria or the nearby Isauria, his concern about this issue is supposed to have resulted from his sensitivity to the effect of Islâmic charges on the previously Christian populations of the areas, like Syria, conquered by Islâm. Conversions did not have to be effected by force, which was prohibited by the Qur'ân anyway, but by powerful persuasion (and, easily understood in modern terms, tax incentives). So Leo, a sort of proto-Protestant, decided to clean up Christianity's act. This did not find any traction in the West, however. The Latin Church felt no sting from Islâmic ideology. Leo's successes against the Arabs, obvious evidence of the favor of God, became associated with Iconoclasm. After images were restored by Irene, and military reverses seemed to follow, the favor of God was apparently withdrawn. The final Iconoclast period (815-843) was of such mixed military fortunes that worries about the favor of God faded, as Papal support for images had never faltered.

The final fall of Ravenna to the Lombards in 751 led to the intervention of the Franks in Italy, at the urging of the Pope. Romania would never return to Central or Northern Italy. This was on the watch of Constantine V, who came to be called "Copronymus," "Name of Dung" -- certainly one the harshest, crudest epithets in the history of royalty. As Frankish power waxed, the Pope took the step of crowning the Frankish King Charles as Emperor in 800. This was during the reign of Irene, who had taken the throne exclusively for herself, the only Empress ever to do so, by having her son Constantine VI blinded (he died, too). Although Irene restored the images and reconciled the Eastern and Western Churches, the Pope decided to arrogate the authority of crowning a proper, male Emperor to himself (later justified with the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine" document, by which Constantine I had supposedly given the entire Western Empire to the Pope). While Charlemagne even offered to marry Irene, who could have regarded him as only the rudest of barbarians, this all signaled a fundamental parting of the ways between the Latin Europe of Pope and Franks (Francia) and the Greek Europe of Romania. Note the parallels between the reign of Irene and that of the Empress Wu (685-705) of T'ang Dynasty China.

4. DOGES (DUKES) OF VENICE,727-1797



http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#francia

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#t'ang


Orso(Ursus) Ipato

727-738

Teodato(Deusdedit) Ipato

742, 744-736

Galla Gaulo 756

Domenico Monegaurio 756-765

Maurizio I Galbaio 765-787

Giovanni andMaurizio II Galbaio

787-802

Obelerio Antenorio 802-811

Venetia & Dalmatia submitto Franks, 806; Roman fleetreestablishes authority, 807

Beato 808-811

Angello Partecipazio 811-827

Giustiniano Partecipazio 827-829

Giovanni (I) Partecipazio 829-836

Pietro Tradonico 836-864

Orso I Badoer(I Partecipazio)

864-881

Giovanni Badoer(II Partecipazio)

881-888

Venice effectivelyindependent, 886

Pietro I Candiano 887

Pietro Tribuno 888-912

Orso II Badoer(II Partecipazio)

912-932

Venice was the "Most Serene Republic," or the "Queen of the Adriatic." The title of Doge derives from that of a late Roman commander of a military frontier, Dux ("leader"). This is cognate to English "Duke." The Doges were always elected, from a variety of families, as their names indicate. Over time their powers were increasingly limited, as Venice evolved into an oligarchic Republic. The Duke of Venetia at first would have been like many other Romanian officials in Italy, but Constantinople rarely had occasion or ability to exert direct rule over Venice, so over time the city drifted into independence, competition, and eventually belligerence.

The list of Doges is taken from Byzantium and Venice, A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations, by Donald M. Nicol [Cambridge University Press, 1988, 1999], and Storia di Venezia Volume II, by Eugenio Musatti [4th edition, Fratelli Treves Editori, Milano, 1937]. A complete list can also be found in A History of Venice, by John Julius Norwich [Vintage Books, 1989].

After the Schism of the Eastern and Western Churches (1054), there came to be growing religious hostility between Venice and her metropolis. However, Venice never quite fit in to the political system of Francia. For a while the Republic paid tribute to the Carolingians but quickly enough shook off any obligation. Playing Constantinople and the West against each other, Venice never really acknowledged the authority of the Frankish or German Emperors and in time was relatively safe in its lagoon from attempts to impose imperial authority, whether from East or West. With the decline of Romania, Venice largely pursued its affairs at the expense of Contantinople and only came to be


http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#feudal




Pietro II Candiano 932-939

Pietro Badoer(Partecipazio)

939-942

Pietro III Candiano 942-959

Pietro IV Candiano 959-976

Pietro I Orseolo 976-978

Vitale Candiano 978-979

Tribuno Menio(Memmo)

979-991

Pietro II Orseolo 991-1008

Ottone Orseolo1008-1026,1030-1032

Pietro Centranico(Barbolano)

1026-1030

Domenico Flabianico 1032-1043

Domenico Contarini 1043-1070

Domenico Silvio (Selvo) 1070-1084

Trade concession with Romania,1082; construction of

St. Mark's begun

Vitale Falier 1084-1096

relics of St. Mark depositedin completed St. Mark's

cathedral, 1094

Vitale I Michiel (Michel) 1096-1101

Ordelafo Falier 1101-1118

Domenico Michiel 1118-1129

Pietro Polani 1129-1148

pushed out of the area altogether by the Ottomans.

When Alexius Comnenus signed a pact with Venice in 1082, the Republic became a partner with the now beleaguered Constantinople. During the honeymoon period we get the completion of St. Mark's Cathedral -- a mature Romania seeding its culture into the maturing Venice.

The honeymoon didn't last. The pact gave Venice a choke hold on the trade of Romania and on naval power in Romanian waters -- on at least once occasion Venetians burned Roman warships on the stocks before they could be completed. Although Alexius didn't have much choice at the time, this led to retaliation later. Manuel I arrested all Venetians in 1171 and little but hostile relations followed -- even peaceful exchanges revealed tragic inequality, as when the Imperial Crown Jewels were pawned with Venice in 1343.

The fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 was largely engineered by the Doge Enrico Dandolo, who was actually buried in Sancta Sophia. By the settlement with the Crusaders, Venice was ceded 3/8 of the Empire, and the Doge henceforth styled himself quartae partis et dimidiae totius imperii Romaniae Dominator ("Lord of a quarter and a half [of a quarter] of the whole Empire of Romania"). Norwich interestingly translates this as "Lord of ... the Roman Empire" (p.147), but the phrase was imperium Romaniae, "Empire of Romania," not imperium Romanum, "Roman Empire." Venice was obviously not claiming 3/8 of the Empire of Trajan, but of the much reduced mediaeval Romania. This fragmentation of Romania helped Venice maintain her advantages, but it weakened the whole in the face of the eventual Ottoman threat. Venice could neither hold off the Turks nor support a local state strong enough to do so.

When the Michael VIII Palaeologus took Constantinople back from the Crusaders, he conferred commercial advantages, not on Venice, but on her hated rival, Genoa, which, of course, had been Roman until lost to the Lombards in 642. This confirmed that Italy rather than Romania would be the center of trade and naval power in the Christian Mediterranean. Genoa was even granted the city of Galata, just across the Golden Horn from Constantinople itself, in 1267. As the Turks fatally invested Constantinople in 1453, it was Genoa rather than Venice that


http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#genoa


Domenico Morosini 1148-1155

Vitale II Michiel 1155-1172

all Venetians arrestedin Romania, 1171

Sebastiano Ziani 1172-1178

Orio Mastropiero(Malipiero)

1178-1192

Enrico Dandolo 1192-1205

Fourth Crusade, 1202-1204;Constantinople falls

to Crusaders & Venetians, 1204;Venice ceded 3/8 of Romania

Pietro Ziani 1205-1229

Giacomo Tiepolo 1229-1249

Marino Morosini 1249-1253

Reniero Zeno 1253-1268

Restoration of Greek rulein Constantinople, 1261

Lorenzo Tiepolo 1268-1275

Jacopo Contarini 1275-1280

Giovanni Dandolo 1280-1289

Venetians mint Ducats after Romandebasement, 1284

Pietro Gradenigo 1289-1311

Venetian fleet destroyed byGenoa at Curzola, Marco Polo

captured, 1298

Marino Zorzi 1311-1312

contributed to its defense -- though Galata itself remained neutral.

The most famous Venetian of the 13th century, and possibly of all history, was Marco Polo (c.1254-c.1324). Polo's business travels with his father and uncle to the China of Qubilai Khan might have gone unrecorded, like the stories of many other such travelers, if he had not been taken prisoner by the Genoese in 1298. Languishing in prison in Genoa, Polo began telling his story to a fellow prisoner. This happened to be the Pisan writer Rustichello (or Rusticiano), who thought that Polo's tales might make a good book and wrote it up, in French. This Divisament dou Monde, "Description of the World," soon to be called Il milione, "The Millions," was more a catalogue of places than a narrative of travels. Nevertheless, it was a sensation -- though people had trouble believing the numbers and scale of the places and domains described. One story about Polo himself is that he was questioned about just this on his deathbed. He replied, "I haven't told the half of it." Now that we know independently about the Mongol Empire, even this anecdote has the ring of truth. China alone was vast beyond the reckoning of 13th century Europe. Although serious questions have been raised about some of Polo's claims, details of his story, like the custom of the Chinese to send things to the dead by burning paper copies of them, are still familiar and unique features of Chinese culture. The legend that Marco introduced noodles from China is now commonly discounted, but there is little doubt that someone did that in this era. The Romans were not eating pasta, but at some point we realize that the Italians are. If we we ask where such a preparation existed previously, the answer is China -- something probably as old as Chinese history and still the traditional alternative to rice in any Chinese (or Japanese, etc.) restaurant.

What seems extraordinary about Venice now is how a mere city had become a Great Power, contending on terms of equality, if not superiority, with all of Romania. The tail wagging the dog indeed. And while Venice was never the equal of Turkey, it was for long one of the major belligerents contesting Ottoman advances. What this reveals is the stark difference in wealth between the cash economy of a commercial republic (Venice began minting gold Ducats in 1284) and, on the one hand, the poverty of subsistent kingdoms, like other Western European states and, on the other hand, the fractured economy of Romania, which had peviously perpetuated commercial


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#yuan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm


Giovanni Soranzo 1312-1328

Francesco Dandolo 1328-1339

Bartolomeo Gradenigo 1339-1342

Andrea Dandolo 1343-1354

Crown Jewels of Romania pawned,1343; War with Genoa,

1350-1355

Marino Falier 1354-1355

Giovanni Gradenigo 1355-1356

Giovanni Dolfin 1356-1361

Lorenzo Celsi 1361-1365

Marco Corner 1365-1368

Corfu acquired, 1368

Andrea Contarini 1368-1382

Michele Morosini 1382

Antonio Venier 1382-1400

Michele Steno 1400-1413

Tommaso Mocenigo 1414-1423

Francesco Foscari 1423-1457

Thessalonica ceded by Romania,1423, captured by Turks, 1430;Constantinople falls to Turks,

Venetian baillie executed, othersexecuted, enslaved, ransomed, 1453

Pasquale Malipiero 1457-1462

Cristoforo Moro 1462-1471

traditions. Venice was soon joined by other Italian cities, like Pisa and then Genoa, in excerising the power made possible by their wealth.

As commercial life began to grow in the North, the Italians began to lose their advantage. After Flanders and the Netherlands became centers of trade and manufacture, the Dukes of Burgundy first benefited from this wealth, then the Hapsburgs, and finally the Netherlands as an independent power. The latter eventuality is especially revealing. The Netherlands was a commercial republic again as Burgundy and the Hapsburg domains had not been. What's more, Amsterdam became the center of European banking, with that preeminence passing from, as it happened, the cities of Northern Italy (remembered in "Lombard Street" in the City of London). The next financial centers, of Europe and the World, would be London and then New York. In the course of all that history, the apparent power of the Italian cities was punctured like a balloon in 1494, when King Charles VIII of France invaded Italy. This is one of the events regarded as marking the end of the Middle Ages. It certainty revealed the comparative disadvantage into which the Italian powers had fallen. A nice recent movie about this period was Dangerous Beauty (1998), about a popular courtesan who ends up in a tug-of-war between Venetian nobility and the (rather unwelcome in Venice) Holy Inquisition. We happen to notice in the course of the movie that Venice has been expelled from Cyprus by the Turks (1571).

Just as bad or worse for Venice's position was the Age of Discovery. The Italian cities had grown strong on the trade of the Levant, and the new Atlantic powers wanted very much to have a way to avoid their mediation, let alone that of Turkey and Mamlûk Egypt, in the transfer of goods from India and further East to Europe. Columbus, therefore, was out to make an end run. Since he ran into the Americas instead of Asia, this diverted Spanish energies, but for Portugal Vasco da Gama did the job of getting to India around Africa in 1498. This eliminated Italy or the Turks from any central position in world trade. They could only fade, in the most literal sense, into back-waters.



http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#burgundy


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#hapsburg

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#netherlands

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#valois

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#mamluk

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm


Euboia (Negroponte) fallsto Turks, 1470

Nicolò Tron 1471-1473

Nicolò Marcello 1473-1474

Pietro Mocenigo 1474-1476

Andrea Vendramin 1476-1478

Giovanni Mocenigo 1478-1485

Marco Barbarigo 1485-1486

Agostino Barbarigo 1486-1501

Cyprus passes to Venice,1489; Modon & Coron in Morea

fall to Turks, 1500

Leonardo Loredan 1501-1521

Antonio Grimani 1521-1523

Andrea Gritti 1523-1538

Pietro Lando 1539-1545

Monembasia falls to Turks, 1540

Francesco Donato 1545-1553

Marcantonio Trevisan 1553-1554

Francesco Venier 1554-1556

Lorenzo Priuli 1556-1559

Girolamo Priuli 1559-1567

Pietro Loredan 1567-1570

Alvise I Mocenigo 1570-1577

The decline of the Turks in the 17th century allowed a brief Venetian resurgence, whose most striking event, however, was probably the destruction of the Parthenon in 1687, when a Venetian cannonball detonated an Ottoman powder magazine -- the ruin of the Acropolis was not produced by the Goths, the Huns, or any event of the Middle Ages, but by modern warfare. By that time a city state was going to be no match for the colonial and maritime powers that were rapidly becoming modern nation states. Venice lapsed into a kind of 18th century version of Las Vegas, a curiosity and a diversion -- and Las Vegas has now reciprocated with the Venetian Hotel. It was such a Venice that produced the memorable career of Giovanni Casanova (1725-1798), who saw the best and the worse of the City.

After invading Italy and defeating the Austrians, Napoleon had to exert little enough power to eliminate what had become an anchronism. The French were a little puzzled by the hostility of the Venetians to their occupation, since the rousing Republican rhetoric of the French didn't have the effect they expected -- but it was in a place that was, well, already a Republic. Napoleon, indeed, might have taken some lessons from the venerable and terrifying Venetian system of secret police and secret inquisitorial courts. One of the sights of Venice, the "Bridge of Sighs," is a covered way that secretly transported prisoners back and forth from their secret trials to their hopeless cells. However hostile to the French, the spirit of Venetian independence was soon forgotten, and it was the Sardinian Kingdom of Italy that detached Venice from Austria in 1866. The Venice of the subsequent period appears in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice (Der Tod in Venedig, 1912), which has been described as, "a


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#guy

http://www.venetian.com/

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bonaparte

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#modern


Turkish Conquest of Cyprus, 1571;Battle of Lepanto,

naval defeat of Turkey by Spain,Venice, & Malta, 1571

Sebastiano Venier 1577-1578

Nicolò da Ponte 1578-1585

Pasquale Cicogna 1585-1595

Marino Grimani 1595-1605

Leonardo Donato 1606-1612

Marcantonio Memmo 1612-1615

Giovanni Bembo 1615-1618

Nicolò Donato 1618

Antonio Priuli 1618-1623

Francesco Contarini 1623-1624

Giovanni Corner 1625-1629

Nicolò Contarini 1630-1631

Francesco Erizzo 1631-1646

Francesco Molin 1646-1655

Carlo Contarini 1655-1656

Francesco Corner 1656

Bertucci(Albertuccio) Valier

1656-1658

Giovanni Pesaro 1658-1659

Domenico Contarini 1659-1675

Conquest of Crete by Turkey, 1669

Nicolò Sagredo 1675-1676

symbol-laden story of aestheticism and decadence..." Venice was just the place for that.

On the other hand, the art of Venice, in music -- as with Antonio Vivaldi (1680-1743) -- painting -- as with Titian, Tiziano Vecilli (1477-1576) -- and architecture, is an enduring and vivid monument. Part of this is a hint of the lost beauty of Constantinople, since St. Mark's Cathedral, crowned with four great horses from the Hippodrome and countless other treasures looted from Constantinople in 1204, is a copy of the vanished Church of the Holy Apostles, the burial place of Constantine and his successors (whose site is now occupied by the Fatih Jamii, the mosque, institute, and burial place of Meh.med II, the Conqueror [Fâtih.] of Constantinople). Although decorated with loot, the present church was completed earlier, in 1094 (or 1071), with the help of artisans from the still friendly Emperors. The Rialto Bridge across the Grand Canal, the Campanile bell tower (campana, "bell"), the Lido barrier island, and other structures and sites have now contributed their names, if not their images or functions, in countless modern landscapes.


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#lepanto

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#turks3

http://www.friesian.com/poly-2.htm#log



Luigi Contarini 1676-1684

Marcantonio Giustinian 1684-1688

Parthenon destroyed in explosionunder Venetian bombardment, 1687

Francesco Morosini 1688-1694

Silvestro Valier 1694-1700

Alvise II Mocenigo 1700-1709

Giovanni II Corner 1709-1722

Alvise III Mocenigo 1722-1732

Carlo Ruzzini 1732-1735

Alvise Pisani 1735-1741

Pietro Grimani 1741-1752

Francesco Loredan 1752-1762

Marco Foscarini 1762-1763

Alvise IV Mocenigo 1763-1778

Paolo Renier 1779-1789

Lodovico Manin1789-1797,d. 1802

Venice Falls toNapoleon Bonaparte, 1797

Cambridge University even has its own Bridge of Sighs, though it apparently was never used for the same purpose as the Venetian (mercifully). The Campanile on the Berkeley campus of the University of California (the Sather Tower), on the other hand, almost identical in appearance to the one in Venice, houses a fine carillon, a sort of organ with bells instead of pipes.

Poised between Francia and Romania, Venice thus preserves much of the beauty and atmosphere that was lost and forgotten after successive catastrophies to Constantinople. The City ended up itself as something out of its time, a Mediaeval Republic in a age of nation states, even as now it is rather like a living museum, slowly sinking into the lagoon that originally gave it refuge.

Indeed, the low muddy islands in the lagoon, once a redoubt, now are Venice's greatest peril. With zero elevation, the City is vulnerable to high seas, high tides, and any significant changes in sea level. Pumping out ground water under the City, long the simplest source of fresh water, threatened to leave it permanently awash. That danger was soon recognized and attempts have even been made to restore the water, though that is more difficult. Barriers may soon seal off the lagoon from the Adriatic, but this raises the problem of discharging the waste water brought down from inland cities. Any durable solution promises to be difficult, expensive, and perilous to the traditional character of the City.


B. REVIVAL AND ASCENDENCY, 802-1059, 257 years



http://www.friesian.com/ross/calif.htm


400 years after the opportunity might have originally presented itself, a German finally claimed the title of Roman Emperor. This was the Frank Charlemagne, in a move legitimized by the Pope and by the reign of a woman, Irene, in

Constantinople.

1. NICEPHORANS

Nicephorus I 802-811

Nicephorus killed in battleby Bulgar Khan Krum, 811

Stauracius 811

Michael I Rhangabé 811-813

Leo V the Armenian 813-820

Iconoclasm restored, 815

The reigns of Irene and Nicephorus I begin what Warren Threadgold calls The Byzantine Revival, 780-842 [Stanford U. Press, 1988]. Despite the loss of most of Europe and continuing Arab raids into Anatolia, the population and the economy of the empire were actually growing, and Nicephorus was able to start transplanting colonies of people from the east back into Greece. This soon led to the recovery of most of the Greek peninsula. Unfortunately for him, the

"revival" was not without its setbacks. Nicephorus ended up killed in battle against the Bulgars, and his son Stauracius, proclaimed Emperor, turned out to be paralyzed from a spinal wound. Michael Rhangabe then turned out to be inactive and indecisive and was overthrown by Leo the Armenian, an in-law of the subsequent Amorian dynasty. It would be some time before the Bulgars could be seriously defeated, much less subdued. Until then, it would be impossible to restore the Danube border.

2. AMORIANS(PHRYGIANS)

Michael IIthe Stammerer

820-829

Crete lost, 823Sicily invaded byAghlabids, 827

In this period, aptly called the "Second Dark Age," the Arabs took to the sea. With the simultaneous advent of the Vikings, this made both Franks and Romans vulnerable in North and South. Crete was lost for over a century, and fighting began on Sicily that would last for 50 years and result in the permanent loss of the island.



http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#aghlab


Theophilus I 829-842

Varangians(Vikings) arrive at

Constantinople, 839

Michael III 842-867

Final repudiationof Iconoclasm, 843

(Theophilus II) 867

The arrival of the Varangians, which meant the Vikings who had come down the rivers of Russia, ended up providing a source of mercenaries for what became the Emperor's "Varangian Guard," whose ranks would later even fill with Englishmen who fled the Norman conquest in 1066. We also find the last of Iconoclasm laid to rest, though one will note even today that the Orthodox Churches prefer Icons rather than sculpture for sacred images. The resolution of this conflict removed a point of friction between the Western and the Eastern Churches. It did reveal, however, how easily such conflict could arise. The later (1054) Schism of the Churches would be over apparently much more trival issues -- the real issue, of course, was simply authority.

We are approaching the point in European history where the remaining pagan peoples of Europe will be assimilated to Christian civilization. Bulgaria will lead the way, but it will soon be following by Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Scandinavia. The Pechenegs (or Patzinaks), a Turkic

steppe people, will remain pagans until they are swept from history by the Cumans and Mongols. On the east edge of the map is the Khanate of the Khazars, also Turkic, who actually converted to Judaism. They would be Roman allies until disappearing in the 11th century.


http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#kiev

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#conqueror


3. BULGARIABEFORE ROMAN CONQUEST

AsparukhQaghan,c.681-701

Tervel c.701-c.718

Sevar c.718-750

Kormesios 750-762

Vinekh762-763

Teletz

Umar 763

Baian 763-765

Tokt 765

Telerig c.765-777

Kardam c.777-c.803

Krum c.803-814

Kills Emperor Nicephorus inbattle, 811; uses his skull

as a drinking cup

Dukum 814-815

Ditzveg 814-816

Omurtag 814-831

Malamir/Malomir 831-836

Presijan 836-852

Boris I/Emperor Michael I

Qaghan,852-870

Although today the Bulgarians are thought of as simply a Slavic people, like the Russians or Serbs, they were originally a nomadic Turkic steppe people, more like the Huns or Mongols. The first title of their leaders here, qaghan, is recognizably more Mongolian than the form more familiar from Turkish, khân. The Slavs, who had breached the Danube with the Avars, but who had little in the way of indigenous political organization, then came under the control of the Bulgars, the next nomadic group to pop off the end of the steppe. A related people, the Khazars, who remained on the Lower Volga, became long term Roman allies against the Bulgars. Other related peoples, the Patzinaks and Cumans, followed the Bulgars off the steppe and into the Balkans, though not permanently south of the Danube. After the Cumans, the Mongols were the last steppe people to come into Europe. Through the Middle East, of course, the Turks (and the Mongols) came off the steppe and ultimately, permanently, into Azerbaijan, Anatolia, and Thrace.

Fans of Robert E. Howard's (1906-1936) classic pulp fiction character Conan the Barbarian, will find the name of the Bulgar



Emperor/Tsar,870-889,d.907

Council VIII, Constantinople IV,869-870; conversion of Bulgaria

announced

Vladimir 889-893

Simeon I the Great 893-927

Peter I 927-969

Boris II969-972,d.986

Bulgaria conquered byJohn I Tzimisces, 971

Macedonian Bulgaria; stateorganized in western Bulgaria

by the Cometopuli,"Sons of the Count"

Tsar Romanusfigurehead,986-997;captured, 991

Samuel 997-1014

Army annihilated by Basil II, 1014

Gabriel Radomir 1014-1015

John Vladislav 1015-1018

Bulgaria annexed by Basil II, 1018

Qaghan Krum somewhat familar -- it is rather like Conan's own personal god, "Crom." Krum, indeed, seems very Conan-like. Not only was the Emperor Nicephorus killed in battle, but Krum took his skull and turned it into a drinking cup. This sounds like "barbarism" indeed -- though Lord Kitchener (1850-1916) may have had something similar in mind when he removed the body of the Sudanese Mahdi from his tomb, after taking Khartoum in 1898.

More recently, readers of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [J.K. Rowling, Arthur A. Levine Books, Scholastic, Inc., 2000] will remember that the champion Bulgarian Quidditch player was none other than Viktor Krum.

What happened to the Bulgars was assimilation. The Patzinaks pushed them off the steppe, they began to speak the language of



their Slavic subjects, and they began to aspire to the civilization, if not the throne, of Constantinople. The conversion of the Bulgars, indeed, was a complicated political act, with sophisticated negotiations that played the Popes off the Emperors. Greek influence ended up predominating, but the Bulgars continued jealous of their autonomy -- the precedent of an autocephalous Church set the pattern for other Orthodox Churches, as in Russia, created under Roman auspices. The Qaghan Boris took the Christian name Michael (though both names would be used in the future), but retained a status comparable to the Roman Emperor. The newly invented Cyrillic alphabet was used for the Slavic language of the new national Church. This language, Old Church Slavonic, is the oldest attested Slavic language and retains features apparently ancestral of most modern Slavic languages.

Although remaining a formidable foe, the Bulgars were probably softened by their assimiliation and civilization. As the Empire itself grew in strength, the day came when Bulgaria was defeated and subjugated. The first step merely left it leaderless, as John Tzimisces took Emperor Boris II off to Constantinople. A new state was organized in the west, however, by the sons of the Bulgar governor Count Nicholas. These "Sons of the Count," Cometopuli, eventually got an Emperor back after Boris and his brother Romanus escaped captivity. Boris was accidentially killed, so Romanus became the, largely figurehead, ruler. The Emperor Basil II then smashed and annexed this state, with a ferocity that that might have made Krum (or Conan) proud. Samuel is supposed to have dropped dead when he saw that Basil had blinded all the survivors of the Bulgarian army (leaving every tenth man with one eye to lead the rest). Bulgaria would not reemerge until the Asen brothers led it to independence in 1186. After the Turkish conquest, modern Bulgaria did not emerge until 1878.

Lists of Bulgarian rulers can be found in various Byzantine histories, but the genealogy here only comes from the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.156-159].

4. MACEDONIANS

Basil I 867-886

The greatest dynasty of Middle Romania begins with the Empire still losing ground. Raids by the Arabs, Vikings, and now Magyars are giving all of Europe a very bad time. Only the 10th Century would see a gradual recovery, as Slavs, Norsemen, and Magyars all became settled and Christianized, though the Normans remained vigorous and



http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#norman


Arabs sack suburbs of Rome,including the Vatican, 846;

Varangians attackConstantinople, 865;

Council VIII,Constantinople IV, 869-870

-- reconciles Eastern andWestern Churches but is laterrepudiated by East; conversion

of Bulgaria announced. Syracuse falls to Aghlabids

878; Venice effectivelyindependent, 886

Leo VI the Wise 886-912

Varangians/Russiansattack Constantinople, 907

Alexander 886-913

Constantine VIIPorphyrogenitus

913-959

Varangians/Russiansattack Constantinople, 941,

944; Treaty, 944

Romanus ILecapenus

919-944

Stephen &Constantine

944-945

Romanus II 959-963

Crete recovered, 961

Nicephorus IIPhocas

963-969

Cyprus recovered, 964;Cilicia & Tarsus recovered,

965; Antioch recoveredfrom H.amdânids, 969

aggressive in both North and South, i.e. conquering England and expelling Romania from Italy. Much of the good work of the Dynasty was accomplished by in-laws during the minority of the legitimate heirs, though the culmination came when one heir, Basil II, came of age and completed the conquests himself. Although traditionally called the "Macedonian" dynasty, Basil I was probably Armenian, like several of the other Emperors-by-marriage. But, ironically, the dynasty may actually descend from Michael III rather than from Basil. Basil had been induced to marry Michael's mistress; and although the marriage continued even after Basil had overthrown Michael, the first children may still have been Michael's.

The climax of Mediaeval Romania came with the Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus ("Bulgar Slayer," Bulgarentöter in German). He also happened to be ruling at the turn of the first Millennium, which is of some interest as we have now seen the year 2000. Christendom had been having a bad time for several centuries, but things were looking up in 1000. In our day, the movie, End of Days (Universal, 1999), has Arnold Schwarzenegger personally battling Satan, who is said to be released every thousand years (a somewhat loose reading of the Book of Revelation). This would mean that a similar difficulty occurred in 999, as well as 1999. Arnold wasn't around then, but Basil II was -- not only a great warrior but an Emperor who maintained a monk-like celibacy, and who was seen by most Christians as the principal defendor of Christendom, as the Emperors had been since Constantine. Somebody missed a bet for a good movie, or at least a flashback, about that -- End of Days itself could have had a flashback explaining how Satan was easily thwarted in 999 by the undiminished wisdom, strength, and preparedness of Basil, Pope Sylvester II (this was before the Schism), and the Patriarch Sergius II of Constantinople. The monks of the "Holy Mountain," Mt. Athos, could also have been brought into it.

Romania in 1000 AD; the Millennium, with the height of Middle Romanian power rapidly approaching. The extent of Bulgaria is open to




http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#hamdan

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#conquerer

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#sicily


John I Tzimisces 969-976

Russian Prince Sviatoslavdefeated, Bulgaria

conquered, 971

Basil IIBulgaroctonus

963-1025

Varangian Guard, 988;Conversion of Russia, 989;

Bulgarian Army annihilated,1014; Macedonian

Bulgaria annexed, 1018

Constantine VIII 976-1028

ZoëPorphyrogenita

1028-1050

Romanus IIIArgyrus

1028-1034

Michael IV thePaphlagonian

1034-1041

beginning of debasementof the solidus

Michael VCalaphates

1041-1042

TheodoraPorphyrogenita

1042-1056

Constantine IXMonomachus

1042-1055

Occupation of Armenia, 1045Schism between Eastern

and Western Churches, 1054

question. Some sources say it stretched to the Black Sea. Whatever, it will soon be erased by Basil II.

Sadly, the great triumph of Romania was shortlived. The last Emperors of the Dynasty, all by marriage, squandered the strength of the State, debased the coinage, and neglected the thematic forces that had been the military foundation of Romania for four hundred years. Imperial guards of mercenaries, as Machiavelli could have warned, could not be relied upon in all circumstances, especially after the finances of the state were messed up. Most symbolically, the breach between the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054 was the one that became permanent and henceforth separated the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church into the Pope's Latin Church, usually called "Roman Catholic," and the Patriarch of Constantinople's Greek Church, ususally called "Greek Orthodox" -- along with the other autocephalous "Orthodox" Churches (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, etc.).

The estrangement in religion came at a very bad time. When the Turks invaded and the Crusading forces arrived from Francia, the Schism was a source of constant irritation and mistrust. It provided some rationalization for the seizure of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade; and later, when the Churches were apparently reconciled by the Palaeologi, it left most Greeks so disaffected that their support for their own government was compromised. Thus, for centuries, Christian forces were divided and weakened in the continuing confrontation with Islâm.






Here we see the confusion over the paternity of Leo VI. Subsequently, in the minorities of Constantine VII, Basil II, and Constantine VIII, we see multiple reigns from Imperial in-laws. John I and Nicephorus II were extremely vigorous and successful in retrieving Romanian fortunes, finally to be sealed by the adult Basil. After the death of Constantine VIII, only Theodora and Zoë, both nuns, remained of the dynasty. Zoë endured three marriages to provide male sovereigns. These in-laws were as bad for the Empire as the earlier ones had been good. After the death of Constantine Monomachus, Theodora briefly reigned alone at the end of the line.

The genealogy of the Macedonians is supplemented here with an abbreviated tree showing the major foreign marriages of the Dynasty. The marriage of Constantine VII to the daughter of Hugh of Arles is shown above, but there are four other marriages noted here. Two of them are not attested by all sources. Leo VI did have a


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#media-B


daughter Anna (by his second wife), and marrying her to Hugh's predecessor in Burgundy, while his son married Hugh's daughter, produces a reasonable reciprocity; but marrying a true Porphyrogenita, a "Born in the Purple" Princess, to a barbarian king (which is what Louis III would have seemed to most), is something that some sources say was inconceivable, which is why all that the Emperor Otto II got was merely the niece of an Imperial in-law, John Tzimisces. Theophano was no Prophyrogenita (though some sources can be found referring to her as John's own daughter, or even as a daughter of Romanus II). St. Vladimir, however, certainty did marry the Porphyrogenita sister, Anna, of Basil II and Constantine VIII. Since this attended the conversion of Russia

to Christianity (989), with the material contribution of Russian (Varangian) troops to the Roman Army, it could well have been thought worth the price. The final marriage here is the most poorly attested and problematic. Brian Tompsett's Royal and Noble Genealogy gives a sister "Irene" for the Empresses Zoë and Theodora, who is said to have married Vsevolod of Kiev, grandson (by an earlier marriage) of St. Vladimir. I have not seen a single Macedonian genealogy that lists such an "Irene." This would be of great interest


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#saxon


http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/catalog.html


because their son, Vladimir II, was the grandfather of Ingeborg of Novgorod, who married (1118) Knut Lavard Eriksson, the father of King Valdemar the Great of Denmark (1157-1182). Through the intermarriages of the subsequent royalty of Denmark, we get connections to many of the rulers of Europe. Thus, it is sometimes said that Queen Elizabeth II of England is a descendant of the Emperor Basil I. But that would only be true if Irene really was a Macedonian.

Now, however, I have found a new source with a slightly different claim. The Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev, by Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist [Kings River Publications, Kingsburg, CA, 1997], says that Irene (or Irina) was "a daughter of Constantine IX Monomach" [p.160]. That is a lot different. Constantine was the Empress Zoë's third husband. She was already 64 when they married, so there is not much chance that Irene was her child, but Constantine was a widower, and it is not surprising that he would have previous children. Vladimir II is called "Monomakh," which thus sounds like a tribute to his Roman grandfather. This gives us a much more reasonable picture, but it does mean that Queen Elizabeth is not a descendant of Basil I (or Michael III, whatever).

non-dynastic

Michael VI Stratioticus 1056-1057

Isaac I Comnenus 1057-1059

A very brief non-dynastic interlude. Isaac I was the first of the Comneni and can be found on the genealogy of the Comneni below.


IV. FOURTH EMPIRE, LATE "ROMANIA/BYZANTIUM," 1059-1453, Era of Diocletian 776-1170, 394 years

The "Fourth Empire" begins with a blow, from an Islâm reinvigorated by the Turks, which represents not only a further diminution of the Empire, but a portent of the actual collapse and end of the Empire altogether. The catastrophic defeat at Manzikert alienated much of what had for long been the heartland of the Empire, Anatolia. It was a mortal wound, never to be made good; but the Empire nevertheless twice managed to struggle back up into at least local ascendency, first under the Comneni and then under the Palaeologi. The Comneni had help, of a very dangerous sort, in the form of the Crusaders. Defeat by the Turks was not the cruelest cut of the period. That was when the Crusaders, manipulated by Venice, took Constantinople in 1204. With the Latins, the Empire fragmented into multiple Greek and non-Greek contenders: Nicaea, Epirus, Trebizond, Bulgaria, and Serbia, not to mention the Turks. While the Palaeologi, building on the success of Nicaea, reestablished Greek rule, only Epirus of the other successor states came back under Imperial control. The Empire of Michael VIII did seem to have a chance, but a new Turkish state, of the Ottomans, soon surged into dominance. It took more than a century for the Ottomans to scoop up all the spoils, but, like a slow motion car crash, the outcome has a horrible inevitablilty.


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#scandinavia



A. THE ADVENT OF THE TURKS, 1059-1185, 126 years

1060 AD -- Romanian territory is intact, but the military and financial foundations of Roman power have been undermined. The coinage is debased for the first time since Constantine. Resources have been wasted absorbing Armenia, and the forces of the Armenian themes have been disbanded. Local Islamic states are no threat, but the Seljuks are on the way.

1. DUCASES

Constantine X Ducas 1059-1067

Loss of Armenia, 1064

Romanus IV Diogenes 1068-1071

Defeated and Captured by Seljuk GreatSult.ân Alp Arslan, Battle of Manzikert;

Bari captured by Normans, 1071

Michael VII Parapinakes 1071-1078

Nicephorus III Botaniates 1078-1081

The Ducases had the misfortune of suffering the most catastrophic defeat of Roman arms since the Arabs won Palestine and Syria at Yarmuk in 636: The defeat by the Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071, a battle lost more to treachery than to military superiority. And Romanus IV Diogenes became the only Roman Emperor besides Valerian to be captured in battle by an external enemy. What had hitherto been the heartland of Romania in Anatolia, now became a bleeding wound to Turkish conquest, never to be recovered. Simultaneously, the Normans won, for all time, the last Roman city in Italy. The Ducas genealogy is given below with the Comneni. They were the first Roman dynasty with a surname, which shows some of the social changes that took place during the long period of the Macedonians.


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#manz




Catastrophe. The heartland of the Empire in Anatolia is completely overrun. Only European possessions, secured not long before, enable Romania to endure and recover, somewhat -- with the dangerous help of the Crusaders.

2. SELJUK SULT.ÂNS OF RÛM

Süleyman I ibn Qutalmïsh 1078-1086

Kilij (Qïlïch) Arslan I 1092-1107

Malik Shâh 1107-1116

Mas'ûd I Rukn ad-Dîn 1116-1156

Kilij Arlsan II 1156-1192

Myriocephalon, 1176;Konya sacked by

Frederick Barbarosaon the Third Crusade, 1190

Kay Khusraw (Khosru) I1192-1196,1205-1210

Süleyman II 1196-1204

Kilij Arlsan III 'Izz ad-Dîn 1204-1205

Kay Kâwûs I 1210-1220

Kay Qubâdh I 'Alâ' ad-Dîn 1220-1237

Kay Khusraw II Ghiyâth ad-Dîn1237-1246,1257-1959

Defeated by Mongols, Battle ofKöse Dagh, become vassals, 1243

Kay Kâwûs II 1246-1257

The first Turkish and Moslem state in Anatolia ironically began against the wishes, virtually in rebellion against, the Seljuk Great Sult.ân Malik Shâh (1073-1092), who was even negotiating with Alexius Comnenus for the withdrawl of the Turks from the region. However, even the Seljuks were in no position to force such a withdrawl, and Roman resistance was so weak that Süleyman had no difficulty establishing his capital at Nicaea. The best that Alexius could do was to keep him back from Nicomedia. Meanwhile, even western cities like Ephesus were falling. The Turkish position was secure until defeat by the First Crusade in 1097. Then Alexius was able to recover the western cities. The Turks fell back on Iconium (Konya), which became their capital for the rest of the history of the Sultanate of Rûm. Although sacked by Frederick Barbarosa on the Third Crusade (1190), Konya was lost forever to Romania. The Sultanate already, however, seemed to have lost its edge. The devastating defeat of Manuel Comnenus at Myriocephalum (1176) was not followed up, and the subsequent decline of Romania was mainly from internal weakening and fragmentation (readying it for the Fourth Crusade). The Sultanate was then defeated by the Mongols in 1243 and spent the rest of its history in vassalage. The final fall, in 1307, coincided with a very fragmented, but vigorous, period of new Turkish states. Part of his vigor may have resulted from an influx of refugees from the Mongols. The Beys of Aydïn captured Ephesus in 1304, but the most serious portent for the future was the capture of Prusa (Bursa) in 1326 by the Ottomans. This quickly spelled the end of Romania in Asia, and by 1354 the Ottomans had a foothold in Europe. Only Tamerlane delayed the ultimate Ottoman conquest.


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#swabia

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#great


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#timurid


Kilij Arslan IV 1248-1265

Kay Qûbâdh II 1249-1257

Kay Khosru III Ghiyâth ad-Dîn 1265-1282

Control by Mongol Governors, 1277

Mas'ûd II

1282-1284,1284-1293,1294-1301,1303-1307

Kay Qûbâdh III1284,1293-1294,1301-1303

Mas'ûd III 1307

Deposed by Mongols, 1307

This list is from Clifford Edmund Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties [Edinburgh University Press, 1996].

The Empire has recovered as much as it is ever going to, and actually seems in relatively good shape, with deference all the way from Jerusalem to Hungary. But the Sultânate of Rûm is a nut that cannot be cracked -- the true seed of doom for Romania. And Roman trade and shipping is now dominated by Venice.

3. COMNENI

Alexius I Comnenus 1081-1118

Trade concession to Venice, 1082;First Crusade, 1096-1099

John II 1118-1143

captures Leon I of Armenia, 1137

Manuel I 1143-1180

With the Turks at Nicaea, the Normans ready to land in the west, the currency debased, the army dispersed, and the treasury empty, Alexius Comnenus had his job cut out for him. The results were satisfactory enough, but a couple of the desperate measures that the desperate times called for would have unfortunate long term consequences. The trade privileges given to Venice in 1082 eventually made Romanian trade, and even the Navy, the plaything of Italian city states. Calling on the West for military aid against the Turks had the very unexpected result of Pope Urban II calling in 1095 for a "Crusade" to liberate the Holy Land and Jerusalem from Islâm. The Crusaders passing through Constantinople gave Alexius


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#ilkhan




Second Crusade, 1147-1149;homage of Thoros II of Armenia,

Reynald of Antioch, & Baldwin IIIof Jerusalem, 1158-1159;

secures Dalmatia, Croatia,& Bosnia, 1167;

all Venetians arrestedin Romania, 1171;

Myriocephalon, defeat byKilij Arlsan II, 1176

Alexius II 1180-1183

Serbia independent, 1180;Bela III takes Dalmatia,

Bosnia, & Sirmium

Andronicus I 1183-1185

Isaac ComnenusEmperoron Cyprus,1185-1191

a very bad feeling. The possibility of what actually happened a century later, when the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople, was already very real. So Alexius bundled them as quickly as possible into Asia, where they defeated the Turks, making it possible to drive them out of western Anatolia together. This was of great material help to Romania, but the Turks remained based at Iconium (Konya). The Roman Army (with the thematic apparatus long gone) was never up to the task of dislodging them entirely. That this could have been done was revealed when Frederick Barbarosa, passing through on the Third Crusade, broke into Konya and sacked it (1190). That he died shortly thereafter steals the thunder from this act, but it is noteworthy. Meanwhile, the greatest military successes of the Comneni, by Manuel I, when his suzerainty was acknowledged by Lesser Armenia, Antioch, and even Jerusalem, were undone by a devastating defeat in 1176 at Myriocephalum ("Ten Thousands Heads"). Shortly thereafter Serbia breaks away, beginning a process of disintegration that would never be entirely reversed.

Curiously, in the days of Alexius I the heart of the Roman Army, the Varangian Guard, had a large element of Saxons, conquerors of Roman Britain, who now were refugees from the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. According to Geoffroy de Villehardouin, there

were still "Englishmen and Danes" in the Roman Army when the Fourth Crusade arrived at Constantinople in 1203.


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#inherit

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#manuel

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#sirmium



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#conqueror


Anna Comnena (d.1153), daughter of Alexius I, wrote a history of her father's reign, the Alexiad. Most of it was written after she was banished to a convent by her brother, John II, whom she apparently had tried to assassinate. This particularly intense form of sibling rivalry was in part the result of Anna's expectation that she would be closer to the seat of power, i.e. that the Emperor would be her husband. The birth of John spoiled this, and Anna, perhaps a feminist before her time, never accepted the wisdom of his

succession. She blamed him for subsequent disasters but, since the Alexiad doesn't cover his reign, she never quite says what they were. The real disaster, Myriocephalum, happened after her death to her nephew, Manuel I. One reference to the Alexiad that I remember from childhood, that Anna says her father didn't trust the Crusaders because they didn't have beards and smelled of horses, I have been unable to find in the text.



From the few and questionable foreign marriages of the Macedonians, with the Comneni we find a large number of well attested ones, many with Crusaders but one making connections as distant as Spain. I was aware of few of these until a correspondent, Ann Ferland, began to point them out. The marriage of Maria of Montpellier, whose mother was Eudocia Comnena, to King Peter II of Aragon led to all subsequent Kings of Aragon and of Spain.


B. THE LATIN EMPIRE, 1185-1261, 76 years

1. ANGELI

Isaac II Angelus 1185-1195

The worst dynasty in Roman history. Alexius IV brings in the Fourth Crusade, with impossible promises, to restore his incompetent father, and only succeeds in losing Constantinople to


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#spain


Bulgaria independent, 1186Third Crusade, 1189-1192; Cyprus

seized from Isaac Comnenusby Richard the Lionheart, given

to Guy of Lusignan, 1191

Alexius III 1195-1203

Kingdom of Lesser Armeniaindependent, 1198-1375

Isaac II (restored) 1203-1204

Alexius IV 1203-1204

Alexius V Mourtzouphlos 1204

Fourth Crusade, 1202-1204Constantinope falls

to Fourth Crusade, 1204

a foreign enemy for the first time ever. This may qualify as the true "Fall of Rome." The damage was bad enough, with many treasures and archives destroyed or carted off to Venice. Unlike the Goths at Rome in 410, the Crusaders stuck around for 60 years, with streadily decreasing success.

The Angeli continue the foreign marriages of the Comneni. One is particularly noteworthy. Irene Angelina, daughter of the Isaac II, married a son of Frederick Barbarossa, Philip of Swabia, who contended with Otto of


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#plant





Brunswick for the German Empire. They had no sons; but the marriages of their four daughters are among the most interesting in European history. In a reconciliation of Philip's feud, the oldest daughter, Beatrice,

married Otto himself. But they had no children. The younger daughters, Kunigunde, Marie, and Elizabeth, married King Wenceslas I of Bohemia, Duke Henry III of Lower Lorraine and Brabant, and King & St. Ferdinand III of Castile and Leon, respectively.

All of these marriages produced children with living modern descendants, especially among the Hapsburgs and the royal family of Spain, as can be traced at the linked genealogies. Since Isaac himself was a great-grandson of Alexius I Comnenus, this means that a large part of modern European royalty, through this connection alone, have been descendants of the Angeli and Comneni. My impression is that Roman Imperial descent for recent royalty has often been claimed through the Macedonians, but the only certain line, as we have seen, may be from Macedonian in-laws. On the other hand, descent from the Comneni and Angeli appears to be well attested and with multiple lines. Another fruitful line will be from Maria Lascarina, who married Bela IV of Hungary. Since the Lascarids themselves derive from Anna Angelina, Maria's daughter, that connects up to the whole Comneni-Angeli house. Maria's son, Stephen V of Hungary, had a daughter, Katalin, who married the Serbian King Stephen Dragutin, who had a daughter the married a Bosnian Ban, with many descendants. This line all the way to the Hapsburgs can be examined on a popup.

2. BULGARIA, ASENS

John I Asen 1186-1196

Peter II Asen 1196-1197

Kalojan Asen,the Roman Killer

1197-1207

In 1204, the Pope recognized Kalojan as "King of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs" (Geoffroy de Villehardouin, calling him "Johanitza," even says "King of Wallachia and Bulgaria"). Indeed, the Asen brothers, founders of the dynasty, were themselves Vlachs, i.e. modern Romanians. This is therefore not a purely ethnic Bulgarian state. It also came close to succeeding to the throne in Constantinople, though later overpowered by the Mongols, Serbia and, of course, the Ottomans.


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#kings

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#brabant

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#tolosa

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#tolosa



http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#golden


captures Baldwin I, 1205;kills Boniface ofMontferrat, 1207

Boril 1207-1218

John II Asen 1218-1241

Defeated & CapturedTheodore Ducas of

Epirus, 1230;Mongol invasion, 1242

Kaloman I 1242-1246

Michael II Asen 1246-1257

Kaloman II 1257-1258

Constantine Tich 1257-1277

Ivan Mytzes 1278-c.1264

Ivalio1277-1279,d.1280

John III Asen1279-1284?,d.<1302

Asens replaced by Terters

The principal setback to the Bulgarian state was the Mongol invasion of 1242, which itself was almost an afterthought as the Mongols abandoned the conquests of Poland and Hungary in 1241 and were returning to Russia. The Chingnizids needed to go to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan. What followed for Bulgaria was a period of internal conflict, between members of the Asen dynasty and outsiders. Two unrelated usurpers, Constantine Tich and Ivaljo, figure in the table above. Another unrelated figure, however, Ivan Mytzes, becomes an Asen in-law and the father of the last Asen Emperor, John III. This is a confused period, with pretenders contending and dates uncertain. John III fled to the Mongols and then to Constantinople. He was succeeded in Bulgaria by his erstwhile minister, George Terter.






The list of Bulgarian rulers is from various Byzantine sources, including the only source of the genealogy here, which is the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.160-162].

Although John III lost Bulgaria, his descendants figured in affairs in Constantinople for some time. Since his granddaughter married the Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus, whose daughter Helena married the Emperor John V, all the subsequent Palaeologi are his descendants.

3. LATINEMPERORS AT

CONSTANTINOPLE

Baldwin Iof Flanders 1204-1205

Captured byKalojan Asen, 1205


http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#latins


Henryof Flanders 1206-1216

Peter deCourtenay

1217

Yolanda ofFlanders 1217-1219

Robert I deCourtenay

1221-1228

John ofBrienne

1228-1237

Baldwin II

1228-1261

titularEmperor1261-1273

Philip IItitularEmperor1273-1285

Catherine deCourtenay

titularEmpress1285-1307

Charlesof Valois


Catherineof Valois

titularEmpress1313-1346

Philip IIof Tarento


Robert IItitularEmperor1346-1364

The conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade did not result in the establishment of the authority of the Latin Emperors over the whole of the previous Empire. Greek authority was maintained in three major locations, at Nicaea, at Trebizond, and in Epirus, and a couple of minor locations, at Rhodes, later to fall to Venice, and at the fortress of Monembasia in the Peloponnesus (Morea), which fell in 1248. All three major Greek rulers eventually proclaimed themselves emperors, which means that at one point four rulers were claiming the Imperial dignity within the old Empire -- not to mention the Bulgarian and Serbian Tsars who also wanted to inherit it. The Emperor at Nicaea was the one to return to Constantinople, but the Emperor at Trebizond was the last to fall to the Turks.

Besides the 3/8 of the whole retained by Venice, including Adrianople and Gallipoli, the Latin Empire ended up included three significant feudal dependencies, all subjugated and organized by the leader of the Fourth Crusade, Boniface the Margrave of Montferrat: the Kingdom of Thessalonica (1204-1224), with Boniface himself as king, the Duchy of Athens (1205-1456), and the Principality of Achaea (1205-1432). Boniface was denied the Imperial throne by the Venetian votes, apparently because it was thought that he might make too strong an Emperor.

Kings of Thessalonica

Boniface ofMontferrat 1204-1207

Demetrius1207-1224,d.1230/9

Boniface himself was killed in 1207 and the Kingdom of Thessalonica turned out to be the most shortlived of the Crusader states in Romania, falling to Epirus. In 1311 the Duchy of Athens was seized by the Catalan Company, which had mutinied against the Palaeologi. The Principality of Achaea eventually got mixed up with the Anjevians and finally was inherited, much too




http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#brienne

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#brienne






http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#anjou-2


Philip IIItitularEmperor1364-1373

Thessalonica takenby Epirus, 1224

late, by the Palaeologi in 1432; but the Duchy of Athens never returned to the control of Greek Romania. It fell to Meh.med II in 1456.

After the restoration of Greek rule in Constantinople, a claim to the Roman throne passed down through the descendants of Baldwin II. Charles of Anjou, who had his own designs on Romania, married a daughter to Baldwin's son Philip. Later, Charles' grandson Philip married the heiress, Catherine of Valois, of the claim. None of these claimants, however, ever had much of a chance of returning to Constantinople. Many of them, however, were also Princes of Achaea, where their succession and genealogy are given in detail.

The nimbus is not used for the Latin Emperors in the genealogy because, as Roman Catholics, they would have acknowledged Papal supremacy to a degree that the Orthodox Emperors in Constantinople never would. Latin Emperors could not be "Equal to the Apostles."







4. DESPOTS OF EPIRUSAND EMPERORS AT

THESSALONICA

Michael I Ducas 1204-1215

Theodore Ducas

1215-1230

1227-1230,Emperor inThessalonica,d.c.1254

takes Thessalonica, 1224;Defeated & Captured by

John II Asen, 1230

Manuel

1230-1237,Regent inThessalonica,d.1241

John

1237-1242,Emperor inThessalonica

Despot,1242-1244

Defeated byJohn III Ducas Vatatzes,reduced to Despot, 1242

Demetrius 1244-1246

Thessalonica falls toJohn III Ducas Vatatzes,

1246

Michael II 1231-1271

In the scramble for a Greek successor to the Angeli, Epirus was in a good position, from which considerable progress was made. Thessalonica was the second city of the Empire, and its capture reasonably prompted Theodore Ducas to proclaim himself Emperor. From there, however, things only went down hill. Theodore was himself defeated and captured by the Bulgarians, which would add him to the number of Valerian and Romanus IV if we considered him a proper Emperor of Romania. But the chance of that dimmed further when Theodore's successors were defeated by Nicaea, reduced to despots, and then Thessalonica itself fell to Nicaea.



Granted title of Despot ofEpirus by

John III Ducas Vatatzes, 1249

Nicephorus I 1271-1296

Thomas 1296-1318

Nicholas Orsini 1318-1323

John Orsini 1323-1335

Nicephorus II1335-1337,1340, &1355-1359

Epirus absorbedby Andronicus III, 1337, 1340

Epirus itself proved difficult for either Nicaea or the Palaeologi to subdue and rule, so the despots continued there for a while, continuing under some rulers unrelated to the Ducases. By the time Andronicus III was able to annex the territory, the Empire as a whole was too far gone

for it to have helped very much.

5. EMPERORS AT TREBIZOND

Alexius I Comnenus 1204-1222

Andronicus I Gidus 1222-1235

John I Axuch 1235-1238

Manuel I 1238-1263

Andronicus II 1263-1266

George 1266-1280

John II 1280-1297

Alexius II 1297-1330

Andronicus III 1330-1332

Manuel II 1332

Basil 1332-1340

Irene Palaeologina 1340-1341

A very poor excuse for an "empire," Trebizond spent much of its existence in vassalage to the Mongols and Turks who ruled the plateau behind it. It started, however, with an heir to the Comneni and a reasonable ambition of moving on to Constantinople. After realistic chances of that past, Trebizond ended up with the dubious honor of being the last of the Greek states to fall to the Ottomans, in 1461.

Lists of the Emperors of Trebizond can be found in various Byzantine histories, but the genealogy here only comes from the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume III, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser, Ergänzungsband [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Second Edition, 2001, pp.235-236].



Anna Comnena 1341, 1341-1342

Michael 1341, 1344-1349

John III 1342-1344

Alexius III 1349-1390

Manuel III 1390-1416

Alexius IV 1416-1429

John IV 1429-1459

David 1459-1461

Trebizond falls to Meh.med II, 14611354 AD

In the genealogy of the Comneni of Trebizond, there are noteworthy marriages to Kings of Georgia. There is also the interesting episode of Irene, daughter of Andronicus III Palaeologus, briefly succeeding her husband Basil as ruling Empress. She was then succeeded by her sister-in-law Anna. Most extraordinary is a marriage at the end of line. A daughter,



Theodora, of Emperor John IV married Uzun H.asan, a Khan of the White Sheep Turks (1457-1478), the very Khan who conquered the Black Sheep Turks in 1469 and created a regional state that stretched from Eastern Anatolia, where the White Sheep Turks originated, into Eastern Irân. This continued until the Safavids came to power in 1508.


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#aqqoy


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#safavid


6. LASCARIDS,EMPERORS AT

NICAEA

ConstantineLascaris

1204

Theodore ILascaris

1206-1222

John III DucasVatatzes

1222-1254

Theodore II 1254-1258

John IV 1258-1261

The Greeks at Nicaea were perhaps the best placed to move on Constantinople, except that they were on the wrong side of the Bosporus. This was remedied, mainly by John Ducas Vatatzes, by defeating the Greek rivals at Thessalonica and creating a state that straddled Europe and Asia. This created the kind of stranglehold on Constantinople that the Turks would duplicate later. Constantinople was regained on a chance betrayal to the Nicaean general and Regent, Michael Palaeologus. Once in power in Constantinople, Michael disposed of the actual Nicaean heir, John IV. The Lascarids, who were actually mostly the family of John Ducas Vatatzes, thus only served to obtain the restoration of Greek Romania for the Palaeologi.


C. THE LAST DAYS, 1261-1453, 192 years

1. SERBIA

TichomirGreat Prince,1168-1169

Stephan I Nemanja1169-1196,d.1200

The Golden Age of Serbia. Independence from Romania and then the passing of the most vigorous days of Bulgaria meant an opportunity for a Serbian bid for the Imperium.

This opportunity was seized by Stephan Dushan, who ended up with most of the western Balkans and was crowned Tsar of the



Serbia independent, 1180

Stephan IIthe First-Crowned

1196-1217

King of Serbia,1217-1228

Stephan III Radoslav 1228-1234

Stephan IV Vladislav 1234-1243

Stephan Urosh I 1243-1276

Stephan Dragutin 1276-1282

Stephan Urosh IIMilutin

1282-1321

Stephan Urosh IIIDechanski

1321-1331

Stephen Urosh IVDushan

1331-1345

Tsar of the Serbsand the Romans,1345-1355

Stephen Urosh Vthe Weak

1355-1371

defeat by Murâd Iat Crnomen, 1371;collapse of dynasty

& authority

Stephan Lazar IPrince,1371-1389

battle of Kosovo,"Field of the Blackbirds,"defeat by Murâd I, 1389

Stephan Lazar IILazarevich

Despot,1389-1427

Turkish vassal, 1396

Serbs and Romans by the autocephalous Serbian Patriarch whom he had just installed (1346) at Pec. His long reign, however, was not quite long enough, and his death set off the kind of internal dissentions that had ruined many another state in Romania.

Then, all too soon, the Ottomans arrived. Defeats in 1371 and 1389 crushed Serbia. The agony of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, the "Field of the Blackbirds," still echoes today in the fierceness of the attachment of modern Serbs for the area, now largely populated by Albanians. As it happened, the Sult.ân Murâd I died at Kosovo, but his son, Bâyezîd the "Thunderbolt," was, if anything, even more vigorous than his father. In 1396 Bâyezîd destroyed a Crusade, led by the King of Hungary and future Emperor Sigismund, at Nicopolis (Nikopol). Not even Bâyezîd's defeat and capture by Tamerlane (1402) revived Serbian prospects.

Lists of Serbian rulers can be found in various Byzantine histories, but the genealogy here only comes from the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.143-149].


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#bohemia

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#non-dynast



George Brankovich 1427-1456

Lazar III Brankovich 1456-1458

Helene PalaeologinaRegent,1458-1459,d.1473

annexed by Turkey, 1459

The dynasty of Stephan Dushan is followed by two families of princes. Stephen Lazar and his son endured the Turkish defeat and conquest and were reduced to despots. They were followed by the Bronkoviches, father and son. The wife of Lazar III Brankovich, Helene, was a daughter of Thomas Palaeologus (d.1465),



Despot of the Morea and brother of the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI. After the death of Lazar, Helene was Regent of Serbia until the Turkish annexation.

3. BULGARIA, TERTERS

George ITerter

1280-1292,d.c.1304

Mongol vassal, 1285

Smilech 1292-1295/8

Caka/Tshaka 1295/8-1298/9

TheodoreSvetoslav

1298/9-1322

George II 1322-1323

SHISHMANS

Michael IIIShishman

1323-1330

John IVStephan

1330-1331

The second Bulgarian dynasty of the period was always at a disadvantage, ground between the Mongols, Serbs, Hungary, and the Ottomans.Ottoman conquest and annexation came in the same year (1396) as the




John VAlexander

1331-1371

John Sracimir1355-1371,d.1396

John VIShishman

1360-1393,d.1395

disintegration of state, 1385;Ottoman vassalage,

1387, 1388, Conquest, 1396

Sult.ân Bâyezîd's defeat of a Crusade, led by the King of Hungary and future Emperor Sigismund, at Nicopolis (Nikopol), where John Sracimir was killed.

Over time, the Turks clearly regarded Bulgaria as

stategically more important than Serbia or the Romanian principalities, and no local autonomy was allowed at all until the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-1878 and the Congress of Berlin (1878) forced it. Even then Bulgaria was divided and full independence did not come until 1908. Meanwhile, a fair number of Bulgarians had converted to Islâm. Since they were regarded as traitors by Christian Bulgarians, many of them migrated to Turkey, where they still live.

The list of Bulgarian rulers is from various Byzantine sources, including the only source of the genealogy here, which is the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.162-163].

4. BEGS (BEYS) OF AYDÏN

Family of Aydïn Oghlu Muh.ammad Beg

Captures Ephesus, 1304

Muh.ammad Beg,Mubâriz ad-Dîn Ghâzî

1308-1334

Umur I Beg,Bahâ' ad-Dîn Ghâzî

1334-1348

The many successors of the Seljuks in Anatolia are often called the oghullar or "sons." The Aydïn Oghullarï ("Sons of Aydin") are noteworthy because their seizure of Ephesus and Smyrna allowed for the development of a very troublesome degree of sea power, provoking two leagues of western powers to help Romania suppress it. The second league succeeded in recapturing the harbor and part of the city of Smyrna, though this only temporarily hampered the Begs. A noteworthy complication at the time was the civil war in Romania between John V Palaeologus and John VI Cantacuzenus. Cantacuzenus cultivated Turkish allies, including the Ottoman Amîr Orkhân and Umur I of Aydïn. This was a disastrous error, since





Captures Smyrna (I.zmir);naval defeat at Adramyttion, 1334;naval defeat by Venice & Romania,

loss of harbor of Smyrna, 1344

Khid.r 1348-c.1360

'Îsâ c.1360-1390

Annexation by Bâyezîd I, 1390;Restoration by Tîmûr, 1402

Mûsa 1402-1403

Umur II 1402-1405

Junayd 1405-1426

Annexation by Murâd II, 1426

Ottoman troops were thus introduced into Europe. They stayed. The Beys of Aydïn also illustrate the temporary setback suffered by the Ottomans. The defeat of Bâyezîd I by Tamerlane led to the brief reëtablishment (1402-1426) of the Aydïn Oghullarï.

This list is from Clifford Edmund Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties [Edinburgh University Press, 1996].

5. PALAEOLOGI

Michael VIII Palaeologus

1259-1282

Prince of Achaea captured, 1259; Restoration of Greek rule in

Constantinople, 1261; Laconia & Monembasia (soon Despotate of Morea) ceded as ransom for the Prince of Achaea, 1261; Genoese granted Galata, 1267; Anjevians

defeated, 1281; the Sicilian Vespers, 30 March 1282 -- Sicily revolts against & massacres the French; end of Anjevian threat

Andronicus II 1282-1328

Michael Palaeologus restores the Greeks to Constantinople, and for a time Romania acted as a Great Power again, fending off Charles of Anjou. But it was a precarious position. Michael himself sowed the seeds of disaster by confiscating land from the tax exempt akritai (sing. akritês), the landed frontier (ákros) fighters of Bithynia. This weakened defenses that Andronicus II weakened further with military economies, failing to follow the maxim of Machiavelli that the first duty of a prince is war. Once the Ottomans









reduction of army & navy; Venetians mint Ducats after

Roman debasement, 1284; defeat by Amir 'Osmân at Bapheus near

Nicomedia, Ottoman conquest begins, 1302; Catalan Company

hired, 1303, revolts, 1305; Ephesus lost to Beg of Aydïn, 1304; Knights

of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, the Hospitalers, on

Rhodes, 1308-1523; Prusa [Bursa] lost, 1326

Michael IXheir ofAndronicus,1295-1320

Andronicus III 1321-1341

defeat by Orkhân, 1329; Nicaea [I.znik] lost, 1331; Nicomedia [I.

zmid] lost, 1337; Epirus annexed, 1337, 1340

John V1341-1376,1379-1391

Umur I, Beg of Aydïn & ally of John Cantacuzenus, defeated by

Venice & Romania, looses harbor of Smyrna, 1344; Grand Duke of

Moscow contributes money to repair St. Sophia, 1346

John VI Cantacuzenus

regent,1341

1341-1354,abdicated

broke the Roman army in Bithynia (1302), they, and other Turks, quickly reduced Roman possessions in Asia to fragments, never to be recovered. Bithynia (Prusa, Nicaea, and Nicomedia) became the base of Ottoman power, with Prusa, as Bursa, the Ottoman capital.

In this period flags in the modern sense were just beginning to come into use; and there were 14th century banners that would have





http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#moscow



Civil War, 1341-1347; Crown Jewels pawned to Venice, 1343;

Bubonic Plague, 1347; revenue of Galata seven times that of

Constantinople, 1348; Genoans from Galata burn Roman

shipyard, 1348; War between Venice & Genoa, 1350-1355;

Kallipolis [Gelibolu] lost, 1354, Ottoman foothold in Europe; John V visits Hungary, first Emperor to

visit a foreign court, 1365; Adrianople [Edirne] lost, 1369;

John goes to Rome & Venice, 1369-1371; Empire Vassal of Murâd I

Andronicus IV1376-1379;heir,1381-1385

Thessalonica lost, 1387

Manuel Cantacuzenus, Despot of Morea

1348-1380

Matthew Cantacuzenus, Despot of Morea

1354-1383

1380-1383

Demetrius Cantacuzenus, Despot of Morea

1383

John VII

1390, flees to Bâyezîd I; regent, 1399-1403

Philadelphia lost, 1390

Theodore I Palaeologus, Despot of Morea

1383-1407

evolved into a proper flag for Romania, given the chance. We find a field with a Cross, like many Crusader banners and flags, with the addition of curious devices, which look like images and mirror-images of something between the letter B, the letter E, and broken links of a chain. These are sometimes said to have already been used by Constantine I and have been variously interpreted. One possibility is that they are stylized forms of Crescent Moons, originally symbolic of the divine patroness of Byzantium, the goddess Artemis. The stylized forms have been inherited in the arms of

Serbia, and crescents are used as a Serb national symbol, seen at left -- something that has probably become a sign of terror to non-Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. If it was the Crescent that was originally used in

Constantinople, this may have been directly inherited by Turkey. A Crescent is now commonly taken as symbolic of Islâm, but this may not antedate the Turkish flag. The star on the Turkish flag is sometimes said to be Romanian also, symbolizing the Virgin Mary, but it does not occur on the earliest Turkish flags. However, Whitney Smith [Flags Through the

Ages and Across the World, McGraw-Hill, 1975] shows a flag identified only as "medieval Russian" that shows a cross with four crescents and four stars also (p. 174). The crescents are oriented differently, but this design seems too elaborate not to have Roman

antecedents. The double headed Eagle is also a Romanian device, said to have been introduced by Michael VIII Palaeologus, with the two heads looking towards the Anatolian and European halves of the Empire, as the Emperor did from Constantinople. Or, Donald M. Nicol [Byzantium and Venice, a Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 249] says, it was adopted by Andronicus II to symbolize the division of authority with his grandson, Andronicus III -- though it far outlasted that particular division. Eagles were used by many to imply Roman antecedents, but the double headed eagle was adopted in particular by the Holy Roman Empire, by Imperial Russia, and by the Serbs. It also occurred on the flag used by George Castriota, or Skanderbeg, when he drove the Turks out of Albania, between 1443 and 1463. Thus, when Albania became independent from Turkey, Skanderbeg's flag was revived.


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#anjou-1



http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#romanov


Manuel II 1391-1425

Russian Church stops mention of Emperor, 1392; Ottoman

vassalage repudiated, 1394; seige of Constantinople, 1394-1402;

Battle of Nicopolis, Sigismund of Hungary defeated by Bâyezîd I, 1396; Emperor travels to Italy, France, England, 1400-1403; Thessalonica returned, 1403,

ceded to Venice, 1423; Seige of Constantinople by Murad II, 1422

Theodore II Palaeologus, Despot of Morea

1407-1443

John VIII 1425-1448

attends the Church Council at Ferrara & Florence, 1439-1440;

Crusade of Varna, defeated, Vadislav of Hungary & Poland

killed, 1444

Constantine XI Dragases

Despot of Morea 1428-1449

1449-1453

Constantinople [I.stanbul] falls to Meh.med II, 1453

Thomas, Despot of Morea

1428-1460

In the last days of Romania, as all else was being lost, one domain expanded. That was the Despotate of the Morea, the Mediaeval name of the Peloponnesus. The last part of this, the fortress of Monembasia, had fallen to the Latins in 1248. But then Monembasia and Laconia were returned in 1261 as ransom for William, Prince of Achaea, who had been captured in battle in 1259. In the western hills above the ancient city of Sparta, Mistra grew into a surprising center of art and learning. Indeed, one could even say that the Renaissance began there, since many of its scholars, with their books, fled the Turkish Conquest to Italy, which was ready for them. The Morea became a kind of Viceroyalty under the Cantacuzeni Despots. Under the Palaeologi, starting in 1383, the Despot (sometimes more than one) was usually a son or brother of the Emperor. The last Emperor, Constantine XI, began as a Despot of Morea. He very nearly acquired Athens in 1435. His brother, the last Despot, Thomas, married the Heiress of Achaea and came into possession of the Principality and all the Peloponnesus in 1432. By then there was little time left for further successes. The last thing left to Thomas by the Ottomans was, again, the fortress of Monembasia, which he turned over to the Pope in 1461. The Pope thus became, as Popes had long desired, the ruler of all Romania.



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#anjou

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#basil

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#varna


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#sparta

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#rebirth



Principality of Achaea inherited, 1432; Mistra, Morea, falls to Meh.

med II, 1460; last piece of Romania, the fortress of

Monembasia, ceded to the Pope, 1461; daughter Zoë marries Ivan

III of Russia

The Fall of Constantinople, on May 29, 1453, is one of the most formative, epochal, colorful, and dramatic episodes in world history. Because of all that it is a little puzzling that there has never been, to my knowledge, a Hollywood movie about the event. This may have been in great measure because of the scale of the location. The Theodosian Land Walls of Constantinople are 6.5 kilometers long, almost 4 miles. Since the ruins of the walls could not be used, and the whole length could not be built (as the whole Alamo was build by John Wayne for The Alamo), it would have been necessary to use models, which, with the older technology, would have looked very cheesy. Models now, however, can look much, much better -- the models for Lord of the Rings (2001) even came to be called "big-atures" instead of "miniatures" they were so large; and even better than that, shots can be done digitally. This would also work for the other problem, which would be showing the general situation of the city between the Sea of Marmara, the Bosporus, and the Golden Horn. A live shot of the modern buildings would not help. Now, however, the whole thing could be done digitally, or live shots could be digitalized and edited, to remove modern buildings and render mediaeval ones. This would also help with scenes in Sancta Sophia. The movie would have to show church services there, but my understanding is that these are not allowed in the modern building, even though it is now a secularized museum rather than the mosque it became at the Conquest (there is a small Islamic chapel, but not a Christian one). No problem. All we need is a photograph, and Industrial Light and Magic can put Constantine XI and the whole gang right into it with all the paraphernalia of the Greek Orthodox Church. Even so, it is questionable how interested Hollywood will ever be, even after Gladiator, and even when the legendary material, like the Virgin Mary retrieving her Icon, or the various versions of the death of Constantine, simply cry out for cinematic representation. With the present conflicts



http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#monemvasia




involving Islâm, some might consider the whole topic inflammatory; and it is very possible that Turkey would not allow location filming for such a movie.

The surname Palaeologus survives today, but it is not clear that any modern Palaeologi are descendants of the Imperial family. In the genealogy, we see considerable intermarriage outside the Empire, even to Tsars of Bulgaria. The marriage of Zoë-Sophia to Ivan III of Moscow is the one most filled with portent, but the last Russian Tsar to be their descendant was Theodore I (1584-1598).

John Julius Norwich (Byzantium, The Decline and Fall, Knopf, 1996, pp.447-448) notes that there is buried in St. Leonard's church in Landulph, Cornwall, England a "Theodore Paleologus" (d.1636) from Italy, who is said to have been a direct descendant of John, son of Thomas, Despot of the Morea. However, Thomas is not known to have had a son John, and so the claim of descent, regardless of any other


http://www.friesian.com/afghan.htm#fascism



merits, is questionable. Theodore had a son Ferdinand, who died in Barbados in 1678. Ferdinand had a son "Theodorious," who returned to England and died in 1693, leaving a daughter, "Godscall," whose fate

is unknown.

What John Norwich seems to have missed is that there were undoubted lines of Palaeologi (Paleologhi) in Italy, descended from the Emperor Andronicus II, whose second wife was Yolanda, the Heiress of the Margraves of Montferrat. While Andronicus's eldest son succeeded in Constantinople, his son by Yolanda, Theodore, succeeded to Montferrat. The main line of the Palaeologi of Montferrat continued until the death of the Marchioness Margaret in 1556. But branch lines continued much longer, perhaps even to the 20th century. This is covered in the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2,

Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.260-261], which, however, only indicates that the lines continue after the 16th century. The Theodore buried in Cornwall could very well have simply gotten confused about his genealogy. He might have been a genuine Paleologo from Italy.

While there may or may not be surviving Imperial Palaeologi, Constantine XI lives on in legend. When the Turks had manifestly broken through and the Fall of the City imminent, the Emperor reportedly threw off the Imperial Regalia and disappeared into the thick of the fight. There is no doubt that he died. A body was later identified and a head displayed, but some doubt remains about the identification. A story arose that Constantine sleeps under the Golden Gate (like Barbarossa under the Kyffhäuser), or that he would reenter the City through that Gate. Generations of Turkish government took these stories with sufficient seriousness that the Golden Gate remains bricked up to this very day.

6. ROMANIANS "Wallach," as in "Wallachia," is a





WALLACHIA

MOLDAVIATihomir c.1290-1310

Ioan Basarab IVoivode,Prince1317-1352

Nicholas Alexander 1352-1364

DragoshVoivode,Prince1352-1353

Sas 1354-1358

Balc 1359

Bogdan Ithe Founder

Prince1359-1365

Vladislav I Vlaicu 1364-1377Latcu 1365-1373

Costea 1373-1375

Radu I 1377-1383 Petru Ial Mushatei

1375-1391Dan I 1383-1386

Mircea the Old 1386-1418Roman I 1391-1394

Stephen I 1394-1399

Vlad Ipart,1394-1397

Ologul (Iuga) 1399-1400

Michael I 1418-1420Alexanderthe Good

1400-1432

Dan II 1420-1431

Ilias, Elias1432-1433,1435-1442

Radu II the Poor1421, 1423,& 1447

Alexander I 1431-1436

Vlad II Dracul1436-1442,1443, 1447

Stephen II 1433-1447

cognate of the English words "Welsh" and "Wales." This seems to have been a German word for "Romans," left by the Goths in the Balkans. It also turns up as the word "Vlach," a Slavic name for the Romance language, and its speakers, used in the Balkans. The Latin form "Blachus" and the Greek "Vlakhos" also occur. In modern parlance, the convention for some time was that Romance speakers south of the Danube spoke "Vlach" and those north of the Danube spoke "Romanian." "Romanian" is now also coming to be used for the languages (Arumanian, etc.) south of the Danube also, with "Daco-Romanian" used to specific the north of the Danuabe language.

The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia are the first Vlach/Romanian states that we see north of the Danube. They appear in the period after incursions from nomadic Steppe empires ceased. They were never subject to the Roman Emperors in Constantinople, and they occupied territories that had been abandoned by the Roman Empire in the Third Century, or never occupied by it in the first place. The arrival of the Turks subjected them to Ottoman suzerainty, but this was of varying rigor. The lines of Princes continued, but by 1711 the Sult.ân began to sell the seats to Greek tax farmers, a destructive practice that continued until 1821.



Mircea 1442 Petru II1444-1445,1447,1448-1449

Basarab II 1442-1443 Roman II 1447-1448

Iancu deHunedoara(János Hunyadi)

Prince ofTransylvania,1441-1456

Ciubar 1448-1449Regent ofHungary,1446-1456

1447

Vladslav II1447-1448,1448-1456

Alexandrel1449,1452-1454,1455

Bogdan II 1449-1451

Vlad III Tepesh,the Impaler

1448,1456-1462,1476

Petru Aron

1451-1452,1454-1455,1455-1457,d.1469

Radu I cel Frumos 1462-1475

Stephen IIIthe Great

1457-1504

Basarab Laiota1473,1474-1475,1476-1477

Basarab Tepelush1477-1481,1481-1482

Vlad Calugarul1481,1482-1495

Radu II cel Mare,the Great

1495-1508

Bodgan IIIthe Blind

1504-1517Mihnea cel Rau1508-1509,d.1510

Mircea 1509-1510

The most famous person in these lines is certainly Prince Vlad the Impaler of Wallachia. In legend and horror, one might almost say romance, this cruel man has grown into the paradigmatic vampire, Count Dracula, though his home has been slightly relocated, from Wallachia to Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains (between Transylvania and Moldavia). Until recently, I was under the impression that Prince Vlad Dracul (1436-1442, 1443, 1447) was Vlad the Impaler. However, a Romanian correspondent has pointed out that Prince Vlad the Impaler was not Vlad Dracul but instead Prince Vlad T,epesh (1448, 1456-1462, 1476, also "Vlad Draculea"), his son. This seems to be the case, and I have corrected the table accordingly. This correspondent also pointed out the interesting career of Iancu de Hunedoara (János Hunyadi) as Prince of Transylvania and Regent of Hungary, for which links have been installed.

The title of these rulers was Voivode, a word that we even find in Bram Stoker (Dracula, Penguin Books, 1897, 1993, p.309). This term no longer


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#transylvan

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#postumus



Vlad cel Tinar 1510-1512

Neagoe Basarab 1512-1521

Shtefanita 1517-1527

Teodosie 1521

Vlad (DragomirCalugarul)

1521,d.1522

Radu III de laAfumati

1522-1523,1524,1524-1525,1525-1529

Valdislav III1523, 1524,1525

Radu IV Badica 1523-1524 Petru Raresh1527-1538,1541-1546

Moise 1529-1530 Ottoman Conquest, 1538

Vlad Înecatul 1530-1532 Ilias, Elias1546-1551,1562

Vlad Vintila 1532-1535 Stephen IV 1551-1552

Radu Paisie 1535-1545 Ioan Joldea 1552

Mircea Ciobanul1545-1552,1553-1554,1558-1559

AlexandruLapushneanu

1552-1561,1564-1568,1568

Radu Ilie 1552-1553Despot Voda(Iacob BasilikosHeraklides/Eraclid)

1561-1563

Patrascu cel Bun(the Kind)

1554-1557 Sephen Tomsha 1563-1564

Petru cel Tinar1559-1568,d.1569

BogdanLaprushneanu

1568-1572

Alexander II1568-1574,1574-1577

Ion Voda (Johnthe Terrible)

1572-1574

appears in convenient Romanian or Hungarian dictionaries, for any of its meanings (c.f. NTC's Romanian and English Dictonary, Andreí Bantas, NTC Publishing Group, 1995; Hippocrene Concise Dictionary, Hungarian, Hungarian-English, English-Hungarian, Géza Takács, Hippocrene Books, 1996; or Hippocrene Standard Dictionary, English-Hungarian Dictionary, T. Magay & L. Kiss, Hippocrene Books, 1995). Those meanings began with "duke" or "prince" and ultimately declined to merely "governor," which would have been appropriate to Wallachia or Moldavia under the Turks. This word is actually of Slavic origin, and is thus discussed under Eastern Europe.

The Vlach language of the Principalities, not a written language in the Middle Ages, came to be written in the Cyrillic alphabet. The unified country itself became first "Roumania," later further Latinized into "România," and soon the Cyrillic alphabet was traded in for the Latin alphabet, as the Roman roots of the people were increasingly emphacized. In contrast to the original Romania, i.e. the Roman Empire, the north-of-the-Danube state might usefully be characterized as "Lesser Romania," on analogy to "Lesser Armenia" in the Taurus; but this would probably be considered insulting by modern Romanians. Perhaps "Later


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#words



Vintila 1574Petru Schiopul(the Lame)

1574-1577,1578-1579,1582-1591,1594

Mihnea Turcitul1577-1583,1585-1591,d.1601

Ioan Potcoava 1577

Petru Cercel1583-1585,d.1590

Iancu Sasul 1579-1582

Stephen Surdul 1591-1592 Aron the Terrible1592-1595,d.1597

Alexander cel Rau 1592-1593Stefan Razvan 1595

Ieremia Moghila 1595-1600

1593-1601 Michael II the Brave1600,d.1601

Radu VII (IV)Serban

1601-1611 Ottoman Control, 1600

Ottoman Control, 1611;Lines of Princes Continued

Romania" would be better, like the Later Han Dynasty -- making the Empire into the "Former Romania," like the Former Han Dynasty. The issue of România and the Vlach language and people is discussed further in "The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History."

The list of Princes here was originally taken from Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982]. Gurney left many gaps, but it was a long time before I could do better. Now I have updated the list from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas, by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp.142-144 & 259-261]. Feldkamp gives very detailed information but unfortunately only until 1601.

Subsequent Princes are thus only from Gurney.


Rome and Romania is continued in The Ottoman Sultans, 1290-1924 AD, Successors of Rome: Germania, 395-774, Successors of Rome: Francia, 447-present, Successors of Rome: The Periphery of Francia, and Successors of Rome: Russia, 862-present.


Home Page


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#han-2

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#han










Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD, Note 1

Bede identifies several Emperors by number. This includes Claudius, #4, Marcus Aurelius, #14, Diocletian, #33, Gratian, #40, Arcadius, #43, Honorius, #44, Theodosius II, #45, Marcian, #46, and Maurice, #54. This numbering works if we eliminate three of the four Emperors of 69 AD, the ephemeral Emperors of 193 and 218, a couple of them from the Third Century, most of the Tetrarchy and Constantian coregents, and, most importantly, all of the Western Emperors after Honorius. The latter is especially striking because Bede mentions Valentinian III: "In the year of our Lord 449, Marcian became Emperor with Valentinian and fourty-sixth successor to Augustus" [Bede, A History of the English Church and People, Penguin Classics, translated by Leo Sherley-Price, 1955, 1964, p.55]. Since Theodosius II was already identified as the 45th Emperor, there is no number left for Valentinian (Emperor since 425), let alone Constantius III or John, who had been legitimate Emperors of the West. From Marcian to Maurice, the numbers only work if we then ignore all the rest of the Western Emperors, out of nine of which four were even recognized by the East. So Bede doesn't recognize any.

Although writing in the 7th and 8th centuries (673-735), in the days of multiple Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain, Bede nevertheless had a strong sense of the continued existence of the Roman Empire. He knows that the Empire is now centered in Christian Constantinople, and his awareness of this is strong enough that it actually erases the existence of the last Western Emperors. The idea common now that the Roman Empire fell in 476, wouldn't have made sense to Bede. He didn't even recognize the Emperor who "fell," Romulus Augustulus, as an successor of Augustus (neither did the East, for that matter). Ephemeral and puppet Emperors (whether in the 2nd or 5th centuries) don't make the cut in his reckoning. This is of a piece with most of the rest of Mediaeval opinion and perception, East and West. Since the Schism of 1054 between the Latin and the Greek Churches had not occurred yet, Bede would have seen the contemporary Emperor (a late Heraclian, mostly) invested with all the aura and authority of Contantine the Great.

Return to Text


The 2004 movie King Arthur uses some of Littleton and Malcor's information to rework the Arthur legend into something like real history. However, its use of it, and of other history, although meriting an A for effort,


http://www.friesian.com/ross/

http://www.friesian.com/#ross


involves some confusions and anachronisms. In the movie, the Iazyges are called "Sarmatians," which they were, but the more general name obscures the unique experience of the Iazyges in being settled and assimilated as Roman soldiers. Indeed, that circumstance is ignored, as the movie shows the Sarmatians apparently still living out on the steppe (in yurts) and somehow still obliged in the 5th century to furnish draftees to the Roman army. The Romans, however, were never in any position to send press gangs out onto the steppe, and such a foray in the 5th century, through Germans and Huns, is unbelievable. Nor is there any reason why Sarmatians well beyond Roman borders should pay any attention to obligations assumed three centuries previously. But the plot of the movie requires that the Saramatians feel exiled during their service in Britain. Instead, the Iazyges, men, women, and children, would have all been settled in Britain; and by the fourth century they would have felt as Roman and/or British as anyone. The yearning of Arthur's men to go home is thus a purely fictional device. That Arthur himself still bears the name of Artorius Castus, his ancestor, is a fictional device also, but actually a rather clever and not impossible one.

The background offered in the movie about Sarmatian service in the Roman army leaves out that this involved the war fought by Marcus Aurelius featured in the movie Gladiator. A tribute to Gladiator might have been made but isn't. Instead, we get a gross anachronism, as the shields of what would have been Marcus's army in 175 AD aleady bear the Chi-Rho symbol of Constantine's Christianity. This may have just been a matter of economy in the prop department, where all the shields were prepared for the 5th century army. However, even this was a mistake, since we know from the Notitia Dignitatum that there were a great many designs used on Roman shields in the Christian Empire, including, remarkably, the first attested instance of the Chinese swirling Yin-Yang symbol. Shields were unique and distinctive to the units.

Beyond this, almost all the history in the movie is confused. The Western Emperor is not even mentioned, and the Pope is portrayed as directing political and military events. This is what Mediaeval Popes wanted to do, but it has nothing to do with the 5th or 6th centuries, when the Popes had no such power and would not have imagined that they did. Actual Italian Romans are portrayed unpleasantly, which creates a distinction (and a conflict) that wouldn't have existed in Late Antiquity. In general, Romans were Romans -- the movie perpetuates the idea that "Rome" meant the City, when this limitation was long gone. More importantly, the Romans never deliberately withdrew from Britain, and certainly not as late or as callously as shown in the movie. The usurper Constantine (407-411) stripped Britain of legions in order to invade Gaul and seize the Throne. When he was defeated, Honorius had to inform the British that, with the Suevi, Vandals, and Alans raging across Gaul and Spain, the forces simply did not exist to re-garrison Britain. Since the battle of Badon Hill is supposed to have happened eighty to a hundred years later, there is a fair bit of history that the movie reduces, in effect, to a couple of days. Finally, we have Saxons so confused or foolish as to land in Britain north of Hadrian's Wall. This would not have done them much good (as is obvious in the movie) and was way, way out of their way. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes all crossed the North Sea and landed well south of the Wall. Only Vikings from Norway would later show any interest in the future Scotland. Finally, an early sequence in the movie has Arthur venturing north of the Wall to retrieve a Roman settler. What is this guy doing there? And how could his estate survive, surrounded by hostile Picts, especially when he treats the locals with appalling cruelty? This doesn't pass minimal standards of credibility.

The peculiar or anachronistic devices in the movie all serve to create dramatic tension and conflict, which is well within understandable poet license. In this it is perhaps moderately successful, but some distortions seem gratuitous, especially the negative impession left of Christianity. Pagans were generally tolerated at the time (not tortured or starved to death), but the Army and probably the Britons were overwhelming Christian. That


http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm


Arthur found himself on the wrong side of one of the obscure contemporary theological disputes is a cute touch (based on the British monk Pelagius, whose teaching was condemned in 418) but is obviously introduced merely as a device to alienate him from the Church and from Rome. This fits the plot of the movie but cannot have had much to do with the substantive problems facing 5th century Britons. The matter in dispute, free will versus predestination, was never wholly settled to the complete denial of one or the other. Indeed, Catholic orthdoxy was more favorable to free will than Protestants like John Calvin would be later.

Return to Text


Sancta Sophia is Latin for "Saint Sophia" or, since sophía is Greek for "wisdom," "Sacred Wisdom." This is not the form of the name usually seen. Justinian spoke Latin, but in time Greek became the Court language at Constantinople. In Greek the Church was Hágia Sophía,

which locally would have been the name used from the beginning. As Mediaeval Greek developed, however, the "h" ceased to be pronounced and the "g" softened into a "y." This later pronunciation is even preserved in the Turkish name of the Church, Aya Sofya. For many years, the version I seem to remember seeing was Santa Sophia, which would have to be Italian. Because of the later Italian influence in Romania, this version of the name certainly would have been used. Or, I may have just been seeing "St. Sophia" and thought of it as Santa because of living amid all the Spanish place names in California, where sancta has also become santa (e.g. Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Santa Cruz, etc.).

Return to Text



The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania

THE OTTOMAN SULT.ÂNS AND CALIPHS, 1290-1924 AD

V. FIFTH

EMPIRE, OTTOMANS, ISLAMIC BYZANTIUM, 1453-1922, Era of Diocletian 1170-1639, 469 years

Osmanli Oghullarï

'Osman I1290-1326

defeats Romans near Nicomedia, Ottoman

conquest begins, 1302; Seljuks overthrown, 1307; Bursa [Prusa] taken, 1326

Orkhân1326-1359

defeats Andronicus III, 1329; I.znik [Nicaea] taken, 1331; I.

zmid [Nicomedia] taken, 1337; Gelibolu [Kallipolis]

taken, 1354; Ankara [Angora] taken, 1354

Murâd I1359-1389

The Sultânate of Rûm had been dormant for some years, failing even to capitalize on the victory of Myriocephalum (1176). After vassalage to the Mongols (1243), the domain finally disintegrated (1307). Meanwhile, however, the Turkish presence in Anatolia was actually invigorated with refugees from the Mongol advance. The new domains that resulted were the oghullar or "sons" of Rûm. These included many ghuzâh (sing. ghâzin), or fighters for Islâm (otherwise mujâhidûn), particularly frontier fighters. 'Osman Ghâzî (now just Osman Gazi) found himself on the frontier of Roman Bithynia, across from his Christian military counterparts, the akritai (sing. akritês). He defeated the Roman army at Bapheus in 1302 but is best remembered for breaking through into Bithynia and captured Prusa (1326), which became Bursa, the first capital of the Ottoman Emirate.

http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm (1 of 45)8/25/2006 5:32:46 AM


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#oghullar

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm


Edirne [Adrianople] taken, 1369; Konya [Iconium]

taken, 1387; Thessalonica taken, 1387; battle of Kosovo,

"Field of the Blackbirds," Sult.ân killed defeating

Serbs, 1389

Bâyezîd I Yïldïrïm, the "Thunderbolt"

1389-1402

seige of Constantinople, 1394-1402; Battle of Nicopolis, Sigismund of Hungary

defeated, 1396; Battle of Ankara, Sult.ân defeated, captured & imprisoned by

Tamerlane, 1402

Meh.med I1402-1421

Civil War, 1402-1413, between Meh.med, Süleymân, & Mûsâ; Thessalonica ceded

to Romania, 1403

Murâd II1421-1451

Seige of Constantinople, 1422; Thessalonica captured

from Venice, 1430

Meh.med II Fâtih. the "Conqueror"

1451-1481

I.stanbul [Constantinople] taken, 1453; conquest of Bosnia, 1463; Khanate of Crimea becomes a Vassal,

1475; Seige of Rhodes repulsed, 1480

The historical and international image of the Turks does not seem to be the most lovable or romantic. Most Americans probably are going to be more sympathetic to people with historic grievances against Turkey -- Greeks, Armenians, Romanians, Serbs, even Arabs. The disappearance of all the ancient peoples of Anatolia, from the Phrygians and Galatians to the Isaurians, and the sad Fall of Constantinople, now combines with lingering outrage over the genocide of the Armenians during World War I -- an event that Turkey still officially and stoutly denies, despite thorough historical documentation, not to mention many surviving eyewitnesses -- and more recent actions against the Kurds: Not long ago it was a crime in Turkey to assert, even on the floor of the parliament, that there even were Kurds in the country -- and in 1994 four members of parliament were sentenced to 15 years in prison for giving speeches in Kurdish. Although responding in some ways to European demands for human rights improvements before being considered for admission to the European Union, since December 2001 the Turkish government has officially regarded Kurdish given names as "terrorist propaganda" and refused to register them for Kurdish children. With all this, one does not even need to see the very anti-Turkish movie Midnight Express [1978].

In historical perspective, however, it is not clear to what extent the ancient peoples even still existed by the time of the Turkish arrival. Greek assimilation, i.e. Hellenization, of Anatolian peoples had been progressing steadily for centuries, and Turkish settlement in comparison doesn't necessarily look all that different. Given the religious cause that they thought they were vindicating (for which Islâm usually seems more excused than Christianity), the Fall of Constantinople, far from sad, was one of the supreme moments of achievement in the history of Islâm. A Western, or a modern liberal, evaluation will not give that much weight, but it is not hard to imagine that the sensation it created in Islâm was not much different from that in Christendom at the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade, or the completion of the Reconquista in Spain. This are similarly denigrated by modern opinion, but it is hard to imagine how the values at the time could have been different -- everyone should guard against an anachronistic indignation.

The subsequent Ottoman Empire features the goods and evils characteristic of most empires, and some peculiar to those of the Middle East -- e.g. the refuge provided for Spanish Jews in 1492, as against the slavery and forced conversion of Christian children for the Janissary corps. Evils specific to nationalism emerged later, like the


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#anjou



http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#crimea


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#pontus



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#conquest


Bâyezîd II1481-1512

Selîm I Yavuz, "the Grim"

1512-1520

Conquest of Syria and Egypt, 1516-1517

Süleymân I, the Magnificent

1520-1566

Fall of Rhodes, 1523; Battle of Mohács, Conquest of

Hungary, death of Louis II of Hungary & Bohemia, 1526; First Siege of Vienna, 1529; Conquest of Mesopotamia, 1534; Siege of Malta, 1565

Selîm II1566-1574

Peace of Adrianople, tribute from Austria, 1568; conquest

of Cyprus, 1571; Battle of Lepanto, naval defeat by

Spain, Venice, & Malta, 1571

Murâd III1574-1595

inconclusive war with Austria, 1593-1606

Meh.med III1595-1603

Ah.med I1603-1617

Mus.t.afâ I1617-1618

'Osmân II1618-1622

aforementioned genocide of Armenians and the continuing suppression of the Kurds, an Iranian people who happen to be Orthodox Moslems like the Turks. The Turks are not uniquely at fault for this, and the solution is a kind of society (liberal and capitalistic) upon which few in the world entirely agree, even in the ethnic plurality of societies like the United States. Turkey now has an especially tough time with its own identity as it is torn between the Islamic fundamentalist revival seen elsewhere and the secularism that Kemal Atatürk made the foundation of the modern state in the 1920's. None of this may make Turkey particularly lovable, but it does make the Turks mostly like anybody else, with a history that has its horrors but, indeed, also its own bit of magnificience: a desire to surpass Sancta Sophia (still called Aya Sofya in Turkish, after the Greek version of the name, Hagia Sophia) produced a series of some of the most beautiful mosques in Islâm, which have inspired much of subsequent Islâmic architecture (the standard doomed mosque, starting with Muh.ammad 'Alî's Alabaster Mosque in Cairo) [note].

Today one of the sights of Istanbul is the Fatih Camii (Fâtih. Jâmi-i), the "Conqueror's Mosque." This contains the tomb of Meh.med II, with a dedicated mosque, school, hospice, and (formerly) caravansaray. It stands on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was the burial place of the Emperor Constantine and subsequent Emperors of Romania. Already largely in ruins in 1453, it is not clear what the fate of all the Imperial burials was -- they may actually have simply been covered over by the later construction, the way the Imperial mosaics in Sancta Sophia were simply whitewashed, preserving them for modern display. What the Church probably looked like can still be seen in a probable copy, St. Mark's in Venice.

At Meh.med II's death, the Ottoman Empire looked much the way Romania had in the 11th Century. Selîm I "the Grim" did what the old Emperors had never been able to do, restore Syria and Egypt to the empire (from the Mamlûks). Süleimân I then added areas that had never been permanent parts of the Roman Empire, Iraq and Hungary. Picking up the Roman conflict with Irân, the Turks for the first time since Alexander the Great


http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#turks

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#mohacs



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#lepanto







Ah.med I (restored)1622-1623

Murâd IV1623-1640

Ibrâhîm1640-1648

Meh.med IV1648-1687

Naval defeat by Venice & Malta at Dardanelles, 1656;

War with Austria, 1663-1664; Conquest of Crete from

Venice, 1669; Second Siege of Vienna, 1683; Austrian

conquest of Hungary, 1686-1697

Süleymân II1687-1691

Parthenon destroyed in explosion, 1687

Ah.med II1691-1695

Mus.t.afâ II1695-1703

Russia takes Azov, 1696; Loss of Hungary, 1697; Peace of

Karolwitz, 1699

Ah.med III1703-1730

Recovery of Azov, 1711; War with Austria, 1716-1718; Loss

of Banat, Serbia, & Little Wallachia, 1716-1718; Peace

of Passarowitz, 1718

removed Iraq from Iranian possession (the map shows the pre-Safavid Aq Qoyunlu or White Sheep Turks). The conquest of Hungary was the first penetration of Islâm into Francia since the conquest of Spain.

The Ottoman Empire was at its height for about 150 years. It had at that point, however, reached the limits beyond which it could not easily project its power. Conflict continued with Austria and with Christian powers in the Mediterranean, but respective holdings didn't change much. The Sult.ân Ah.mad Mosque, or the Blue Mosque, adjacent to the site of the old Hippodrome of Constantinople, is a fitting symbol of the achievement and confidence of this period. The long delayed fall of Crete in 1669 then seemed like the portent of renewed conquests. The energetic Köprülü vizirs planned a new assault, after 150 years, against Vienna in 1683. But this turned into a disaster, suddenly revealing the relative weakness that had actually overcome the Empire. Even a de facto alliance with friendly France, the greatest power of the day, could not prevent a series of defeats, the loss of Hungary, and the temporary loss of southern Greece to Venice.






http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#mohacs



Mah.mud I1730-1754

War with Austria, Recovery of Serbia & Wallachia, 1737-1739; Peace of Belgrade, 1739

'Osmân III1754-1757

Mus.t.afâ III1757-1774

'Abdül-H.amîd I1774-1789

Russian conquest of Crimea, 1774-1783

Selîm III1789-1807

Odessa annexed by Russia, 1791; Revolt of Serbs, 1804-

1813; Russian invasion, occupation of Moldavia & Wallachia, 1806-1812; Sult.

ân overthrown by Janissaries, 1807

Mus.t.afâ IV1807-1808

Mah.mûd II1808-1839

It is noteworthy at this point that Ottoman Sult.âns ceased to murder their brothers on accession. Henceforth the Throne passes, by Middle Eastern custom, to brothers and even to cousins before going to the next generation.

The threat of continuous defeat, which the beginning of the 18th century seemed to display, receded somewhat. Austria would not advance deeper into the Balkans and there was some breathing room. Nevertheless, the Ottomans were now facing the problem of catching up with the technological advances of Europe, even of relatively backward Russia, which it was in no way prepared to tackle. The problem was not any particular hostility to modern commercial culture -- merchants and markets were perfectly respectable characteristics of Middle Eastern Islâmic civilization -- but a very profound social conservativism, a satisfaction with the Mediaeval forms of life, prevented any of this from developing into modern institutions of banking, industry, and entrepreneurship. Like the Chinese, the Turks literally did not believe there was anything new to learn, much less from despised Unbelievers. The bustle and excitement of the great Istanbul Bazaar thus never led to the explosion of energy and production that was already characteristic of the Netherlands and other places in Western Europe. Turkey would always be playing catch-up but would then never actually catch up.


http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#catharine



Treaty of Bucharest, Russia ceded Bessarabia, 1812; Serbian autonomy, 1813; Greek Revolt, 1821-1829;

Sult.ân massacres Janissaries, 1826; Russian

invasion, occupation of Moldavia & Wallachia, 1828-1829; Treaty of Adrianople,

Greek Independence, Danube Delta to Russia, autonomy of Moldavia & Wallachia, 1829

'Abdül-Mejîd I1839-1861

Crimean War, 1853-1856; Russian invasion, 1853;

Britain, France, & Austria enter against Russia, 1854;

Austria occupies Moldavia & Wallachia, 1854-1857; Siege

of Sebastopol, 1854-1855; Peace of Paris, recovery of Danube Delta, Wallachia &

Moldavia combined as Romania, with part of

Bessarabia, 1856

'Abdül-'Azîz1861-1876

Revolts in Bosnia & Bulgaria, 1875-1876

Murâd V 1876

'Abdül-H.amîd II, "the Damned"

1876-1909

Institutional reforms, when they were even tried, still could never go deep enough, could never actually produce a people striving and inquisitive beyond their previous habits. Peter the Great faced similar problems with another conservative society about the same time.

At the beginning of the 19th century, as Napoleon surged back and forth across Europe, the subject Christians of the Balkans became more and more restless, and Russia began to try again and again to retrieve Constantinople for Christendom and break through the Straits. The Ottomans, although achieving some successes, were not going to be able to resist this. The Empire's status as the "Sick Man of Europe" was now becoming quite established. It was Realpolitik that came to the rescue of the Sult.ân: Britain did not want Russia to be too successful and so entered into a long policy of supporting the Turks against the forces, from Russia or Egypt or wherever, that might result in the collapse of Ottoman rule. Nevertheless, Britain could not allow too much oppression of subject Christians, and as the century wore on, small Christian states, from Serbia to Greece to Bulgaria, were allowed autonomy and then independence by the agreement of the Great Powers. This did not get any of them all they wanted, and it certainly limited Russian gains, but it kept the geo-political dam from bursting and kept the Sult.ân from falling off his Throne.

Finally, it was the internal forces of Turkey that began to shake things up after a pattern that would become all too familiar in "underdeveloped" countries later: A military coup, the "Young Turks," against the detested Sult.ân 'Abdül-Hamîd II in 1908. This did not help much when the





Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878; Congress of

Berlin, Serbia, Romania, & Montenegro Independent,

Bulgaria autonomous, Bessarabia to Russia,

Dobruja to Romania, Cyprus to Britain, Bosnia,

Herzegovina & Novipazar, Austrian Protectorate, 1878; British Occupy Egypt, 1882;

Bulgaria annexes East Rumelia, 1885; Revolt of the Young Turks, 1908, Sult.ân

overthrown

Meh.med V1909-1918

First Balkan War, 1912-1913; Italy occupies Libya & the Dodecanese, 1912; Second Balkan War, recovery of Adrianople, 1913; World

War I, 1914-1918

Meh.med VI1918-1922

Armenian Republic conquered, 1920-1921; Greco-

Turkish War, 1920-1922

'Abdül-Mejîd II

Caliph only, 1922-1924

Balkan states fell on Turkey in 1912. The choice of Germany as a European ally would then be fatal for the Ottoman future. Another ill effect was the transformation of the Mediaeval Cause of Islâm into a more modern Turkish nationalism. This did not work well, and never would, with the Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds living within Turkish borders. The disaffection of the first exploded in a pro-Allied revolt in World War I. Suspicion about the second led to shameful deportation and massacre about the same time. And conflict with the third continues, with campaigns of terrorism and suppression, even today. Woodrow Wilson impotently called for an independent Armenia state, in an area where there were by then few Armenians left, and soon almost none after Turkey pushed the Armenian Republic back east of the Araks (Aras) River in 1920. No Power has called for an independent Kurdish state. Meanwhile, the British and French were perfectly happy to detach the Arab lands from the Empire, not for independence, to be sure, but to further British and French imperial projects. This turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, especially when the Zionist colonization of Palestine, allowed by the British, led to the creation of Israel and to a conflict, including five major wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982), that continues until today. The settlement of World War I has thus been aptly called "the peace to end all peace."

The spelling of the names of the Ottomans is intended to indicate


http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#28



both the Turkish pronunciation and how they are spelled in Arabic (which no longer matters, since Turkish is no longer written in the Arabic alphabet, but is of historical interest). Here I have pretty much followed the usage of the Cambridge History

of Islam. A good example is the name of the Conqueror of Constantinople, Meh.med II. This name is Muh.ammad in Arabic but is actually pronounced Mehmet in Turkish. Obviously, some compromises are made and the system is not perfect. In general, the consonants look Arabic and the vowels Turkish. Since Turkish (and Persian) reads the Arabic alphabet with three s's (Arabic s, s., and th) and four z's (Arabic z, z., d., and dh), some attempt is made to differentiate (e.g. with s for th). Modern Turkish writes c for English j and ç for English ch, but the English equivalents are used here.

The main reason that Arabic writing did not work well for Turkish was the Turkish vowel system. Where Classical Arabic had three short and three long vowels, and Persian could match its six vowels with those,

Turkish has eight vowels, as shown at left (in the official Romanization). The most intriguing thing about Turkish vowels is the system of vowel harmony. Related Ural-Altaic languages, like Mongolian and even Hungarian, also have vowel harmony, but this seems to appear in Turkish in its most complete, logical, and elegant form. The rules are simply, (1) front vowels are followed by front vowels (e.g. i by e), back vowels by back vowels (e.g. u by a), (2) unrounded vowels are followed by unrounded vowels (e.g. i by e), and (3) rounded vowels are followed by high rounded (e.g. o by u) or low unrounded vowels (e.g. o by a). There are Turkish grammatical inflections in which the vowel

is supposed to be simply either high or low, with its character otherwise determined by the preceding vowels in the word. This all was impossible to show in the Arabic alphabet without a special notation that might have been developed but, evidently, never was. There are many words in Turkish that violate vowel harmony, but by this they can be identified as foreign loan words -- for example islâm (instead of *islem), from Arabic, and istanbul (instead of *istenbil), from Greek or Arabic.

In the first book I had about Turkish, Teach Yourself Books, Turkish [St. Paul's House, Warwick Lane, London, 1953, 1975], the author, G.L. Lewis, specifically ridicules Hagopian's Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-Grammar of 1907 because, out of 215 pages, it devoted 161 to Arabic and Persian [p.vi]. Well, I have gone to some trouble to get a copy of Hagopian's Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-Grammar, and it is a very fine book. The section on Arabic and Persian is very much as though every English grammar book came along with Donald M. Ayers' English words from


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#iran


Latin and Greek elements [University of Arizona Press, 1986], which I encountered as the textbook for a popular class at the University of Texas on the Greek and Latin contributions to English. As it happens, of course, fewer and fewer American students are even taught English grammar, much less enough Greek or Latin to understand or appreciate its use of them. This not a virtue. Nor is the nationalistic enthusiasm that seeks to purge languages of "foreign" words, which has happened in Turkish, German, French, Hungarian, and elsewhere. This kind of thing is simply an attempt to purge history itself -- along with a ugly attempt to sharpen ethnic identities and differences.

Turkish Republic, 1923; Presidents

Mustafa Kemal, (1934) Atatürk

1923-1938

Ismet Inönü 1938-1950

France cedes Alexandretta & Antioch, 1939

Celal Bayar 1950-1960

Kemal Gürcel 1961-1966

Cevdet Sunay 1966-1973

Fahri Korutürk 1973-1980

Kenan Evren 1980-1989

Turgut Özal 1989-1993

Süleyman Demirel 1993-2000

Ahmet Necdet Sezer 2000-present

The job of complete social transformation of Turkey was finally undertaken by Mus.t.afâ Kemal, who adopted the surname Atatürk, "Father of the Turks." With no concessions to Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds, Atatürk nevertheless abandoned most imperial aspirations. Giving up the Arabic alphabet and traditional costume (indeed, making their use even a capital offense), deposing the Ottomans, and otherwise trying to make Turkey a European, rather than a Middle Eastern, state, Atatürk simply hoped to make it the equal of other modern powers. To a considerable extent he succeeded, though Turkey is still haunted by the shadow of the military dictatorship that he himself represented, by the threat of militant Islâm, whose mediaevalism is fully triumphant in neighboring Irân, and by the disaffection of the Kurds, whose very existence was legally denied for many years. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the strongest state in the region, to the chagrin of neighboring Arabs and Christians alike. Long a member of NATO, Turkey looks foward to membership in the European Community, but still has little embarrassments like the common use of torture by police. Thus, despite Atatürk, we still have several respects in which Turkey is posed between East and West, Mediaeval and Modern, Islâm and secularism, liberalism and oppression. The application of Turkey to the European Union has been defered, but will be considered in a couple of years.

A discussion of general sources for this material is given under Francia and Islâm. Some additional sources include The Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia (John Channon with Rob Hudson, 1995), and various prose histories, such as The Ottoman Centuries (Lord Kinross, Morrow Quill, 1977).

The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD

The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#sources




Islâmic Index


Home Page

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 1

Not all who deny the existence of the Armenian genocide are Turkish, as I learned from e-mail recently. Anyone sincerely sceptical or confused about the matter should consult Death by Government (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1995, pp.209-239), by R.J. Rummel, one of the greatest living experts on mass murder. Rummel estimates the number of Armenians murdered in the main organized genocide program (there were others), from 1915-1918, as 1,404,000 persons. Some of the eyewitness testimony to this included reports by the American Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (whose son, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., would be Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury), and by other American consular officials, at a time when the United States was still neutral in World War I. Morgenthau's account was published in 1919 as Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.

Return to Text

The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 2

Nor should we disparage the endless pornographic fantasies that revolve around the Harîm of the Sult.ân's Topkapï Palace. Fascination with this is now often disparaged as "Orientalism," i.e. the projection of


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#index






unrelated and hostile imaginings onto misunderstood institutions; but there is no doubt of the extraordinary and bizarre characteristics of the Imperial Harîm. If it was diverting for the Sult.ân, I don't see why it should not continue to be so to the curious modern. An honest and informed treatment of this can be found in Harem, The World Behind the Veil [Abbeville Press, New York, London, Paris, 1989], by a woman who grew up in Turkey, Alev Lytle Croutier, many of whose own relatives had lived in traditional harîms. The books contains photographs from the Ottoman era (including her relatives) as well as historical drawings and the sort of lush and sensual paintings by Western artists that infuriate the anti-"Orientalism" crowd. The image above is a 19th century photograph. It is given by Croutier [p.74], but I also remember it from many years ago in Time magazine, at the time that the Topkapï Harîm was first opened to the public.

Return to Text

The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD

The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon

Bashîr I 1697-1707

H.aydar 1707-1732

Mulh.im 1732-1754

The Golden Age of Lebanon is considered by many to have come in the reign of the Amîr Bashîr II Shihâbî. The Shihâbîs were originally Sunnî Moslems, but they came to rule an area dominated by the Druzes, practioners of a religious off-shoot of Islâm and regarded by many Moslems as apostates from Islâm. When the Amîrs themselves converted to Maronite Christianity, this effected an alliance, sometimes uneasy, between the largest communities in Lebanon, the Maronites and the Druzes, who stood in some danger of persecution by the orthodox Moslem Turkish authorites. Still symbolic of the success of this alliance and the prosperity of the period is the beautiful Bayt


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#maron


Mans.ûr 1754-1770

Yûsuf 1770-1788

first Maronite Amîr, 1770

Bashîr II 1788-1840

overthrown by Britain & Turkey, 1840

Bashîr III 1840-1842

direct Turkish Rule, 1842-1918; French Rule, 1920-1943

Republic of Lebanon

Bishara al-KhuriPresident, 1943-1952

Camille Chamoun 1952-1958

Fuad Chehab 1958-1964

Charles Hélou 1964-1970

Sulayman Franjieh 1970-1976

Elias Sarkis 1976-1982

Amin Gemayel 1982-1988

Selim al-Huss 1988-1989

Elias Hrawi 1989-1998

Émile Lahoud 1998-present

ad-Dîn (or Beit ed-Din, "House of Religion") Palace, begun by Bashîr II in 1788 and not completed for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bashîr II moved to consolidate his power through an alliance with Muh.ammad 'Alî of Egypt. This would have been an excellent strategy were it not for the intervention of Britain to drive the Egyptians out of Syria and restore Ottoman authority. Bashîr II was deposed in the process. The influence of France, especially, to protect the Christians in Lebanon, however, was not exerted successfully to preserve Lebanese autonomy, and tended to alienate the non-Christians anyway; and the Turks managed to rid themselves of the Shihâbîs altogether, which at times resulted in the persucution and even massacre of Christians. After Lebanese independence from France itself in 1946, Bayt ad-Dîn became a residence for the President of the Republic. For many years Lebanon prospered as the "Switzerland of the Middle East," and Beirut as the "Paris of the Middle East"; but by the 1970's the communal differences that had been a source of strength when the communities needed to unite against outside persecution began to be a source of weakness, as sometimes had happened before, when the communities fell out among themselves and the issue came to be the distribution of political privileges and patronage to each "confessional" community. Things were particularly destablized by the large number of Palestinian refugees, who had no political standing in Lebanon at all, and whose activities against Israel drew Israeli retaliation on Lebanon. Since the Maronites were politically and economically dominant, everyone united against them and full civil war broke out in 1975. This ended up bringing the Syrians into Lebanon in 1976. The Druzes, and much of the anti-Maronite cause, were led by the charismatic Kamal Jumblatt, whose assassination in 1977, widely rumored to have been ordered by the Syrians, symbolically ended the first phase of the Lebanese "troubles." The shakeup of the civil war then brought to the surface something new: The Shi'ite community, always the poor relation in Lebanese politics, predominant in the South and in the Beka'a Valley (areas originally peripheral to Mount Lebanon), had not only quietly grown into the largest community in Lebanon but now was throughly radicalized and activized, in a natural alliance with the Palestinians, and, ominously, with the more distant Shi'ite

coreligionists, the Iranian Islâmic Revolutionaries. The Israelis, who invaded Lebanon in 1982 to get rid of the Palestinians, more or less accomplished



that task, with the PLO leaving for Tunisia, but then discovered, as the Syrians had already, that the communal rivalries of the Lebanese themselves, especially with the Shi'tes adopting Iranian suicide and terror tactics, made the place a tar baby for any outsiders who wanted to exert control by force. With the foreign powers chasened, the Lebanese began to patch things up with some needed political compromises; and as the 1990's progressed, some peace and prosperity seemed to be returning to the country. It remains to be seen, however, if a modus vivendi can be found to produce another golden age of communal alliance against the outside.

Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon

The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

Egypt was abruptly pulled into modern history with the invasion of Napoleon in 1798. Although Egypt had been conquered by the Turks in 1517, the strange slave dynasty of the Mamlûks had continued and by Napoleon's time had reestablished de facto authority in the declining Empire. After the French were driven from Egypt in 1801, Muh.ammad 'Alî arrived, supposedly to reëstablish Turkish authority.

Brilliant, ruthless, farsighted, and probably the most important Albanian in world history, Muh.ammad 'Alî very quickly established his own authority instead. The final Mamlûks were massacred in 1811, and Muh.ammad 'Alî moved to create a modern state, and especially a modern army, for Egypt. In this he was as successful as any non-European power at the time. By the time the Greeks revolted against Turkey in 1821, it was Muh.ammad 'Alî who turned out to have the best resources to put down the revolution and was called on by the Sult.ân in 1824 to do so. He very nearly did, until Britain intervened and sank the Egyptian fleet at the Battle of Navarino in 1827. Frustrated in that direction, Muh.ammad 'Alî was successful in his conquest of the Sudan (1820-1822), probably advancing further up the Nile than any power since Ancient Egypt, though at a terrible cost to the Sudanese in massacre, mutilations, and slaving (of which the American boxer Cassius Clay was probably unaware when he adoped the name "Muhammad Ali" upon his conversion to Islâm). Egyptian interventions in Arabia in 1818-1822 and 1838-1843 very nearly exterminated the House of Sa'ûd and its fundamentalist Wahhâbî movement, which much later would create a united and independent Sa'ûdî Arabia.





The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî

in Egypt

Muh.ammad 'AlîPasha, 1805-1848

Ibrâhîm 1848

'Abbâs H.ilmî I 1848-1854

Muh.ammad Sa'îd 1854-1863

Suez Canal Started, 1859

Ismâ'îl

1863-1867

Khedive, 1867-1879, d. 1895

Suez Canal Opened, 1869 Britain buys Khedive's

share in Canal, 1875

Muh.ammad Tawfîq 1879-1892

British Occupation, 1882

'Abbâs H.ilmî II1892-1914, d. 1944

British Protectorate, 1914-1922

H.usayn KâmilSult.ân, 1914-1917

Ah.mad Fu'âd I

1917-1922

King, 1922-1936

Fârûq1936-1952, d. 1965

Ah.mad Fu'âd II 1952-1953

When Muh.ammad 'Alî moved into Syria in 1831, however, this was a threat to the authority and perhaps even the existence of the Ottoman Empire. When war broke out in 1839, Britain intervened to support the Empire and to throw Muh.ammad 'Alî out in 1841.

The most formative subsequent event for Egyptian history was certainly the construction of the Suez Canal. Although Britain had nothing to do with the project, and it was the French Emperor Napoleon III who attended the lavish opening ceremonies, the collapse of Egyptian financies led to the purchase by Britain of all Egypt's shares in the Canal Company. This did not solve Egypt's financial problems, which got worse. The Khedive Ismâ'îl also wasted resources on disastrous campaigns against Ethiopia in 1875-1876. With its interests now in danger, Britain occupied Egypt, without French support, in 1882. Ironically, the Occupation was undertaken under Prime Minister William Gladstone, who was opposed to British Imperialism. He was not, however, going to endanger British finances just because the Khedive didn't know how to handle his.

This made Egypt a de facto part of the British Empire, indeed one of the most important parts, with the Suez Canal an essential strategic link between Britain and India. Some of the most colorful episodes in British Imperial history occured because of this. In 1881 a revolt had started in the Sudan, led by a man claiming to be the Apocalyptic Mahdî of Islâmic tradition. Gladstone was not going to spend British money, or Egyptian, in trying to suppress the rebellion. Consequently, Charles Gordon, known as "Chinese Gordon" for his part in putting down the Taiping Rebellion in China (1860-1864), and who had already been governor-general of the Sudan from 1877-1880, was sent back in order to evacuate the Egyptian garrison. Once there, he decided to stay and resist the Mahdî. By 1885 this insubordination stirred up public opinion back home and forced Gladstone to send a relief expedition; but it missed rescuing Gordon by two days, as the Mahdî's forces overran Khartoum and killed Gordon. This made Gordon one of the great heroes of the day, humiliated Britain, and resulted in the fall of Gladstone's government. However, the Sudan was, for the time being, abandoned. When the British returned in 1898, in the heyday of imperial jingoism, Lord Kitchener, with a young Winston Churchill along, calmly massacred the mediaeval army of the Mahdî's successor at the Battle of Omdurman, avenged Gordon, and made himself one of the immortal heroes of the British Empire too. Although formally in Egyptian service, Kitchener reconquered



http://www.friesian.com/histindx.htm#note-2

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ch'ing


Republic of Egypt, 1953-

Muhammad NaguibPresident, 1953-1954

Gamal Abdel Nasser 1954-1970

Anwar as-Sadat 1970-1981

Mohammed Hosni Mubarak

1981-present

the Sudan as an Anglo-Egyptian "condominium." The theory of British and Egyptian joint rule in the Sudan continued until Sudanese independence in 1956, though between 1924 and 1936 the British didn't even allow Egyptian forces or authorities into the Sudan.

All this took place with Egypt still legally part of the Ottoman

Empire. Right down until 1914 the Turkish flag was dutifully flown and Turkish passports issued. When Turkey repaid a century of British support by throwing its lot with Germany in World War I, however, the fiction came to an end, and Egypt de jure came under British rule as a Protectorate, with the Sult.ânate, abolished by the Turks in 1517, reëstablished. This was not popular in Egypt, and after the war Egypt did become a formally independent Kingdom. However, the British did retain Treaty rights to garrison and protect the Suez Canal; so, in many ways, the British Occupation of 1882 simply continued. There was little doubt of that once World War II started. Egypt, a legally Neutral country, was first invaded by Italy and then by Germany, with British forces meeting, fighting, and ultimately expelling them. Egypt at the time seemed no less a part of the British Empire than it had ever been. Egypt did eventually declare war on Germany, but not until February 24, 1945.

The end of Muh.ammad 'Alî's dynasty resulted from the humiliation of continuing British occupation, the mortification of Egyptian failure in the war against Israeli independence in 1948, and from the failure of King Fârûq, who was rather more successful as a playboy than as a leader, to deal with any of it. The army, soon led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, swept away the monarchy, got British forces to leave Egypt, and then won a great political victory when Britain and France (74 years late) reoccupied the Canal, Israel invaded the Sinai, and both the United States and the Soviet Union told them all to leave in no uncertain terms, in the Suez Crisis of 1956 (just as Soviet tanks were rolling into Hungary!). Thus, Egypt became a player in the Cold War, and the heritage of Muh.ammad 'Alî, the Ottoman Empire, and British imperialism faded rapidly.

Islâmic Index


Home Page

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved







The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya

Muh.ammad as-Sanûsî1837-1859, Cyrenaica, 1841

Muh.ammad al-Mahdî 1859-1902

Ah.mad ash-Sharîf1902-1916, d.1933

Italian occupation, 1911

Muh.ammad Idrîs

1916-1949; Amir, 1949-1951; King, 1951-1969, d.1983

Muammar Qaddafi dictatorship, 1969-present

Libya begins as two domains in the Ottoman Empire, Tripolitania in the west and Cyrenaica in the east. Eventually, lands in the deeper desert, Fezzan, were brought under control. Most of the desert, however, is uninhabitable. Cyrenaica entered history originally as a place of Greek colonies. It is mountainous and, especially in the past, reasonably well watered. Tripoltania clings to the Mediterranean coast around the city of Tripoli. Just a few miles down the coast from Tripoli is Labdah, Roman Leptis Magna, which was the home town of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (b.145).

This was a thinly populated backwater for the Turks, noteworthy mainly for Roman ruins and piracy (with U.S. Marines landing at Tripoli in 1801). It all achieved greater significance when Italy displaced the Ottomans in 1911 (ceded in 1912). Indeed, Libya became one of the most important strategic theaters of World War II. The Italians tried invading Egypt from Libya in September 1940 but by February 1941 had been thrown completely out of Cyrenaica, with 130,000 soldiers captured. Alarmed, Hitler sent Erwin Rommel with a couple of divisions to prevent the Italian position from collapsing completely. Rommel, however, went on the

offensive. For more than a year, things surged back and forth, with Cyrenaica recovered, lost, and recovered again. By July 1942, Rommel was deep into Egypt, barely stopped at El Alamein, 60 miles from Alexandria. By then, however, the United States was in the War; and the strongly reinforced British began an offensive in October. They broke through and soon swept the Germans and Italians entirely out of Libya. Retreating into Tunisia, they were caught against the Americans who had landed in Morocco and Algeria in November.

After the War, Libya formally became independent in 1951, under the Sasûnî Amîr of Cyrenaica. The long lived King Idrîs was eventually overthrown in 1969. This was under the leadership of the eratic and megalomanaical Muammar Qaddafi. Along with armed clashes with Egypt and Chad, Libya became a



http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#why


sponsor of terrorism. Blamed for a bombing in Berlin in 1986, Libya was bombed by Ronald Reagan in retaliation. Later blamed for a bomb that brought down Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, sanctions were imposed on Libya until accused operatives were surrendered. This eventually happened, Qaddafi may have thought better of his ways, and sanctions were lifted in 2003. Meanwhile, Qaddafi had dressed up his dictatorship with an idiosyncratic political theory. Libya became the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." Jamahiriya, similar to the Arabic word for "republic," jumhûrîya, was a term coined by Qaddafi for his politcal system, which was supposed to be a kind of direct, mass democracy, but is probably no more democratic that similar arrangements in the Soviet Union. Like Mao's little red book, Qaddafi produced a little green book. Qaddafi seems secure enough, like many other dictators (one thinks of Castro), but increasingly anachronistic (Castro, again).

Islâmic Index


Home Page

Copyright (c) 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

MODERN ROMANIA

Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans

Princes, Kings, and Presidents of România, Montenegro, Greece, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Armenia, and

Georgia

"Romania" means the area in the Balkans and Middle East with successor states to the Mediaeval Roman Empire that was neither part of historic "Francia" (the land of the "Franks" to those in Islâm), which means Western, Central, and Northern Europe originally subject to the Latin, Roman Catholic Church in Rome, nor part of historic Russia in Eastern Europe, subject to the Russian Orthodox Church.








http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#russia


This will be an unfamiliar use of the name "Romania" for most, and the reason for it is explained in "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History," "The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History," and the "Guide and Index to Lists of Rulers." The double headed eagle of the Palaeologi symbolized the European and Asian sides of the Empire. This now represents a significant historical and cultural divide. The Asian side, and the center of the Empire at Adrianople and Constantinople, is still largely Turkish. This is a rather different Turkey from the Ottoman Empire, however, secularized and Westernized by Kemal Atatürk, with things like the Arabic alphabet actually outlawed, now hoping to join the European Union. On the European side, the successor states to Rome in the 12th and 13th centuries have reemerged. This is also the case to the east, where Georgia and Armenia, kept from the Ottomans by Russia, are now independent.




http://www.friesian.com/histindx.htm





Thus, "Modern Romania" here means the modern successor states, first to Rome ("Romania" to itself, "Byzantium" to the historians), second to the Ottoman Empire, which in the 14th and 15th centuries established its domination over all former Roman possessions, and more, in the Eastern Mediterranean. As the Roman successors emerged in the 12th century, so do the Ottoman successors emerge in the 19th century. Familar states from the earlier period are Serbia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and even Bosnia. The earlier states of the Vlach speaking Romanians, Wallachia and Moldavia, continue from the past, subject to special achievements in Ottoman misrule, ultimately to unite as the modern state of România, the only country in Europe to preserve the proper name of the Roman Empire. Turkey is still the largest and most powerful state in the region.

Entirely new states are Montenegro and Greece itself. Montenegro, the "Black Mountain" (Qara Dagh in Turkish and Crna Gora in Serbo-Croatian), like many remote areas of the Ottoman Empire, began to drift out of central control as Turkish power went into its long decline. "Greece" itself was something that, in a sense, didn't exist in the Middle Ages. What the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, "Hellenes," came to be used in Late Roman times to mean Greek pagans. Greek Christians were "Romans," Rhômaioi in Greek. This distinction was maintained through the Middle Ages, and was remembered well into the 19th, if not the 20th, century (a Greek can still be Rum in Turkish). A modern Greece, Hellas, that was not an heir to Rome, was an entirely new phenomenon.

The politically, religiously, and culturally dominant language of Mediaeval Romania was Greek, whose alphabet today, however, is only used in Greece. For the same period the Armenian alphabet was in use by Armenians both in Romania and in the often separate

kingdoms of Armenia. Under the Ottomans,

Europa est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam Romaniam, aliam Franciam, tertiam

Russiam.

Europa

1. Romania 2. Constantinople

2. Francia 1. Rome

3. Russia 3. Moscow

Turkish was sometimes even written in the Armenian (as in the Greek) alphabet; but that era is long gone, and the Armenian alphabet today is only seen in the former Soviet Republic of Armenia and in Armenian exile communities, as in Syria, Lebanon, and the United States. The alphabet of the Christian Georgians dates

from the same era as the Armenian, and now continues to be used in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Both the Armenian and the Georgian alphabets,

although based on Greek, have their own striking and








distinctive styles. The conversion of the Slavs resulted in the introduction of a new alphabet, the Cyrillic, which has remained the alphabet of choice for Slavs who belong to Orthodox Churches, like the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Russians. When modern Romanian (Vlach) first began to be written, it also used the Cyrillic alphabet, but eventually both Romanian and Albanian (also for many centuries unwritten) were rendered in the Latin alphabet, which thus came to be used for spoken languages in the Balkans for the first time since Latin speaking Roman colonists, and the Imperial Court in Constantinople, would have used it many centuries earlier. Since one's alphabet usually went with one's religion in the Middle Ages, the Turks, and other local converts to Islâm, used the Arabic alphabet; and Jews, especially Jews arriving after Spain

expelled them in 1492, used the Hebrew alphabet. We have already seen some exceptions to the religion rule, however. Orthodox Christian Churches could be found using different alphabets, Greek, Armenian, and Cyrillic (as well as, more

distantly, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic), which already had introduced an ethnic or national dimension to the issue. This is also evident when the Orthodox Romanians and the largely Moslem Albanians

turn to the Latin alphabet, neither with the slightest intention of entering into religious communion with Papal Roman (i.e. Frankish)

Catholicism. The Turks themselves, directed by Kemal Atatürk, followed suit. The Jews of Turkey also fell into this, and it became possible to find Ladino, the language of the 15th century Jewish refugees from Spain, being written in 20th century Istanbul synagogues using the Turkish version of the Latin alphabet. Thus the ancient prestige of Latin Rome, and the modern dominance of Latinate Francia, has

exerted itself in modern Romania over Orthodox Christianity, Islâm, and Judaism -- even while the old Hebrew alphabet is now used for Hebrew revived as a spoken language in modern Israel.

A characteristic of imperial states is an easy mixing of peoples and languages. They all have too much to fear from the imperial power for too much trouble to develop between them. When the heavy imperial hand is withdrawn, however, serious trouble can result. Thus, the end of the British Empire resulted in the partitions, amid war and massacre, of India, Palestine, and Cyprus. The decline of Turkish power similarly uncorked more than a century of conflict, continuing even in 2000, in the Balkans. Border areas end up with the most ambiguious identities and so can provoke the greatest conflict. Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been swapped back and forth between Hungary and Romania and Serbia in the 12th and 13th centuries, and then were long held by the Turks, ended up with a mixed population of Croats (Latin/Catholic Christians), Serbs (Orthodox Christians), and Moslem Bosnians (Bosniacs). All, as it happened, spoke the same language, Serbo-Croatian, but written in different alphabets. The disintegration of Yugoslavia, with the lifting of the heavy imperial hand of Communism in the 1990's, led to terrible fighting, massacres, and


http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm

http://www.friesian.com/histindx.htm#note-2




atrocities, most famously carried out by the Serbs against the others, but not unheard of from the Croatians, Bosniacs, and Kosovar Albanians also. A famous bridge in Mostar in Herzegovina, which had linked, actually and symbolically, the Christian and Moslem parts of the city, was destroyed (evidently by Croatians) in the fighting. With a peace settlement patched up for Bosnia, the Serbs then turned their hand against the restless Albanian majority of Kosovo, which the Serbs regarded as the Serbian heartland but which had contained few Serbs for a long time. It is enough to make one yearn for the return of the Palaeologi. The first map above shows the situation in 1817, after the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, rebellions by Serbia, and a final grant of autonomy to Serbia. The Ionians Islands had originally belonged to Venice but were seized by Britain in the Napoleonic Era and ceded to Britain by the Congress of Vienna.



Index

● Introduction ❍ 1817, Serbian Autonomy ❍ 1834, after Greek Independence ❍ 1858, after the Crimean War

● România, 1611-present ❍ 1875 ❍ Congress of Berlin, 1878

● Montenegro, 1697-1918 ❍ 1908

● Greece, 1821-present ❍ 1912, before the Balkan Wars

● Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present ❍ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I

● Bulgaria, 1879-present ❍ 1925, after World War I

● Albania, 1914-present ❍ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II ❍ 1947, after World War II

● Macedonia, 1991-present ❍ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing



● Armenia & Georgia, 1991-present



My source for the king lists was originally the Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982]. Gurney has some errors and obscurities, but I have not found any other work that has put so much together in one volume. It is a shame that his list of the Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia is incomplete, but it also looks like it would be a very long list, since the Turks changed Princes frequently, and in earlier periods the succession may be imperfectly known. Recent heads of state are largely from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002]. Feldkamp has a more complete treatment of Wallachia and Moldavia, but, unfortunately, only prior to the era shown here. The maps are based on The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (Europe since 1815) (Colin McEvedy, 1982), The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume II (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978), The Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia (John Channon with Rob Hudson, 1995), and various prose histories, such as The Ottoman Centuries (Lord Kinross, Morrow Quill, 1977).

The two maps, just above and to the right, show the situation (1) after the War of Greek Independence (1821-1829) and (2) after the Crimean War (1853-1856). To save Greece, all the Great Powers were drawn in against Turkey.

With Greek independence went increased territory for Serbia, autonomy for Wallachia and Moldavia, and border concessions to Russia.




In the Crimean War, Britain and France joined Turkey against Russia, with much of the fighting taking place, as one might expect from the name, in the Crimea. This pretty much preserved the status quo for Turkey, though the borders were extended against Russia along the Black Sea. One change we see, however, was the unification of Wallachia and Moldavia into the state of România.

1. ROMÂNIA

Continued from "Rome and Romania," "Romanians"

WALLACHIA

MOLDAVIARadu Mihnea

Voivode, Prince, Governor, 1611-1616, 1623-1626

Leon Tomsa 1629-1632Miron Barnovschi Movila

Voivode, Prince, Governor, 1626-1629, 1633

Matei Basarab 1632-1654 Vasie Lupu 1634-1653

Constantine Serban

1654-1658

Grigore Ghica 1660-1664

Serban Cantacuzino

1678-1688

The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia have a continuous institutional history back to the 14th Century, which means that this table simply continues the table begun on the Rome and Romania page. Turkish rule, however, led to the practice of the appointment of Greek tax farmers, the Phanariots (from the Phanar section of Istanbul), as Princes. Their job was simply to get as much money out of the land as possible, both for the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman government) and for themselves (the reason to be a tax farmer). This was not good, or popular, for the Principalities, but not much could be done about it until Russian power began to be felt in the region. The Russian wars against Turkey in the 19th Century led several times to the occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia. After the Crimean War (18453-1856) and, for a change, Austrian occupation (1854-1857), and a bad experience with a local candidate for rule of the unified country, a European



Constantine Brancoveeanu

1688-1714Constantine Cantemir

1685-1693

Phanariot Greek Tax Farming

1716-1717, 1719-1730

Nicholas Mavrocordat 1711-1714

Stephen Cantacuzino

1714-1716

1741-1744 Michael Racovita 1717-?

1735-1741, 1744-1748

Gregoy Ghica1726-1733, 1774-1777

Constantine Mavrocordat1741-1743, ?-1769

Russian right of intervention, Treaty of Kuchuk Karinarji, 1774

Alexander Ypsilanti

1774-1782Alexander Moruzi

?-1806Constantine Ypsilanti

1802-1806

Russian Occupation, 1806-1812

John Caragea 1812-1818Scarlat Calimah 1812-1819

Alexander Sutu 1818-1821

Russian Occupation, 1828-1834; Governor Count Kisselev

Alexander Ghica 1834-1842Mihai Sturdza 1834-1849

Georghe Bibescu 1842-1848

Revolution in Wallachia, 1848; Russian Occupation, 1848-1851;

Crimean War, 1853-1856; Russian Occupation, 1853-1854; Austrian Occupation, 1854-1857

prince, as in Greece and Bulgaria, was

brought in, Karl of Hohenzollern. The Congress of Berlin recognized Karl (Carol) and Romanian independence (1878). With the Allies in World War I, winning Transylvania from Hungary and Moldova from Russia -- Romania was the biggest long term winner of the War in the Balkans -- Romania, after much internal strife, switched to the Axis in World War II, losing Moldova to the Soviet Union (seized in 1940, actually, before Romania was a belligerent) and part of Dobruja to Bulgaria. While Moldova is now independent, I have not noticed any discussion of reunion with Romania.

Rejecting the Cyrllic alphabet and the Turkish influenced "Rumania" (or "Roumania") for the Latin alphabet and the pure Latin România, Romania can now claim that name as its own, with few remembering that it was the proper name of the Roman (and the "Byzantine") Empire. In the Middle Ages, "Romania" tended to refer to the contemporaneous extent of the Empire, i.e. Anatolia and the Balkans ("Asia and Europa" or "Rûm and Rumelia"). The modern state might be said to be "Lesser Romania" in contrast to that "Greater Romania"; but this might be considered insulting by Romanians (though intentionally no more so than "Lesser Armenia" in Cilicia) and so is not likely to catch on.






http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#orient-A



Alexander John Cuza of Moldavia 1859-1866

Charles Eitel Frederick of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Carol I

1866-1881

King, 1881-1914

Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878; Russian Invasion, Romania proclaimed

independent, 1877; Congress of Berlin, Romania Independent, 1878

Ferdinand 1914-1927

Michael1927-1930, 1940-1947

Carol II 1930-1940

Ion Antonescu, pro-German dictator 1940-1944

Communist takeover, 1947

Constantin Parhon President, 1948-1952

Petru Groza 1952-1958

Ion Georghe Maurer 1958-1961

Georghe Georghiu-Dej 1961-1965

Chivu Stoica 1965-1967

Nicolae Ceauçescu 1967-1989, executed

Ion Iliescu 1989-1996, 2000-present

Emil Constantinescu 1996-2000

The mysterious history of Romance speakers in the Balkans, the Romanians and Vlachs, whose existence is not noticed until the 12th Century and whose language is not attested until the 16th, is treated separated in "The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History." This is a story now charged with the nationalism both of Romania and neighbors like Hungary.

The marriages of the Romanian Royal Family quickly connected it to major European, especially British and Greek, royalty.


http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#hohenzol





Thus King Ferdinand was the grandson of a first cousin of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert (Ferdinand of Portugal, the brother of Augustus, Prince of Coburg, who was the father of Ferdinand of Bulgaria), and he married one of their own granddaughters, Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. King Carol II then

married Helen of Greece, who was a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, through her mother Sophia, the sister of Kaiser Wilhlem II of Germany. All these connections, of course, profited the monarchy little in the conflicts of fascism and communism that had the country under one form of dictatorship or another from 1940 to 1989.

Mediaeval România


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#second


The two maps above show the situation before and after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Note that by then Britain had ceded the Ionians Islands to Greece (1864). In 1875 rebellions started in Bosnia and then Bulgaria. The brutality with which these were suppressed aroused European opinion, and after some delay Russia declared war. With some hard fighting, the Russians ended up capturing Adrianople and arriving at the outskirts of Constantinople. The Treaty of San Stephano which ended the war mostly freed the Balkans, but the Great Powers didn't like it. The Congress of Berlin rolled things back a bit. Serbia, România, and Montenegro all became independent, with increases in territory, but Bulgaria was divided and merely allowed autonomy. Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Novipazar were made protectorates of Austria. The map looked much the same for many years, with Bulgaria annexing East Rumelia in 1885.

2. MONTENEGRO

Danilo I PetrovicPrince-Bishop, 1697-1737

The title of the orignal "Prince-Bishops" of Montenegro, vladika, means "lord, sovereign" or



Sava1737-1756 d.1782

VasiliCoadjutor, 1756-1766

Stephen the Little

Coadjutor, 1766-1774

SavaCoadjutor, 1774-1782

Peter I 1782-1830

Peter II 1830-1851

Danilo II 1851-1860

Nicholas

1860-1910

King, 1910-1918, d.1921

Union with Yugoslavia, 1918; Independent, 3 June 3 2006

Filip VujanovicPresident, 2006

"archbishop." Possessing one of the oldest traditions of local autonomy under the Turks, and a charming Italian version of its name (for the "Black Mountain," Qara Dagh in Turkish and Crna Gora in Serbo-Croatian), in the 20th century Montenegro was nevertheless overshadowed by its ethnic big brother, Serbia. After World War I, King Nicholas was thrown out so that Montenegro could join Yugoslavia. And when Yugoslavia collapsed, Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic to stick with Serbia. Religiously and lingustically this is understandable, but the Montenegrans are ambivalent about the present Serbian government, neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic. Since Montenegro represents Serbia's only access to the sea, through the historic port of Kotor (Cattaro in Italian, obtained from Austria after World War I), the fear is that, should the Montenegrans decide to go their own way, the Serbs would use force, with enough local support to make resistance

abortive.

Nevertheless, Montenegro voted for independence in 2006 and seems to have successfully made the transition, recognized by many governments and admitted as a member of the UN. This leaves Serbia as the last state in Yugoslavia.

1908 was a big year in the Balkans. Bulgaria became independent and Austria annexed most of its protectorate from the Congress of Berlin. In Turkey, the Sultan, "Abdul the Damned," was overthrown by the Young Turks, whose impetus, unfortunately, was more merely nationalistic than liberal. Meanwhile, Greece was able to add Thessaly (1881, with adjustments in 1897). A rebellion on Crete led to autonomy (1898) as a prelude to Greek control (1912).



3. GREECE

Greek War of Independence, 1821-1829

Alexander Ypsilantileads revolt, 1821-1828

Treaty of London, Britain, France, & Russia support

Greek independence, Battle of Navarino,

Egyptian fleet sunk, 1827

Count Kapodistriasregent, 1827-1830

Russian War on Turkey, 1828-1829;

Peace of Adrianople, 1829, London Conference, 1830,

recognition of Greek Independence

Otto of Bavaria King, 1832-1862

The revolt of Greece against the Turks was one of the sensations of the 19th century, drawing partisans, like Lord Byron, from far and wide. Against the Ottomans alone, the Greeks could well have been successful, but the Sultan called in Muh.ammad 'Alî, who had modernized the Eyptian army enough that the rebellion was being suppressed. This was too much, however, for "civilized" opinion. Not only the Russians, the traditional protectors of Orthodox Christians in Turkey, but Britain and France, inspired by all that Classical Oxbridge learning, moved to help the Greeks, sinking Muh.ammad 'Alî's fleet at Navarino in 1827. They say that the ships are still visible at the bottom of the bay, right by the island of Sphacteria, where the Athenians defeated the Spartans early in the Peloponnesian War, and just south of "Sandy Pylos," where a great Mycenaean city supplied wise Nestor to the Greek forces at Troy.

The house of Denmark supplied most the kings of modern Greece. The kingship itself contained an interesting ambiguity, since the Greek word basileus only meant "king"


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#bavaria


George I of Denmark 1863-1913

Constantine I1913-1917, 1920-1922

Alexander 1917-1920

George II1922-1924, 1935-1941, 1946-1947

Republic, 1924-1935

Pavlos KonduriotisPresident, 1924-1926, 1926-1929

Theodoros Pangalos 1926

Alexandros Zaimis 1929-1935

German Occupation, 1941-1944

Paul 1947-1964

Constantine II1964-1973, exile 1967

Military Dictatorship, 1967-1974

Giorgios Zoitakis 1967-1972

Giorgios Papadopoulos1972-1973, President, 1973

Phaidon Gizikis 1973-1974

Republic, 1974

Michael Stasinopoulos 1974-1975

Konstantin Tsatsos 1975-1980

Konstantin Karamanlis1980-1985, 1990-1995

in Classical Greek. In mediaeval Greek, basileus was used by the Emperors of Romania to translate Latin imperator, i.e. "emperor." So which was it? Was the ruler of Greece merely the King of the Hellenes, or the Emperor of the Romans (Rhômaioi)? When the Greeks tried to seize a large part of western Asia Minor from the Turks in 1920, it looked like restoring the Empire was the objective. Unfortunately, Turkey remained, and remains, fundamentally stronger than Greece, and the Greek invasion only provoked the expulsion of all Greeks from the mainland.

Politically, Greece has swung back and forth in the 20th century. Whether the monarchy was a good thing was often in doubt, as it was briefly abolished in the 20's and almost not reinstituted after World War II. Then the Army took over in 1967, creating a dictatorship that lasted until 1974. King Constantine II tried to organize a counter-coup against the dictatorship, but then fled the country when he failed. Eventually the dictators abolished the monarchy. When democracy was restored, after a stupid attempt to overthrow the government of Cyprus (provoking a Turkish invasion), the Greeks nevertheless seemed to think that Constantine had not been sufficiently vigorous in opposing the dictatorship, so the monarchy was not restored. Since then, Greece seems to have made a speciality of electing anti-American, socialist governments, long after that made any sense either geo-politically or economically. A good example of recent foolishness was a nationwide strike on May 17, 2001, with 10,000 protesters marching on the Parliament in Athens. Protesting what? Well, the Greek state pension system is nearly bankrupt, and the Government is considering reforms, like cutting benefits and increasing the retirement age (to 65). Even the socialist government, however, might have anticipated the offense to the Greek sense of entitlement that this would cause.

This kind of thing was all bad enough, but then 60 Minutes reported (6 January 2002) that the Greek government, and especially the dominant Socialist Party, appeared to be tolerating a radical leftist terrorist organization, "17 November," that had been responsible for bombings and murders for years. Not a single member of this organization had been arrested or even identified by the government, even though unmasked members raided a police station for weapons and could easily have been described. When



Christos Sartzetakis 1985-1990

Konstantin Stephanopoulos 1995-present

members of the Greek press were threatened for reporting on the organization, and police closed the investigations even of murder cases against them, one began to wonder if a sort of leftist death squad had come into existence in Greece. This

boded ill for the future of Greece, not only economically, but even as a functioning democracy. Now, however, this situation is looking up. Perhaps under pressure to straighten things out if Greece wanted to host the 2004 Olympics, the government now has arrested many members of "17 November," and the suspects have been spilling details about the membership and operations of the organization [Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, August 7, 2002, "Toppled From Their Pedestal"]. The actual popularity of the group now has been damaged by the very willingness of its members to inform and cooperate in order to avoid harder sentences. Happily, the 2004 Olympics came off without incident.

Although the Greek monarchy is now gone, the Greek Royal family remains impressively connected to two of the most important centers of contemporary European royalty. The heirs of the British monarchy are now



all descendants, through Prince Philip, of King George I of Greece; and all the Greek Royal Family itself is descended from both Queen Victoria and the Emperor Frederick III of Germany. Then Constantine II's sister Sophia married Juan Carlos of Spain, who was able to do in Spain what Constantine wasn't able to in Greece -- restore democracy. Now the heir of Spain, Philip (Filipe), is a descendant of Kings George, Constantine I, and Paul of Greece. One might gather from this diagram that the throne of Britain is due to pass the House of Denmark and Greece, or, more precisely, the

House of Schleswig- Holstein- Sonderburg- Glucksburg; but on marrying Elizabeth, Prince Philip renounced his rights to the Greek throne and his connection to the Greek Royal family, taking the name of his mother's family, Battenberg/Mountbatten, so this connection is obscured. Now that royalty is more a matter of international celebrity than of political power, Greece, by blaming Constantine for a bunch of military dictators, is really missing out on its share of space in People magazine. This may seem like an absurdly trivial consideration, but Greece depends heavily on foreign tourism; and foreign tourism depends heavily on



international perception and publicity. Space, free space, in People magazine means millions of dollars in business for Greece. Instead, Greeks still have these ridiculous demonstrations for socialism (not to mention the frightening terrorist activity) and nurse their historic grievance against Turkey.

A real basis for the latter concerns Cyprus. In 1974 the Greek generals tried to annex Cyprus to Greece. This provoked a Turkish invasion and the de facto partition of the Island (and, happily for Greece, the overthrow of the generals). The Turks even set up a separate Turkish Cypriot Republic, which is recognized by no one in the world but Turkey. What this all really meant was that the effort to maintain Cyprus as a bi-national Republic, since independence from Britain in 1960, had failed utterly. The obvious solution would seem to be a real partition of the island with the Greek and Turkish parts annexed, respectively, by Greece and Turkey. Since the Turks took rather more of the island than was warranted by the Turkish percentage of the population (with Turkish settlers now introduced to fill the space), Greece could expect a territorial adjustment in exchange for international recognition of Turkish separation. For some reason, however, the international community still seems to expect a restoration of the bi-national Republic. With no real pressure on Turkey, however, and no prospect of it, the bi-national Republic is certainly dead and buried, and the realistic solution is not even being addressed.

Conspicuous Americans of Greek origin in recent days have been the stunning actress Melina Kanakaredes, of the late NBC drama Providence, and the comedienne, actress, writer, and producer Nia Vardalos, whose 2002 movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, was an unexpected and astonishing success, with over $200 million in domestic boxoffice. The movie good naturedly pokes fun at the father's old world paternalism and exaggerated nationalistic claims (e.g. that the Japanese word kimono is actually of Greek origin), a familiar phenomenon in Greek nationalism.

As noted above, it is now largely forgotten in Greece, and entirely outside of it, that in the Middle Ages the Greeks called themselves "Romans" (Rhômaioi), because, as it happens, they were. For many centuries Hellênes, which the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, and now the modern Greeks again, meant pagan Greeks. The history of Mediaeval Greece is thus found with that of Rome and Byzantium.


The map for 1912 gives us the situation right before the Balkan Wars. Turkish holdings in Europe still extend all the way to the Adriatic, including Albania which, although largely Moslem, has already been restless for independence.


http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm#syrian


4. SERBIA & YUGOSLAVIA

George Petrovic, Kara ("Black") George

leads revolt, 1804-1813

Milos Obrenovic

leads revolt, 1815-1817; Prince, 1817-1839, 1858-1860

Milan I 1839

Michael1839-1842, 1860-1868

Alexander Karadjordjevic (Karageorgevich)

1842-1858

Milan II Obrenovic

1868-1882

King, 1882-1889

Alexander I1889-1903, murdered

Peter I Karadjordjevic

1903-1921

King of Yugoslavia, 1919-1921



Alexander II

Regent, 1918-1921

1921-1934

Peter II 1934-1945

PaulRegent, 1934-1941

German & Italian Occupation, 1941-1943



Ivan Ribar 1945-1953

Josip Broz Tito 1953-1980

Lazar Kolisevski 1980

Cvijetin Mijatovic 1980-1981

Sergej Kraiger 1981-1982

Petar Stambolic 1982-1983

Mika Spiljak 1983-1984

Veselin Ðuranovic 1984-1985

Radovan Vlaikovic 1985-1986

Sinan Hasani 1986-1987

Lazar Mojsov 1987-1988

Raif Dizdarevic 1988-1989

Janez Drnovsek 1989-1990

Borisav Jovic 1990-1991

Stjepan Mesic 1991

Branko Kostic 1991

In the shadow of the Napoleonic Wars and a Russian war with Turkey, Serbia began the Balkan independence movement against Turkey with a long revolt that led to an Ottoman grant of autonomy. The rivalry of the two leaders of the revolt, Milosh Obrenovic and "Black" George Petrovic, however, led to a century of sometimes bloodly conflict between their two families, culminating in a coup in 1903 when King Alexander I was murdered. The Congress of Vienna in 1878 granted Serbia full independence, and the status of a Kingdom followed shortly. The Serbian dream was not just to unite all Serbian speakers remaining in Bosnia, Montenegro, Hungary, and Turkey, but all of the "Southern Slavs," including the Croatians, Slovenians, and perhaps even Bulgarians. In the aftermath of World War I, which began with the Serbian inspired assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, this dream was realized in the establishment of Yugoslavia, which contained all the Southern Slavs except for Bulgaria, which had its own fiercely separate traditions and ambitions. Macedonia, however, had been wrested from Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War (1913). These benefits were substantially due to the Russians, to whom the Serbs looked as the protectors and patrons of the Orthodox Slavs. World War I formally began when Russia declared war on Austria to protect the Serbs. The flags of both Serbia and Yugoslavia are like the tricolor flag of Russia, with just a different arrangement of the stripes. The ethnic



Dobrica Cosic 1992-1993

Zoran Lilic 1993-1997

Srdjan Bozovic 1997

Slobodan Milosevic 1997-2000

Vojislav Kostunica 2000-present

tensions between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Slovenes and Croatians (and

others), however, manifested themselves both in World War II, when the Germans found willing allies in the Croatians, and with the Fall of Communism, when the growth of democracy unmasked the separatist hostilities again. Yugoslavia broke up, with bitter fighting, atrocities, and "ethnic cleansing" as the various communities and new states sought to secure territory.

Former Yugoslav Republics

Slovenia

Croatia

Bosnia Herzegovina

Macedonia

Although all the groups have been guilty of offenses, the consenus of international observers and investigators, not to mention the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, seems to be that the Serbs, seeking to maintain a dominant position and initially with a military advantage, are more guilty than others, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. The future remains uncertain, as NATO/UN peacekeeping forces are the only thing that seems to restrain the violence from breaking out again in Bosnia, and the status of Kosovo is open, as Serbs flee the retaliation of the Albanians, which has extended to vandalizing churches and monasteries, and the Albanians have no interest in being returned to Serbia. All the now stands between "Yugoslavia" being just Serbia is the continued adherence of Montenegro. The two countries are no different ethnically, linguistically, or religiously. All that is different is history, which is enough to fuel a Montenegran independence movement. Be that as it may, the combined state has essentially become Serbia again.

Mediaeval Serbia

The Balkan Wars all but eliminated Turkey in Europe. In the First War (1912-1913), everyone attacked Turkey, which even lost Adrianople to Bulgaria. Serbia was going to annex Albania, but the Great Powers required that it become an independent state. The Serbs were not happy about that, and Bulgaria wasn't happy about its share either. So the Second War (1913) featured everyone against Bulgaria, which lost Macedonia to Serbia, Adrianople to Turkey, and some territory south of the Danube to România. Meanwhile, Italy had been at war with Turkey in 1912 and had obtained Libya and, on this map, the Dodecanese Islands.


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#slovenia

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#modest



5. BULGARIA

Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878

Alexander of Battenberg

Prince, 1879-1886

Ferdinand of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha

Prince, 1887-1908

King or Czar, 1908-1918

Boris III 1918-1943

Simeon II 1943-1946

CyrilRegent, 1943-1944


Vasil Petrov Kolarov 1946-1947

Mintscho Naitschev 1947-1950

Georgi Damjanov 1950-1958

Dimitar Ganev 1958-1964

Georgi Traikov 1964-1971

Todor Schivkov 1971-1989

Petar Mladenov 1989-1990

Bulgaria was the last of the mediaeval Balkan states to regain complete independence from Turkey. Although usually regarded as a Kingdom, rather more was implied when King Ferdinand (a second cousin of Edward VII of England) also called himself "Tsar." He is actually supposed to have carried around the vestments (obtained from a theatrical costumer) of a Roman (/Byzantine) Emperor. This was no less than what most of the successor states wanted, but the Bulgarians came closest to the physical heart of mediaeval Romania in the First Balkan War (1912-1913) when they


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#hesse2


Schelju Schelev 1990-1997

Petar Stojanov 1997-2001

Georgi Parvanov 2001-present

occupied Adrianople and drew near Constantinople. This advantage, however, was lost in the Second Balkan War (1913), when Bulgaria took on all the other belligerents from the First War, largely in a dispute with Serbia over Macedonia (where a dialect or near relative

of Bulgarian was spoken), and was overwhelmingly defeated. Adrianople went back to Turkey, Macedonia went to Serbia, and other territories went to Greece and Romania. Still

stinging from this defeat, Bulgaria threw its lot with the Axis in World War I, which cost it access to the Aegean Sea. The same strategy was followed in World War II, where the

wartime borders show us the Bulgarian wish list, with gains from Serbia, Romania, and Greece (Turkey was not in the War). The post-War settlement erased those gains, except against Romania, which had also been a member of the Axis. Today Macedonia has broken away from Yugoslavia, but to become independent rather than a part of Bulgaria. Note that the numbering of Kings Boris III and Simeon II goes back to the original mediaeval Bulgarian Tsars.

Mediaeval Bulgaria, Qaghans & Tsars Mediaeval Bulgaria, Asens Mediaeval Bulgaria, Terters

Trouble over Bosnia began World War I, when a member of a Serbian "Black Hand" assassination squad killed the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Austria ended up declaring war on Serbia, Russia on Austria, and Germany on Russia. The Germans then, of course, invaded France, Russia's ally, and did so through Belgium, violating recognized Belgian neutrality and bringing Britain into the War. Turkey and Bulgaria, the losers of the Balkan Wars, sided with Germany and Austria, while the other Balkan countries went with the Allies (Greece reluctantly -- Queen Sophia was Kaiser Wilhelm's sister). The result was losses for Bulgaria and gains for all the Allies, with Serbia orchestrating the formation of Yugoslavia from Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other remants of Austria-Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. România got Transylvania from Hungary and also gains from Russia, which was distracted by the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Bulgaria's loss of its Aegean coast would prove fortunate for the region when it later went communist. However little Greece and Turkey liked each other, it was convenient for them as Western allies to have a land frontier.



6. ALBANIA

Ismail Kemal Bey 1912-1914

Wilhelm of WiedKing, 1914, d.1945

Essad Pasha Toptani 1914-1916

Austrian Occupation, 1916-1918

Turchan Pasha 1919-1920

Regency Council, 1920-1924

Bishop Fan Noli 1924

Ahmet Zogu, Zog I

1925-1928

King, 1928-1939 d.1961

Italian & German Occupation, 1939-1943

Victor Emanuel (III) King, 1939-1943


Communist takeover, Enver Hoxha Dictatorship, 1945-1985

Omer Nishani 1946-1953

Haji Leschi 1953-1982

Ramiz Alia 1982-1992

Sali Berisha 1992-1997

Rexhep Kemal Mejdani 1997-present

Just about the poorest and least educated people in Europe, the Albanians had unexpected independence thrust upon them after the First Balkan War (1912-1913) and then found themselves locked into paranoid and pauperized isolation by a particularly

nasty and megalomanaical Communist regime after

World War II, under longtime Communist Party Chief Enver Hoxha. After the schism between Comminist China and the Soviet Union, for many years Albania was China's only international ally and supporter, regularly submitting the PRC for membership in the United Nations. But eventually, after membership, China began allowing Capitalism, and Albania had to retreat into its own paranoid isolation as the last surviving Stalinist dictatorship. Since Hoxha expected the Capitalists to invade at any time, the Albanian landscape became covered with small bunkers, to defend every inch. The country, which had always been poor anyway, became even poorer in Hoxha's grip, and it is nowhere near even recovering, much less developing to the level of its European neighbors. The Fall of Communism even witnessed large numbers of Albanians attempting to flee to Italy by boat. Among the mysterious, autochthonous peoples of the Balkans, the Albanians were strongly Latinized under Rome, Islamicized under Turkey, coveted by Italy and Serbia, and include substantial communities in Greece (denied by Greece, which officially has no ethnic minorities). Like a number of peoples in the Balkans, they may not know just what to make of themselves in the modern world, much less how their society is supposed to function. Recent conspicuous Americans of Albanian heritage have been the Belushis, John and his brother Jim, and Sandra Bullock (whose mother is German and father, reportedly, of Albanian derivation). One of John Belushi's memorable roles on Saturday Night Live was in the ongoing "Greek Diner" skits. The Belushis, indeed, had run such a diner in Chicago.

As the Ottoman Empire declined in strength, and Christians




LekaPretender, 1961-present

in the Balkans found European allies who favored their independence, like Britain for Greece and Russia for Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria, the Balkans became the scene of one

conflict after another. The Turks were not entirely out of the picture until 1913, and this still left a number of the successor states, especially Bulgaria and Serbia, not entirely happy with their shares. The Serbs also pursued a grievance against Austria-Hungary, which inspired the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914, precipitating World War I. In the end the Serbs realized their dream of "Yugoslavia," the union of all the "Southern Slavs." The dream of the Serbs, however, was not necessarily the dream of all their fellow Yugoslavs. Macedonians really spoke a dialect of Bulgarian, and would have been part of Bulgaria if the Bulgarians had had their way. Slovenia, which historically had been part of Austria, and Croatia, which historically had been part of Hungary, were divided from the Serbs by religion, Catholicism versus Serbian Orthodoxy, and history, the Latin West versus the Greek, Slavonic, and Turkish East, even though both the Serbs and Croatians really spoke the same language -- Serbo-Croatian. Bosnia-Herzegovina was a messy mixture of Serbs, Croatians, and those from both groups who had converted to Islam during the long Turkish presence (the Bosniacs).

For a long time the jumble of ethnic groups in Yugoslavia didn't seem to make too much difference. A preview of the future, however, was evident when the Germans didn't have much trouble getting Croatians to kill Serbs and others in World War II. The map at left shows the boundaries the way the Germans sorted them out during the War. Hungary, Croatia, România, and Bulgaria were all German allies. Hungary, of course, wanted Transylvania back, but this would have to be at the expense of another German ally, so Hitler compromised by giving Hungary a part (the part with the most Hungarians) of Transylvania, but then compensated România with extra territory in the Ukraine (going off the map). Bulgaria got an expanded Aegean coast and a major goal for some time, Macedonia. While Albania was occupied by Italy, it was nevertheless expanded on what would have been Albanian nationalist principles, with large pieces of Kosovo and Eprius. Banat was a Romanian speaking region of Yugoslavia which, for some reason, was made independent rather than ceded to România. The Ionian Islands were directly annexed to Italy, probably because they had belonged to Venice for some centuries. The principle of Italian irredentism in the Adriatic was that any place that had ever had an Italian name should belong to Italy.

On the post-World War II map, România has lost



considerable territory to the Soviet Union, including what Stalin took in 1940 (now Moldova), and the territory that had been gotten from Bulgaria in 1913. Otherwise, pre-War boundaries were restored. Marshall Tito (a Croat), after a successful Communist insurgency against the Germans, got Yugoslavia put back together, broke with Stalin, helped found the "unaligned" movement in the Cold War, and for many years appeared to govern a happy and prosperous compromise between East and West -- a favorite vacation destination for Europeans.

With the Fall of Communism, however, the whole business came unglued. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and most Bosnians wanted to go their own way. The dream of the Serbs crumbled, but their vision of destiny and grievance did not. First they moved against Croatia, either as a preemptive attack or in retaliation for the actions of the dictatorial Croatian leader, Franjo Tudjman, against resident Serbs. It is now a little hard to determine who started it; but the Serbs, tempted by military superiority, invaded in a way that looked more like conquest than humanitarianism. Later, when the Serbs were tied up in Bosnia and Croatia had built up its forces, Tudjman really did expel and massacre Serbs, but the international community was already prepared to excuse

or ignore that as just retaliation. Both Serbia and Croatia, sometimes in cooperation, then turned on Bosnia, which soon became a byeword for massacre and atrocities, including mass rapes, such had not been seen in the Balkans since World War II. The Serbs, at the very least, handled their public relations very poorly. Photos of emaciated prisoners in Serbian concentration camps immediately lost them the international propaganda war. Although the Croatians and Bosniacs certainly committed some atrocities themselves, the Serbian massacres seemed larger, more blatant, and more insolent and defiant. While Tudjman might well have been prosecuted as a war criminal (he is now dead), it has mainly been the Serbs, and the former President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who have been the targets of war crime prosecutions by the Interntional Tribunal at the Hague. While this has not been entirely fair to the Serbs, it does not excuse them from what was indeed done. By whining about their own centuries of oppression, while slaughtering Moslems, the Serbs managed to become some of the most self-righteous war criminals within memory. Some NATO bombing, peacekeepers on the ground, arrests, and war crimes trials finally put some kind of lid on the conflict in Bosnia. But many guessed what was coming next. Because of the Croatian offensive and version of "ethnic cleansing," some Serbs then fled all the way to....Kosovo.

7. MACEDONIA

Nikola Kljusev 1991-1999

Claimed by Bulgaria and seized by Serbia in the Balkan Wars, Macedonia was nevertheless allowed to leave Yugoslavia in 1991 with a minimum of hassle. Much more hassle came from Greece, which felt threatened by this tiny state using the name "Macedonia" and,



Savo Klimovoski 1999

Boris Trajkovski 1999-present

apparently, identifying itself with the Macedonia of Alexander the Great. The new flag featured the "Star of Vergina," from the tomb of Philip II of Macedon. This implied Macedonian designs on northern Greece, also containing part of

historic Macedonia; and indeed Macedonians did express some claims there. I even saw stickers on lampposts in New York City proclaiming "Macedonia is Greek!" What this was supposed to mean was not going to be obvious to anyone. It made it sound like Greece itself had designs on the new Republic of Macedonia. Did anyone even in New York City know, or care, what this was all about? Probably not.

As it happened, Greece initially blocked admission of Macedonia to the United Nations. The flag was modified and the country is now usually referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYRM). Bulgaria seems to have given up claims to Macedonia, but I am still not clear whether Macedonian is or is not a dialect of Bulgaria. There are ways to determine this. Otherwise, the region has simply never been anything but "Macedonia."

I have received correspondence from a couple of Greeks disputing this, contending that the territory of the FYRM was never in historic Macedonia. Well, there is going to be considerable uncertainty about all ancient boundaries, and there is no telling how far Philip II's Macedonia extended north. Chances are it was well into FYRM territory (probably the whole valley of the Vardar/Axios River). Nevertheless, for Roman Macedonia the boundaries are better known. The capital of the FYRM, Skopje (Roman Scupi), was definitely in the early Roman province of Moesia Superior (later Dacia Mediterranea). However, the boundary of Moesia was immediately south of Skopje, which itself is quite close to the northern boundary of the FYRM. One map in the Atlas of the Roman World (Tim Cornell & John Matthews, Facts on File Publications, 1982, 1988, p.75) shows the bend of the Axius (Axios/Vardar) River, with Scupi on the north bank, as the actual northern boundary of Macedonia. Other maps (pp.141, 146) show some of the bend itself in Moesia, but this still leaves most of the territory of the FYRM in Roman Macedonia. The Roman cities of Stobi (near modern Stip), Lychnidus (modern Ohrid), and Heraclea Lyncestis (near modern Bitola) were all in Roman Macedonia and in the present FYRM. There is agreement on this in the Atlas of Classical History (Richard J.A. Talbert, Routledge, 1985, 1989, p.143).

For some, Macedonian claims to Greek Macedonia may be based on the territorial integrity of the Macedonia of Philip II and on the presumed ethnic identity of the modern Macedonians with the ancient. This kind of claim cannot now be taken seriously, both because ancient boundaries are going to mean nothing in modern international law and because the modern Macedonians speak a Slavic language which certainly has nothing

to do with the (albeit poorly attested) language of the ancient Macedonians. The other basis of Macedonian claims, however, is more serious, and that concerns Macedonians

living in Greece. The Greeks deny that there is any such presence; but then Greece officially denies that there are any ethnic minorities in Greece. Linguistic maps of Greece in the 19th century show areas of speakers of Albanian, Vlach, Macedonian, and even Turkish. The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume II (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978) shows Macedonian speakers extending from south of Skopje (Üsküp in Turkish, in a partially Albanian speaking area, continguous with Kosovo) all the way down to Thessalonica (p.120). If there are no longer Macedonian speakers in the modern Greek part of this area (only acquired in 1913), then there is some explaining to do. If Greece expelled the Macedonians, suppressed their language, or got them to leave through harassment or


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#macedon


oppressive policies, none of these are going to be admissions to the credit of Greece, or admissions likely to be made, for just such a reason. At the very least, the FYRM can reasonably ask for an accounting on this issue.

I am informed that Greeks would be happy with the FYRM simply being called "Northern Macedonia." This is a little silly and is not going to make any difference in any Macedonian claims or possible threat against Greece. A parallel situation in Europe is actually the relationship of Luxembourg to Belgium. When Belgium became independent of the Netherlands in 1830, it took with it a very large part of Luxembourg. This area of Belgium is still called "Luxembourg." I have never heard that Luxembourg, which itself became independent of the Netherlands in 1890, today makes any claims against Belgium. But even if it did, tiny Luxembourg, although with the highest per capita income in the world, would not

constitute any kind of real threat. Poor and tiny Macedonia is not going to constitute any more of a threat to Greece. If Macedonian guerrillas were crossing over into Greece, this would be a matter of real concern and complaint, but I do not understand that anything of the sort has happened; and even if it did, Greece would have no difficulty knowing where to direct counter-action.

As it has happened, the problem of guerrillas has troubled the FYRM itself. Albanian refugees inundated northern Macedonia in 1999, where there was already, as noted, an Albanian community. With them came armed Albanians who, having lost in battle with the Serbs, were interested in "liberating" northern Macedonia. They succeeded no better there, but for a while there was considerable danger of a wider conflict. Meanwhile, Macedonia is the poorest of the former Yugoslav Republics, with a lower per capita income even than Albania. This puts it perilously close to being the poorest country in Europe -- though it is probably safe from that, since Moldova has a per capita income of not much over $300, while Macedonia's is more than $1500. "Room for improvement" hardly begins to tell the tale. The dispute over Macedonia's name and claims doesn't even begin to address the real problem economic development in the FYRM and elsewhere in the Balkans.

A major part of Serbia itself since 1913, the province of Kosovo was only 10% Serb in population. Most of the rest were Albanian Moslems, who had been deprived of the autonomy they had under the old Yugoslavia and were now beginning to fight for independence through the radical Islamic "Kosova Liberation Army" (KLA). What many observers expected, then, was that the Serbs would turn the "ethnic cleansing" campaign made famous in Bosnia to the problem of too many Albanians, especially rebellious Albanians, in Kosovo. With the UN and the NATO allies already energized about Bosnia, simple defiance was not going to work for the Serbs the way it might have if action had been taken against Kosovo before all the events in Bosnia. But defiance was the approach that the Serbs took, over a land to which they emotionally claimed "historic rights," but which had mostly been occupied by others since the 17th century


http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#luxem

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#belgium


and had been in Serbian hands only since 1913. Although many Serbs now cite atrocities during World War II or say there was even "ethnic cleansing" against them under Tito, their claim to Kosovo is mainly as part of "historic" (i.e. 14th century) Serbia.

Unfortunately, in modern Europe several wars have been fought between France and Germany, Italy and Austria, Germany and Poland, etc., over many such "historic" claims. Such things made a poor rationale for dictatorial and terrorist measures, especially by an undemocratic

country. When NATO decided to move against Serbian measures in Kosovo in March 1999, we ended up with the next round of the ongoing Balkans War. This time, however, the naked preference of the Russians for the Orthodox Serbs over the Moslem Albanians, and similar sentiments evidently shared by Greeks and others, left the Albanians with no local friends at all. Albania itself has been a basket case of anarchy and corruption almost the whole time since the end of Communism there. But the outcome of such a conflict was very problematic when the NATO countries would rather fight a quick, high tech war on the cheap, before body bags and anti-war sentiment upsets things at home, while the Serbs, who learned their ruthlessness from Marshal Tito, wanted nothing better than to appear as martyrs of America, even while burning villages and driving people out of Kosovo. A century of war thus ended more or less as it began, with Serbian grievance dragging others into a war, while NATO, unable to commit on the ground, ended up bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia, contrary to international law, in a rapidly growing "total war."

In June 1999, the Serbs finally gave in, after heavy bombing of Serbia itself, and the Kosovars, driving out the remaining Serbs of Kosovo and attempting to provoke an Albanian rising in Macedonia, have behaved more or less the way the Serbs did. But Kosovo now seems headed for long term autonomy or even independence.



Ottoman Sult.âns



Home Page

Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved





GERMANIA: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Vikings, Orkney, etc.

SUCCESSORS OF ROME: GERMANIA, 395-774

At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic Empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law, a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire.

Athaulf, King of the Visigoths [Orosius, Adversum Paganos, translated in Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, Routledge, 1985, 2000, p.218]

Introduction

Six major German tribes, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards, and the Franks participated in the fragmentation and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Vandals were actually two tribes, the Asding and the Siling Vandals. Several other tribes were also involved, the Alans and the Suevi in particular, though the Alans were an Iranian steppe people, not Germans. The six major tribes, however, founded significant kingdoms. All of them disappeared except one, the Franks, who gave their name to Western Europe in languages like Arabic. The diagram illustrates the fate of the kingdoms, two overthrown by the Franks, two by Romania, and one by Islâm. The parts of Italy preserved from the Lombards by the Romans later, of course, fell to the Franks too (if then ceded to the Pope); and North

http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm (1 of 35)8/25/2006 5:33:50 AM




Africa, retrieved by the Romans from the Vandals, then went to Islâm. The Frankish kingdom breaks up into the elements of Mediaeval European history. Although Burgundy and Lorraine are now gone as such, Switzerland and Monaco are Modern pieces of the former, and the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg are Modern pieces of the latter.

Besides the German tribes that entered and conquered or damaged the Western Roman Empire, there were the tribes that remained back in Germany proper. These were the Saxons, the Alemanni, the Thuringians, and the Rugians. When the Rugians were destroyed by Odoacer in 487, a new confederation of Germans formed in their place, the Bavarians. All these tribes in Germany were eventually subjugated by the Franks, the Alemanni in 496 and 505, the Thuringians in 531, the Bavarians at some point after 553, and then finally the Saxons by 804. When Germany eventually separated as East Francia, the old tribal areas assumed new identities as the Stem Duchies.

Index

● Visigoths ❍ Suevi ❍ Early Gothic History

● Burgundians ● Vandals ● Ostrogoths ● Lombards

❍ Dukes of Benevento ● Thuringians

❍ Dukes of Thuringia ● Bavarians ● Alemanni ● Saxons ● Franks ● Anglo-Saxon England

❍ Kings of Kent ■ Archbishops of Canterbury

❍ Kings of Sussex ❍ Kings of Northumbria ❍ Kings of Essex ❍ Kings of Mercia ❍ Kings of East Anglia ❍ Kings of Wessex





http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#alemanni


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#lombards


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#saxons2




● Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia ❍ Runes ❍ Kings of Dermark, Norway, Sweden ❍ Earls of Orkney

My sources for all these tables and maps can be found on the page for Francia and in "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History." In particular, genealogies for the German kingdoms can be found in the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume III, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser, Ergänzungsband [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Second Edition, 2001].

This page continues and supplements the material in "Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD".

The Visigoths, 395-711

None of six main German tribes, save one, survived the early part of the Middle Ages. Only the Franks created an enduring state. The principal immediate damage to the Empire was done by the Visigoths, who, instead of being assimilated like earlier barbarians settled on Roman

VISIGOTHS

Alaric I 395-410

Athaulf (Ataulfo) 410-415

Sigeric 415

Wallia 415-417

defeat of Vandals & Alans in Spain, 417

Theodoric I 417-451

withdrawal to Aquitaine, 418; killed by Huns, battle of Chalôns-sur-Marne

(otherwise known as the Campus Mauriacus or the Catalaunian

Plains), 451

territory, which would have been the plan of Valens, could not be properly subdued by Theodosius I. They then began to operate against the Empire. With the attention of Stilicho, left by Theodosius in charge of the Army, occupied by the Visigoths, the Western frontiers were stripped of troops. On January 1, 407, the Alans, Vandals, and Suevi crossed a frozen Rhine to engage in an uncontested romp through Gaul and Spain. Settling in Spain in 409, these tribes were never troubled by the Romans. Instead, the








Thorismund 451-453

Theodoric II 453-466

invades Spain, defeats Suevi, 456

Euric (Eurico) I 466-484

Alaric (Alarico) II 484-507

defeated by Franks, driven from Gaul, 507

Amalaric (Amalarico)508-511, 526-531

capital at Toledo, 527

Theodoric the Great

Ostrogoths, 493-526

511-526

Theudes (Theudis) 531-548

Theudegisel 548-549

Agila I 549-554

Romans in Cartagena & Andalusia, 551

Athanagild(o) 554-567

Theodomir 567-571

Leuva (Leova) I 571-572

Leu(/o)vigild(o) 572-586

Reccared(o) I 586-601

Catholic, 587, Kingdom, 589

Leova II 601-603

Witterich 603-610

SUEVI

Hermeric 409-438

Rechila 428-448

Mérida, 439; Seville, 441

Rechiar(ius) 448-456

Peace with Romans, 452; defeated & killed by

Visigoths, 456

Aioulf 456-467

Maldras 467-460

Richimund 460-c.463

Frumar 460-c.465

Remisund c.463-?

unknown kings

Carriaric c.550-559

Theodemar 559-570

Catholic, 561

Miro 570-582

Eboric 582-584

Andeca 584-585

Visigoth conquest

Visigoths, who soon became semi-independent allies of the Western Emperors and settled in Aquitaine, turned upon them. In 416, the Visigoths broke up the kingdoms of the Alans and the Siling Vandals, leaving the Suevi and Asding Vandals as potential allies against possible Roman revival.

The Suevi became an established Kingdom in Spain, with the Kings detailed in the table at right. When the Visigoths expanded from Aquitaine into Spain, the Suevi continued in the northwest. The Kingdom survived until the Visigoths completed their conquest of Iberia in 585. Meanwhile, in 428, the Asding Vandals crossed over into Africa. By 442 they had established themselves, ending the ancient source of grain for Roman Italy. With the Western Empire obviously in collapse, the Visigoths then expanded into much of the rest of Gaul and Spain (469-478). The Visigothic Kingdom, pushed entirely into Spain by the Franks (507), absorbing the Suevi (584), and converting from Arianism to orthodox Catholicism (589), endured until the armies of Islâm arrived in 711. The history of Spain is then largely of Islâmic Spain, until the Christian north revives and Islâm power goes into decline, around the turn of the millennium. Local rulers of Islâmic Spain can be found as follows:




Gundemar 610-612

Sisebut (Sisebur) 612-621

Reccared II 621

Swintilla (Suinthila) 621-631

Sisenand(o) 631-636

Chintila 636-640

Tulga 640-642

Chindaswind(/suinto) 642-653

Recdeswinth 653-672

Wamba 672-680

Euric (Erwig) II 680-687

E(r)gica 687-702

Witiza 702-709

Roderic (Rodrigo) 709-711

Agila II 711-714

Overthrown by Omayyads, 711; Christian Kingdom of

Asturias, 718





● The Omayyad Amirs, 756-912 ● The Omayyad Caliphs, 912-1031 ● The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1010-1114

❍ The Jahwarids of Cordova ❍ Murcia ❍ The 'Abbâdids of Seville ❍ The H.ammûdids of Málaga ❍ The Zîrids of Granada ❍ Aft.asids of Badajoz ❍ The 'Âmirids of Valencia ❍ The Dhu'n-Nûnids of Toledo ❍ The Banû Mujâhid of Denia and Majorca ❍ The Tujîbids of Saragossa ❍ The Hûdids of Saragossa

● The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD ● The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1145-1266

❍ Cordova ❍ Valencia ❍ Murcia ❍ The Banû Ghâniya of Majorca

● The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238 ● The Nas.rid Sult.âns of Granada, 1238-1492 AD

❍ The Hûdids of Murcia

While the Visigoths are gone before we get the classic form of Mediaeval history, with the presence of Islam, Visigothic Spain nevertheless contributed substantially to the form that Mediaeval Western European (Frankish/Latin) culture would take. It did this in great measure through the work of St. Isidore of Seville (c.560-636). Isidore's massive 20 volume encyclopedia, the Etymologies or Orîginês, drew on all sources available to him, many now lost (and while Spain was still in easy and regular contact with Constantinople), to provide the basis for education for centuries, perhaps 800 years, to come. Thus we start off with the seven "liberal arts," in the form of the trivium (hence "trival"), grammar, rhetoric, and logic, and the quadrivium, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. We end up with something like the first Mediaeval summa, one not confined to any particular subject, but to all subjects. As Paul Johnson says, it "founded a civilization" [A History of Christianity, Touchstone, 1976, p.154]. Seville itself, however, would soon belong to another civilization.

Slightly different lists of Visigothic Kings are given by the sources. The Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, p.59] looks good. The original version here was based on the Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982] and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I've tried to combine and reconcile the lists to an extent, but I have no way


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#spain

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#abdur

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#taifa

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#taifa-6











http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#murab






http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#muwah

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#granada


http://www.hostkingdom.net/regindex.html



of knowing at the moment which dates are preferable.

Many Visigothic names survive into modern Spanish. Of the Kings, the name of Rodrigo seems the most obvious example. Later names like Ferdinand (Ferdinando, Fernando) are also examples.

The origin and history of the Goths is a matter of great interest, dispute, and speculation. The island of Gotland off the coast of Sweden seems to testify to the location and antiquity of the name, but there is no real historical evidence linking the Goths to it, apart from much later, and legendary, accounts, like the history of the Goths completed in 551 by Jordanes, a Goth himself -- although it seems to be based on a larger history by Cassiodorus. What is better known is that in the first centuries A.D. German tribes expanded from the Baltic & North Sea coasts of Germany south and east along the frontier of the Roman Empire. In so doing they interacted with Roman culture, even developing their own writing system, the Runes. By the third century, the Goths were in the forefront of this expansion, passing around the Roman salient of Dacia, shown on the following map.

From this position, in 251 the Goths raided into the Balkans, killing the Emperors Decius and Herennius. In 267 the Goths even sailed down into Roman territory, in a kind of anticipation of the Viking (or Varangian) raids of later centuries, sacking

Athens -- though, not really being seafaring themselves, they used ships from Greek colonials in the Crimea (the Cimmerian Bosporus) and nearby. The Emperor Gallienus inflicted some setbacks on them, before he was murdered, but they were finally defeated in 269 at the battle of Naissus by Claudius II, henceforth known as "Gothicus." Nevertheless, Aurelian then withdrew Roman legions and settlers from Dacia in 271. By then some of the Goths were moving on, and soon different Gothic communities can be distinguished. Previously, it was thought that Visigoths and Ostrogoths familiar from later history were already




discernable. However, this now looks anachronistic, as discussed elsewhere. Gothic power did expand through the Ukraine. Eventually, it may have extended all the way to the Don, and then spread north, by some (questionable) reckonings all the way back to the Baltic. The Gothic "empire" of King Ermanaric (i.e. "King [riks] Herman," where "Herman" itself is from [h]er[i], "army," and man, "man") collapsed abruptly when the Huns arrived in about 370 -- Ermanaric is even supposed to have committed suicide. This pushed the Goths back into Roman territory, which began all the troubles for Rome.

But after some centuries in the area, the Goths had left a treasure hoard behind in what later would be modern Romania. A Runic inscription on one item in the hoard contains the words Gutani, which was the Goths' own name for themselves (it turns up in Latin as Gutones) and hailag, the Gothic word for "holy" and recogniably cognate to modern German heilig. The Ostrogoths left behind something else: a small community in the Crimea. This survived and was still speaking Gothic as late as the 16th century. The Imperial Ambassador to Constantinople, Bubecq, 1560-1562, took down sixty words from informants from the Crimea, confirming the Gothic identity of their language. But then the community vanished at some later period. The long episode of Germans in the East would later evoke dreadful ambitions. There is little doubt that Hitler saw himself as revenging Ermanaric with his invasion of Russia.

The Burgundians, c.407-534

BURGUNDIANS

Gebicca d.407established at Worms

Gundahar/ Gondikar/ Gunther

407-434

killed by Huns & Aëtius

Gundioc/Gunderic 434-473

ceded Sapaduia (cisjurane Burgundy), 443; Sequania

(transjurane Burgundy), 458

Chilperic I 443-c.480

Chilperic II473-493

son of Gundioc, killed by Gundobad

Gundomar I?

473-486

son of Gundioc?

The Burgundians, like the Franks, did not play a great role in undermining the Western Empire. They moved into the vacuum of Roman power, and were conveniently ceded Roman lands (443 & 458). King Gundobad briefly was a player in the last stages of Western politics, holding power as the commander of the Roman Army from 472 to 473. By 534, however, Frankish power could no longer be resisted, and Burgundy became another piece in the Frankish kingdom.


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#hapsburg-2

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#third


Godegisel473-501

son of Gundioc, killed by Gundobad

Gundobad473-516

son of Gundioc, West Roman Generalissimo, 472-473

Sigismund516-524

killed by Franks

Gudomar II 524-532

Overthrown by Franks

The Kingdom of the Burgundians remained a unit in the many divisions of the Merovingian and Carolingian domains, until independent kingdoms resulted in the 880's. The map shows later subdivisions, especially of the Duchy and the Free County, which remained distinct for the longest. Upper and Lower Burgundy became a united Kingdom, based at Arles (hence, the "Arelate"). Eventually the Kingdom disappeared, with its parts largely absorbed by France. The name of Burgundy became primarily associated with the French Duchy of Burgundy (which bestowed its name on the wine of the region) and its subsequent possessions in the Low Countries.







The Vandals, c.428-534

VANDALS

Gunderic c.406-428

Gaiseric 428-477

Invasion of Africa, 428; Capture of Carthage, 439; Sack of Rome, 455; Joint E/

W expedition against; Vandals fails, 468

Huneric 477-484

Gunthamund 484-496

Thrasamund 496-523

Hilderic 523-530

Gelimer 530-534

Overthrown by Romans

Establishing themselves in North Africa and then taking to the sea, the Vandals probably did the most damage in the long run to the structure of Roman power. This was the doing of one Vandal genius, Gaiseric, whose name significantly means "Caesar King." The sea power by which the Romans had defeated the Carthaginians and then tied together the Empire of the Mare Nostrum now disappeared for the first time. There was really no hope of restoring the Western Empire until the Vandals

were swept from the sea and their base recovered. In 468 the last unified Eastern and Western military expedition was organized against the Vandals. That it failed was mainly due to incompetence and treachery. The Western military commanders, mainly Germans, who were jealous of their own power, were never interested in such combined action again. In the end, however, the plan was revived, after the Western Empire was gone; and in 534 Justinian's great general Belisarius ended the Vandal kingdom and restored Roman authority.

The Ostrogoths, 493-553

When the last Western military commander, Odoacer, decided to depose the child Emperor Romulus "Augustulus" and not appoint another one, this formally restored the unity of the Roman Empire. Odoacer



returned the Imperial Regalia to Constantinople and legally became an official of the Emperor Zeno. This dependency, however, was in name only, and Zeno soon directed his uncomfortably active allies, the Ostrogoths, to overthrow Odoacer. Invading Italy in 489, the Ostrogoths did not succeed in killing Odoacer and taking Ravenna until 493.

OSTROGOTHS

Theodoric/ Thiudareiks the Great

493-526

Animal killing ended in Colosseum, 523

Athalaric 526-534

Theodatus/ Theodahad

534-536

Vitiges 536-540

Theodebald 540

Eraric 540-541

Tortila (Baduila) 541-552

Teias 552-553

Overthrown by Romans

Rather than 476, the "fall" of the Western Empire might be pegged instead to 493, when the last bona fide Roman officer, Odoacer, is overthrown by a German tribal king -- and the late Roman capital of Ravenna falls for the first time to an invader. The kingdom of Theodoric the Great then becomes the high water mark of German power in the Mediterranean West. Holding off the Franks, propping up the Visigoths, and enlarging the Italian Kingdom, Theodoric also presides over a good measure of prosperity and literary activity.

Theodoric's name, although it looks like an adjective from "Theodore" in Greek, "Gift of God," actually is a rendering of Thiudareiks or "King of the People" in Gothic. Thiuda or "people" is a cognate of theoda in Old English and of deutsch in modern German (or "Teuton" by way of Latin). Reiks is a cognate of rex in Latin and raja in Sanskrit. "Thiudareiks" itself has many modern descendants: Dietrich in German, Derek in English from German, Dirk in Dutch, Thierry in French, and Terry in English by way of French. "Terry" is now usually seen as an abbreviation of "Terence," but the Oxford Dictionary of First Names [Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges,

1990] says otherwise.

Like Visigothic Spain, Ostrogothic Italy would contribute towards the civilization of Mediaeval Europe. Cassiodorus (c.490-c.583) and Boethius (476-524) both were distinguished writers. Although himself executed by Theodoric for treason, Boethius produced a number of enduring philosophical classics that were essential Latin reading in the Middle Ages. These included his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge -- the Introduction to Aristotle's logical works that was the starting point for Mediaeval philosophy -- and then his On the Consolation of Philosophy, written in prison before his execution. In the commentary-upon-commentary style of Medieval learning, Boethius would be followed much later by Peter Abelard (1079-



1142). Although nominally a Christian, Boethius' Consolation owed little to religion.

In the genealogy below, we can see some Kings of the Ostrogoths before Theodoric's descent into Italy. The actual dynasty ends in 540, when Belisarius conquered the country for the Emperor Justinian. When Ostrogothic resistance revived, the Kings were unrelated to the old dynasty. The heiress of the dynasty, Matasuntha, actually then married into the house of Justinian. Her son, Germanus, would form the only actual link between the Justinian Emperors and their successors Tiberius II and Maurice. The last days of the Ostrogoths were an exhausting campaign against the Romans that may have damaged Italy far more then any previous event in the protracted "Fall" of Rome. Tortila was the principal King and most effective leader in this period. He fell in battle against the Roman general Narses.

The Lombards, 568-774

The recovery of Italy by the Romans from the Ostrogoths turned out to be a devastating event for the country. Between 536 and 553 the war surged back and forth, probably doing more damage than all the previous fighting since the invasion of Italy by the Visigoths in 410.



LOMBARDS

Alboin 568-573

Celph 573-575

Autharis 584-590

Theodelinda 590-591

Agilulf 591-615

Adaloald 615-625

Arioald 625-636

Rotharis 636-652

Aribert I 652-661

Grimoald 662-671

Garibald 671-674

Bertharit 674-688

Cunibert 688-700

Aribert II 701-712

Liutprand 712-744

Rachis of Friuli 744-749

Aistulf of Friuli 749-756

Desiderius 756-774

Overthrown by Franks

Not until the 19th century would Italy ever again be the unified center of an important independent power. When the Lombards descended in 568, neither were they strong enough to secure the whole country nor were the Romans strong enough to throw them out. The peninsula was fragmented into the main Lombard kingdom in the north (Lombardy), a Roman salient from Rome to Ravenna and Venice, a couple of semi-independent Lombard duchies in the south (Spoleto and Benevento), and Roman footholds in the south at Naples, Sicily, and other points. The Rome-Ravenna corridor is later "donated" to the Pope by the Franks and becomes the Papal States, enduring as such, in whole or in part, until 1870, when the unified Kingdom of Italy finally occupies Rome. The Lombards themselves slowly waxed in power as the Romans suffered the devastating blows dealt by the rise of Islâm. Finding himself at the mercy of the advancing Lombards, the Pope began to appeal to the Franks. The Lombard kingdom was finally wholly defeated and annexed by Charlemagne in 774. The "Iron Crown of Lombardy" then was mostly at the mercy of political events beyond the Alps.

Other German Tribes, 508-806

Kings of the Bavarians, Bavarii

Theodo I 508-512

Theodo II 512-537

Theodo III 537-565

control by Franks, after 553

Theodobald I 537-567

Garibald I 550-590

Grimwald I 590-595

Tassilo I 591-609

Garibald II 609-640

Agilolf 609-630

Kings of Thuringia

Widephus 4th century

occupied by the Huns, c.450-c.455

Bisin 5th century

Baderich 5th century

Berthachar 5th century

Hermenefriedc.500- 531

annexed by the Franks

The list of the Kings of the Thuringians is something I have only seen at one source, a historical website. The dates are pretty early. The line ends with Frankish conquest, but a Duchy of Thuringia is later briefly

revived, as seen below.

The confederation of the Bavarii was a relatively late creation. The original tribe in the area, the Rugians, were destroyed when they attempted to invade Italy against Odoacer in 487. The Bavarians formed in their place. Later, when Justinian succeeded in destroying the Ostrogoths (552), the Bavarians





http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/regents/germany/thuringia.htm


Theodo IV 640-680

Theodo V 680-702

Theodobert 702-725

Grimwald II 702-723

Theodobald II 702-715

Tassilo II 702-730

Hubert 725-737

Odilo 737-748

Tassilo III 748-788

annexed by Franks

moved south of the Danube, but about the same time they also came under the control of the Franks. Thus, the line of Kings, or perhaps Dukes, after Frankish suzerainty, continues until formal annexation by Charlemagne in 788.

Kings of the Alemanni; control by Franks,

496, 505

Leuthari c.536-554

Butilin c.536-554

Haming d.c.539

Leutfred I c.570-587

Uncilen 588-613

Gunzo d.613

Chrodebert c.615-639

Leutfred II c.640-673/95

Godefred c.700-709

Huocin d.c.712

Willehari d.c.712

Lanfred I c.720-730

Nebi d.746

Theodobald c.737-744

Lanfred II 746-749

Gerold 791-799

Isenbard 799-806


The Alemanni were a confederation of German tribes, an old adversary of Rome, from the 3rd century. While they occupied the left bank of the Rhine during the collapse of the Western Empire, they otherwise were not particularly active in the "fall" of Rome. Then they became targets of Clovis, first Christian King of the Franks, who defeated them in 496 and 505. Henceforth, until annexation by Charlemagne in 806, they were dependents of the Franks.

Their domain, revived as the Duchy of Swabia, lost its name in Germany, but the word nevertheless surives as the name for Germany itself in the Romance languages, like Allemagne in French. The left bank of the Rhine, taken by the Alemanni and passed to Swabia, became Alsace. Alsace and Lorraine were gradually conquered by France, substantially beginning with the settlement of the Thirty Years War in 1648 (the Treaty of Westphalia). Although annexed by Germany in 1871, Alsace has been back with France since 1918. It retains, however, many Germanic place names (Strasbourg, Ensisheim, Haguenau, Hochfelden, Altkirch, etc.) and, at least until the post-World War I era, many native German speakers. Neither Germans nor French bothered with any plebiscite to see which country the locals preferred.

Saxons

Vegdegg Odinson

1st century AD

Gelder ?

Freawine 4th century

Guictglis 5th century

Hulderic 6th century

What I was long missing here was a list of the Kings of the Saxons in the days before Charlemagne's conquest in 804. I had seen individual names in histories, but it seemed like the matter was not well enough known for a list to be assembled. Now, however, Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies has such a list, which I am happy

to reproduce. There do not seem to be enough Kings for the period covered, and with someone named "Odinson," we are back





http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm




Alof the Great 6th century

Boddic 7th century

Berthold ?

Sighard ?

Dietrich ?

Wernicke 8th century

Withukund the Great

?-777, 778-785

Frankish conquest, 777-778, 785-790, rebellion, 790-804

in a legendary period familiar from Scandinavia. It may also have been the case that the Saxons were not politically unified, and there was not a single succession of Kings for the whole people. There do seem to be some connections with the early Kings of adjacent Denmark, in a period when we also get a confused jumble of names there, which have not yet been convincingly assembled in a coherent order.

The Saxons were a tough fight for the Franks, just about the worst. It took Charlemagne 27 years (777-804) to effectively reduce the country. The fighting, by all accounts, was brutal, with little restraint or humanity shown by either side.

Dukes of Thuringia

Radulf c.634-642

independent, 639

Hetan I c.642-687

Gozbert c.687-689

Hetan II c.689-719


Saxon paganism, toughness, and ruthlessness perhaps foreshadows the future ferocity of the Vikings. Saxons, of course, had previously colonized Britain. The Saxon chiefs Aelle and Cissa are said to have established themselves in Sussex (the "Southern Saxons"), apparently some time between 449 and 491. As uncertain as these dates are, they are more than we have to go on for Saxony itself.

A telling sign of a bit of Merovingian decline is that Thuringia should drift into independence for 80 years. We can imagine that Frankish control of the Bavarians and Alemanni during the same period was likely to have been pretty

slack. Significantly, Thuringian independence ends in the days of Charles Martel. The Bavarians and Alemanni must have been more entrenched. It was only Charlemagne, waxing in power, who eliminated the native lines.

Germania Index

The Stem Duchies


Home Page

Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved









Anglo-Saxon England

Kings of Sussex, Bernicia, Deira, Northumbria, Essex, Mercia, and East Anglia

Kings of Bernicia Angles

Ida 547-559

Glappa 559-560

Adda 560-568

Aethelric 568-572

Theoderic 572-579

Frithuwald 579-585

Hussa 585-592

Kings of Deira Angles

Aelle 560-599

Aetheiric 599-604

Kings of Northumbria, Angles

Aethelfrith

Bernicia, 593-616; Deira, 604-616

annexed Bernicia, and Deira, 604

Kings of Sussex Saxons

Aelle & Cissa 491-c.516

killed at Battle of Badon? rule by Mercia, c.516-c.660

Athelwalh c.660-c.685

Berthun 685-686

Nothhelm or Nunna

c.692-c.725

Wattus c.692

Athelstan c.714

Athelbert c.725-c.750

Osmund c.758-c.772

Dukes of Sussex under Mercia

Oswald c.772

Oslac c.772

Ealdwulf 765-c.791

Elfwald c.772-?

When Constantine "III" took his troops out of Britain in 407 to try and seize the Roman throne, a Roman garrison was never restored. At first this just meant trying to repel Frisian and Saxon pirates. Around 455, however, Hengest from Jutland, the land of the Jutes, established himself in what would then become the Kingdom of Kent. Because of its priority, the Kings of Kent are listed on the Periphery of Francia page for the British Isles. The Venerable Bede says that the first Angles or Saxons arrived in or just after 449 [A History of the English Church and People, 1955, Penguin, p.55]. He says that the South Saxon Aelle was the first bretwalda, or overlord of the Saxons. However, Aelle may have been killed by Ambrosius Aurelius at the Battle of Badon Hill, some time between 493 and 518. The story of Ambrosius as assimilated into the Authurian legends, as examined elsewhere, and the victory is supposed to have gained a respite. Before long, however, the Celtic Britons were pushed

back into the west, especially Wales and Cornwall. From there many escaped to what would become Brittany. The Germans became



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#england

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#brittany


Edwin 616-633

OsricDeira, 633-634

EanfrithBernicia, 633-634

St. Oswald 634-642

Oswiu 642-670

St. OswineDeira, 644-651

AethciwaidDeira, 651-655

Ecgfrith 670-685

Aldfrith 686-705

Eadwulf I 705-706

Osred I 706-716

Cenred 716-718

Osric 718-729

Ceotwulf720-737, d.760

Eadberht737-758, d.768

Oswulf 758-759

Aethelwald 759-765

Alhred 765-774

Aethelred I774-779, 790-796

Aelfwald I 779-788

organized into several Kingdoms. In the south the Jutes, who would soon disappear from their homeland with Danish conquest, established themselves in Kent and the Isle of Wright. In the north, Angles, who would similarly disappear from the southern part of Jutland but then would give their name to the whole of England (Anglia), established Mercia, East Anglia, Bernicia and Deira, which united to form Northumbria, and several smaller, subsidiary Kingdoms. Finally, in the south the Saxons, who would remain an important power on the continent, established the Kingdoms of the South Saxon, Sussex, of the East Saxons, Essex, and of the West Saxons, Wessex. Since Wessex eventually absorbs all the others and creates the united Kingdom of England, its Kings are given with Kent on the Periphery of Francia page.

Kings of Essex Saxons

Sledda580's-c.600

Saebertc.600-c.616

Sexred, Saeward, & Saexbald

c.616-623

killed in battle against Wessex, 623

Sigebert I Parvus 623-c.650

Sigebert II Sanctusc.650-c.653

Swithhelm c.653-663

Sigehere

663-688

Kent, 687-688

Sebbi 663-c.693

Sigeheard 693-c.707

Actually, Wessex was not able to absorb all of England, for as it began to do this, the Vikings arrived. This started with the sacking of the Monastery at Lindisfarne, in Bernicia, in 793. Eventually, Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, and about the north-eastern half of Mercia were overrun and became part of the Danelaw. At first the Vikings raided, sacked, and carried off slaves, or were bought off with


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#saxony



Osred II788-790, d.792

Osbald796, d.709

Eardwulf 796-808

Aelfwald II 808

Eardwulf 808-809

Eanred 809-841

Aethelred II841-844, 844-848

Redwulf 844

Osbert848-866, d.867

Aelle 866-867

Danish conquest of Deira, 867

Egbert I 867-873

Ricsige 873-876

Egbert II 876-878

Eadwulf II 878-913

Aldred 913-927

Wessex annexes Bernicia, 927

Swaefred or Swaefheard

Kent, 689-692

693-c.707

Offa 707-709

Saelred 709?-746

Swebert 709-738

Swithred 746-759

Sigeric 759-798

Sigered 798-825

annexed by Wessex, 825

"protection" money -- "Danegelt" -- but then Danes and Norwegians began to establish their own Kingdoms. They also passed around to Ireland and the Isle of Man and began encroaching from the west on Wales and England. This finally led to the outright annexation of England to Denmark by King Canute in 1016, though the Danish Kings only lasted until 1042. A fair number of Danish words ended up in English, like "skiff," which is simply the Danish cognate of the English word "ship."

Kings of Mercia Angles

Creoda or Crida c.585-c.593

Pybba c.593-c.606

Ceorl c.606-c.626

Penda 633-655

Northumbrian rule, 655-658

Wulfliere 658-675

Aetheired I675-704, d.716

Cenred 704-700

Ceolred 700-716

Aethelbald 716-757

Beomred 757, d.769

Kings of East Anglia Angles

Uffa 571-c.578

Tytila c.578-c.599

Redwald c.599-c.625

Eorpwald c.625-c.632

Ricbert c.632-c.634

Sigebertc.634-c.638, d.c.641

Egric c.638-c.641

Anna c.641-c.653

Athelhere c.653-c.655

Athelwold 655-c.663

Ealdwulf c.663-c.713





http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#man

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#danes


Offa 757-796

Ecgfrith 796

Cenwulf 796-821

Ceolwulf I 821-823

Beornwulf 823-825

Ludeca 825-827

Wiglaf827-929, 830-840

Wessex rule, 829-830

Berhtwulf 840-852

Burgred 852-874

Ceolwulf II 874-879

subsequent control by Wessex

Aetheired II 870-911

Aethelflaed 911-918

Aelfwyn 918-919

annexed by Wessex, 919

Alfwald c.713-c.749

Beonna c.749-c.761

Athelred c.761-790

Athelbert 790-794

overrun by Mercia, c.794-796

Eadwald c.796-c.799

overrun by Mercia, c.799-823

Athelstan c.823-837

subject to Wessex, 829

Athelweard 837-850?

Beorhtric 852-854

Edmund 854-869

Oswald c.870

overrun by the Danes, 829

If a contemporary was betting on which English Kingdom would have dominated the others, Mercia might long have seemed the one poised to do so, as it was larger and bordered on most of the others. With King Offa (757-796), this promise might have seemed on the verge of being fulfilled. Offa not

only dominated several neighbhors and treated with the new Frankish King Charlemagne, but he settled a permanent border with the Welsh. This was defined with a fortification, "Offa's Dike," that ran amost 150 miles from north to south. It remains the largest artifact of Saxon England, evidence of England emerging from the Dark Ages and

becoming part of cosmopolitan Francia. After Offa, however, Mercia began to lose its grip and the advantage passed to Wessex.

If Offa begins to represent the European political coming of age of England, we could say this had already happened intellectually earlier in the century. With Bede (673-735) we have, according to Thomas Fuller, "the profoundest scholar of his age for Latin, Greek, musick and what not" [cf. Bede, Historical Works, on the title page and spine, Ecclesiastical History on the dust jacket, Books I-III, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard U. Press, 1930, 1999, p.xiii]. Bede is the first historian of Britain, perhaps since Tactitus, and the beginning of English history with his A History of the English Church and People [op.cit.]. It is noteworthy that this is included in the Loeb Classical Library, when few would think of Anglo-Saxon England as part of the Classical World. It is probably included just because it is a classic in Latin -- though the absence of Anna Comnena from the series, as a classic in Greek (or of many of Mediaeval works in Latin, like Isidore of Seville, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.), is then awkward. Although perhaps not often appreciated, Bede does






provide some interesting perspectives on Roman history. Bede is also the earliest source with which to begin trying to make sense of the King Arthur legends.

Today, some of the names of the early Kingdoms survive as Counties, like Kent and Essex. The County of Middlesex, occupied by the City of London, tended to be part of Essex, but this was the area where three Kingdoms came together and the border moved around a good bit. Some of the names have even passed to the New World, as with Middlesex County, New Jersey.

These tables are mainly based on The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, by Mike Ashley [Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999, pp.208-321] but with the lists for Bernicia, Deira, Northumbria, and Mercia intially drawn up from the Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, pp.64-66].

Germania Index

Perifrancia Index


Home Page


Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine. "From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord."






This page supplements The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 588 AD-Present with diagrams of the earliest kings, with some of their legendary and mythic progenitors. When that link is used, a new browser window will open for the page. If one of the windows is reduced in size and positioned conveniently, the diagrams here can be compared with the table there.

The information here is derived from the Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev by Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist [Kings River Publications, Kingsburg, California, 1997], The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley [Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999], the large genealogical chart, Kings & Queens of Europe, compiled by Anne Tauté [University of North Carolina Press, 1989], and Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982]. These sources are not consistent, and choices and compromises have been made, especially to simply get a coherent picture of some things, which is actually not always possible. Thus, neither of the two sets of dates for Ragnar Lodbrok (750-794 or 860-865), King of Denmark and Sweden, works if he is the Viking chief who sacked Paris in 845 and treated with Charles the Bald. If he was, then, actually, all we have to do is split the difference, more or less!

While writing exists in the Scandinavian countries for the entire period covered below (and eventually across a broad swath of Europe from Britain all the way to the Ukraine), namely the system of Runes, as shown at left, it ends up being of limited value for historical information. Objects and small monuments are inscribed with

names and some references to events and transactions, but we do not find great monumental historical inscriptions like that of Ramesses II about the battle of Qadesh or like that of Darius at Behistun about his rise to power, much less texts on practical media that tell us much about ongoing developments. As Christianity crept into the region, bringing the Latin alphabet with it, full texts began to be written, preserving Sagas and instituting chronicles. One gets the impression that Runes were regarded as somewhat more magical than utilitarian, which is pretty much the way they were later remembered. Or the more practical media of utilitarian inscriptions may simply have decayed in the damp climates. Nevertheless, Runic inscriptions continue throughout the Middle Ages in Scandinavia for the traditional epigraphic and magical purposes.

The descent of the earlist kings is reckoned all the way back to Odin (Wotan, Woden -- hence "Wednesday"). This may be a dimly remembered historical person, but the fact that other Germans, like the Saxons who invaded Britain, also reckoned their descent from Odin may indicate that this is a mythic

device and that Odin indeed is understood as the Odin, the king of the gods. That full genealogy is not shown here (it is in Ashley, p.209). Instead, I pick it up where the Danish line divides, with one branch picking up



http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bald


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#525


kings of Sweden, who otherwise seem to have a separate descent from Odin for earlier kings. These early, mythic kings are the Ynglings, which end in Sweden with Ingjald Illrade. Ingjald is succeeded either by Ivar Vidfamne or Olaf Tretelgia (or Tretelia), who is also said to have fled Sweden and founded the royal line of Norway. Ivar is also reckoned as a king of Denmark, but the coordination between the two lines is not always clear. Much the same can be said for subsequent kings down to Ragnar Lodbrok. Fortunately, the sons of Ragnar are supposed to have divided his inheritance, and this begins to get us on more secure historical ground (which means that the 9th century rather than the 8th century dates for Ragnar are probably more like it). Especially noteworthy is the line of descent that involves rulers of



York (Northumbria), the Isle of Man, and Dublin. Thus we are well into the period

when Viking raiders are spread all over Western Europe, and Eastern as well (Randver Radbartsson is supposed to have been fathered by a Russian, i.e. a Norseman in Russia, a Varangian). This diagram continues with the Swedish kings, who, however, as described by Alen and Dahlquist, do not necessarily continue the same line of descent. This is a little more organized than we get with Denmark, but it may well indicate that kings are ruling simultaneously and that the legendary genealogy is in fact a mythic construction. Erik I thus may indeed precede Erik II, even though the dates here have him later in the 9th century. With Erik VI, however, we get into more historically secured material, which is where Tauté begins her diagram.

With the continuation of Swedish kings, there are just a few uncertainties. We are missing the name of Stenkil's wife, the daughter of King Edmund III. After Stenkil's death, there is some trouble, and two usurpers became sufficiently established, or remembered, that they get numbered as Erik VII and Erik VIII. One of these may be a king listed in other places as "Erik Arsaell," but there is no discussion of this name where I might expect it, in Alen and Dahlquist. Another uncertainty is whether King Blot-Sven was or was not married to a daughter of Stenkil. And then there is the question whether Sverker I was or was not descended from Blot-Sven. Alen and Dahlquist show that he was; Tauté does not show it. Some sources show rather different dates for Halsten and Inge I, and Inge II may also have been reigning simultaneously with Filip. Tauté does not list Magnus Nielsson at all, and Alen and Dahlquist have Inge II dying in 1125 on one page and living until 1130 on another. After they are all



out of the way, we get rival lines, the "Sverkerska" and "Erikska" dynasties, between whom the Throne swaps back and forth, often violently, for a century. The execution of a number of heirs prepared the way for both male lines to die out, and the Throne passes to the sons of Birger Jarl, beginning the "Folkung" dynasty. From there, the genealogy of Sweden is continued on The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden page.

The diagram for the kings of Denmark begins with some of the same figures given for Sweden above. Here we get another phenomenon. From various sources we known of several kings who do not fit into the legendary succession or genealogy. While these figures can be





found given authentic looking dates and listed in succession, the impression persists that most of them were in fact ruling simultaneously. If sufficient time had elapsed, they all either would have been dropped from memory or worked up into a seamless legendary picture. As it happened, history was fast approaching and a jumble is what we get. Denmark was not a unified kingdom, much as we get that sense from the earlier legendary material. It was probably much like contempory and adjacent Saxony, which consisted of three major tribes (Westphalians,



Angarii, and Eastphalians) and two minor ones (Wihmuodi and Nordalbingi). The chief of the Westphalians, Widukind, surrendered to Charlemagne in 785. Widukind is

supposed to have been related some some Danish kings and spent some time there in refuge. The first properly historical king of Denmark was Gorm the Old, who is said to have been a son of Hardeknut (Canute I), but is shown by Ashley descended through Canute, Frodo, and Harald II. Harald is completely ignored by Alen and Dahlquist. This confusion gives us a fitting end to the legendary period -- though Gorm is more than a little legendary himself. We are then quickly into the fully history period, for which there don't seem to be major uncertainties, except for some overlapping reigns that result in some kings being dropped from some accounts. Again, from here, the genealogy of Denmark is continued on The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden page.

Norway may have begun as a colony of Sweden, represented by the legendary founder, Olaf Tretelgia. This simplifies things, since there may have not been the large number of rival kingdoms as may actually have existed in Sweden and Denmark, and which serve to confuse the account. As with Sweden above, branch

lines lead to interesting colonial acquisitions of the Vikings. For instance, the line of Thorstein the Red intermarries with the Earls of Orkney -- the Orkneys are the group of islands off the north end






of Scotland. Similarly, the line of Olaf Geirstade leads directly (according to Ashley) to Rolf (or Rollo) who became the first Duke of Normandy. For subsequent Norman influence on European history, this was one of the most fateful events.

An interesting career is that of Harald III Hårdråde. When his brother St. Olof II died in battle against Canute II the Great of Denmark in 1030, Harald flees into exile in Kiev. He makes his way as a mercenary




all the way down to Sicily and eventually back home to Norway in 1047, where the Danes were gone and Olof's son, Magnus I the Good, ruled Norway and Denmark. Harald joins Magnus in

rule, but the nephew doesn't last long. After Harald's long quest, then follow years of successful rule. In 1066, however, Harald's ambitions overwhelm him. He lands in England, intending to follow Canute in the rule of that country. He is unexpectedly defeated and killed, however, by Harold II. This is often regarded as the end of the Furor Normannicus, the Viking Terror. Harold, unfortunately, rode from victory over Harald to defeat and death at the hands of William of Normandy, who thus effects the conquest of England by Northmen, somewhat removed from their Viking past, after all.

After the succession jumps around a bit, we get a couple of major uncertainties. Harald IV may not really have been a son of Magnus III. And then Sverre almost certainly was not a son of Sigurd II, but he claimed to be -- probably just a convenient pretext upon which a usurper could fight for the Throne. Since his fight was successful, subsequent kings of Norway were descended from him. After this, as above, the genealogy of Norway is continued on The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden page.

Germania Index

The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden

Earls of Orkney


Home Page

Copyright (c) 2002, 2004 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved









Earls of Orkney

Earls of Orkney

Ragnald I the Wisec.874-c.875, d.894

Sigurd I the Mighty c.875-892

Thorstein the Red c.875-900

Guthorm c.892-893

Hallard c.893-894

Einar I 894-920?

Arnkel 920?-954

Erlend I 920?-954

Erik Bloodaxe

c.937-954

King of Norway, 933-934

Gunnhildr, Ragnfred, & Godred

954-955, 976-977

Thorfinn I Skullsplitter c.947-977

Arfinn 977-979?

Havard 979?-981?

Liot 981?-984?

Hlodvir 984?-987?

Sigurd II 987?-1014

The Orkney Islands, whose inhabitants are "Orcadians," lie off the northern tip of Scotland. They were a fief of Norway founded in the ninth century by King Harald I Fairhair. The Lords, called Earls in English fashion, thus with equal or better justice could be called "Jarls," with the Norwegian cognate. Over time, Scottish influence increased, with even intermarriage into the Scottish Royal Family. Scottish sovereignty was established in 1469. In 1471 the rule of the Islands was taken directly by King James III of Scotland. The Islands had become part of the dowery of Margaret of Oldenburg, daughter of Christian I, King of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, in her marriage to James.

The Orkneys were one set of North Atlantic Islands, including the Shetlands, Faeroes, and Hebrides, that were natural stepping stones and staging areas for Viking raids on Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere. Until the King of Norway asserted authority, the Islands were more or less nests of pirates. The way in which things became more organized we can see in one stunning connection: A son -- Hrólfur, Rolf, or Rollo -- of the first Earl, Ragnald, went on to become the first Duke of Normandy. The consequences of this for European history, from England to Sicily and beyond, are beyond calculation; yet this connection to the Orkneys is rarely noted.

The Orkneys retreat from the spotlight of history for many centuries. They suddenly acquire great significance, however, in World War I. A large sound south of the main island (Pomona), Scapa Flow, became the main base for the Grand Fleet of the British Royal Navy. This might seem to be rather far from anything, but it put the fleet in a position, at the entrance to the North Sea, to intercept the German High Seas Fleet whatever it might do. As it happened, the German fleet was thus intercepted in 1916, resulting in the







http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm


Somerled 1014-1015

Einar II 1014-1020

Brúsi 1014-c.1030

Thorfinn II the Mighty c.1018-c.1060

Ragnald II 1038-1046

Paul I c.1060-1098

Erlend II c.1060-1098

Sigurd III, I of Norway

1099-1105, d.1130

King of Norway, 1103-1130

Haakon 1105-1126

Magnus I 1108-1117

Paul II the Silent 1126-1137

Harald I Smoothtalker 1126-1131

Ragnald III 1137-1158

Harald II the Old 1139-1206

Erlend III 1154-1156

Harald III 1195?-1198

David 1206-1214

John I 1206-1231

Magnus II of Angus 1231-1239

Gilbert 1239-1256

Magnus III 1256-1273

Magnus IV 1276-1284

Battle of Jutland. When the War ended, the German fleet was the interned in Scapa Flow. Rather than have the ships turned over to Britain or her allies in a post-war settlement, in June 1919 the Germans scuttled their ships in a dramatic, surprise action. There the ships still lie, long after most of their British rivals, however victorious, have been broken up and sold for scrap.

The list and genealogy here is entirely from The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley [Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999].



John II 1284-1311

Magnus V 1311-c.1329

Malise c.1329-1353?

Erengisl1353-1357/60, d.1392

Henry I of St. Clair 1363/1379-1400

Henry II 1400-1420

William1420-1471, d.1480

Scottish sovereignty, 1469; resigned to Socttish crown, 1471



Germania Index

The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden


Home Page







Consuls of the Roman Republic

Consuls of the

Roman Republic

The Roman Republic

509 BC

L. Iunius M.f. Brutus L. Tarquinius Collatinus Suffecti: P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola T. Lucretius T.?f. Tricipitinus M. Horatius M.f. Pulvillus

508P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola II T. Lucretius T.f. Tricipitinus

507P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola III M. Horatius M.f. Pulvillus II

506Sp. Larcius Rufus T. Herminius Aquilinus

505M. Valerius Volusi f. (Volusus?) P. Postumius Q.f. Tubertus

504P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola IV T. Lucretius T.f. Tricipitinus II

503Agrippa Menenius C.f. Lanatus P. Postumius Q.f. Tubertus II

502Opiter Verginius Opit. f. Tricostus Sp. Cassius Vecellinus

Two Consuls, the principal Executive officers of the Roman Republic -- Respublica Romana -- were elected at Rome to yearly terms (sometimes we get substitutes or replacements, suffecti). Roman dating, as that by Eponymous Archons at Athens, was by these Consuls. The list of Roman Consuls to 337 (the year of the foundation of Constantinople) is given by E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (Cornell University Press, 1968, 1982, pp.140-162).

Here, Consuls are only given for the Roman Republic, ending with 27 BC, when Octavian was granted the title Augustus, by which he is then known as the first of the Roman Emperors, although the title Imperator ("commander") was already used. Nevertheless, the Consular office continued; and in 337 it actually doubled, since Consuls began to be chosen at Constantinople as well as for Rome. This continued until the

http://www.friesian.com/rome.htm (1 of 35)8/25/2006 5:34:26 AM

http://www.friesian.com/archon.htm


501Postumius Cominius Auruncus T. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus)

500Ser. Sulpicius P.f. Camarinus Cornutus M'. Tullius Longus

499T. Aebutius T.f. Helva C. (or P.) Veturius Geminus Cicurinus

498Q. Cloelius Siculus T. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus) II

497A. Sempronius Atratinus M. Minucius Augurinus

496A. Postumius P.f. Albus (Regillensis) T. Verginius A.f. Tricostus Caeliomontanus

495Ap. Claudius M.f. Sabinus Inregillensis P. Servilius P.f. Priscus Structus

494A. Verginius A.f Tricostus Caeliomontanus T. Veturius Geminus Cicurinus

493Postumus Cominius Auruncus II Sp. Cassius Vecellinus II

492T. Geganius Macerinus P. Minucius Augurinus

491M. Minucius Augurinus II A. Sempronius Atratinus II

490Q. Sulpicius Camerinus Cornutus Sp. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus) II

489C. Iulius Iullus P. Pinarius Mamertinus Rufus

488Sp. Nautius Sp.?f. Rutilus Sex. Furius Medullinus? Fusus?

487T. Sicinus Sabinus? C. Aquillius Tuscus?

reign of Justinian, as explained by Bickerman himself:

The Romans dated by consuls until AD 537 when Justinian (Novell. 47) introduced the dating according to the regnal years of the emperors. From 534 in the West and after 541 in the East, only the emperors held the consulship. Yet, the dating by consuls continued to be used in Egypt until 611. Accordingly, we have the complete list of consuls from Brutus and Collatinus, the founders of the Roman Republic in 509 BC, to Basilius in AD 541: 1,050 years. [p.69]

While Bickerman may have the list to 541, he only gives it to 337. Since his book is the chronology of the "ancient world," perhaps this explains why it wouldn't extend after 476, but that doesn't explain why it should already end at 337. This certainly relfects a disinterest or a distaste for Late Antiquity, such as I have discussed elsewhere. The foundation of Constantinople is one of the conventional dates for the beginning of "Byzantine" history. The list of Consuls of the




486Sp. Cassius Vicellinus III Proculus Verginius Tricostus Rutilus

485Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis Q. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus

484L. Aemilus Mam.f. Mamercus K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus

483M. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus L. Valerius M.f. Potitus

482Q. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II C. Iulius C.f. Iullus

481K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II Sp. Furius Fusus

480M. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II Cn. Manlius P.f. Cincinnatus

479K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus III T. Verginius Opet.f. Tricostus Rutilus

478L. Aemilius Man.f. Mamercus II C. Servilius Structus Ahala suff.: Opet. Verginius Esquilinus

477C. (or M.) Horatius M.f. Pulvillus T. Menenius Agrippae f. Lanatus

476A. Verginius Tricostus Rutilus Sp. Servilius (P.f.?) Structus

475P. Valerius P.f. Publicola C. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus

474L. Furius Medullinus A. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso

473L. Aemilius Mam.f. Mamercus III Vopiscus Iulius C.f. Iullus

472L. Pinarius Mamercinus Rufus P. Furius Medullinus Fusus

Roman Empire, or at least the Western Consuls at Rome right down "to Basilius," are now given on a popup page.

Bickerman's list gives the year in the AD (the Christian Annô Domini, "in the Year of the Lord") era and the year in the AUC era. The latter I have discarded, since it was not used, as described by Bickerman himself:

An era ab urbe condita (from the founding of the city of Rome) did not, in reality, exist in the ancient world, and the use of reckoning the years in this way is modern....

The principal reason for not using the system ab urbe condita was that the age of the city was disputed... [p.77]

Bickerman says that Cicero, Livy, and Diodorus identified the founding of the city with the 2nd year of the 7th Olympiad, as the chronology of the Olympiads had been constructed by Polybius. The more familiar date now is the one hit upon by Atticus, Titus Pomponius Atticus (d.32 BC), in his Liber annalis. This was 753 BC, the 4th year of the 6th Olympiad, and was then popularized by Varro, Marcus



471Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Crassinus Inregilliensis Sabinus T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus

470L. Valerius M.f. Potitus II Ti. Aemilius L.f. Mamercus

469T. Numicius Priscus A. Verginius Caeliomontanus

468T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus II Q. Servilius Structus Priscus

467Ti. Aemilius L.f. Mamercus II Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus

466Q. Servilius Priscus II Sp. Postumius A.f. Albus Regillensis

465Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus II T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus III

464A. Postumius A.f. Albus Regillensis Sp. Furius Medullinus Fusus

463P. Servilius Sp.f. Priscus L. Aebutius T.f. Helva

462L. Lucretius T. f. Tricipitinus T. Veturius T.f. Geminus Cicurinus

461P. Volumnius M.f. Amintinus Gallus Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus Cornutus

460P. Valerius P.f. Poblicola C. Claudius Ap.f. Inregillensis Sabinus suff.: L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus

459Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus III L. Cornelius Ser.f. Maluginensis Uritus

458C. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus II Carvetus ? suff.: L. Minucius. P.f. Esquilinus Augurinus

L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus, Dictator, 458

Terentius Varro (d.27 BC). The year is now associated with Varro more than Atticus.

Roman names ideally consisted of three parts, the tria nomina: the praenômen, the given name, the nômen, the "gentile" name or name of the gens or clan, and the cognômen, the surname or family name (though this was sometimes missing, as with C. Flaminius, killed at the battle of Lake Trasimene against Hannibal in 217, and could also be more in the form of an epithet or personal name). Thus, the full name of Julius Caesar was Gaius Iulius Caesar, with the praenômen, nômen, and cognômen, respectively. Today people would tend to think of "Julius" as the given name, but it was not, though the nômen was often used for women as the equivalent, as with Augustus's daughter Julia. In the list of Consuls, there is another name that is given, the "filiation," or, as it would be called from Greek, the "patronymic," the name of one's father. This consists of the praenômen of the father (in the genitive case) followed by filius, "son" (abbreviated f.). The filiation is given between the nômen and the cognômen. Caesar's name, without abbreviations, thus could be Gaius Iulius Gaii filius Caesar. Some extended filiations are given, as with C. Livius M. Aemiliani f. Drusus, Consul in 147. A name may end with various epithets, like Africanus, an agnômen, also called



457C. (or M.) Horatius M.F. Pulvillus II Q. Minucius P.f. Esquilinus

456M. Valerius M'.f. Maximus Lactuca Sp. Verginius A.f. Tricostus Caeliomontanus

455T. Romilius T.f. Rocus Vaticanus C. Veturius P.f. Cicurinus

454Sp. Tarpeius M.f. Montanus Capitolinus A. Aternius Varus Fontinalis

453Sex. Quinctilius Sex.f. P. Curiatus Fistus Trigeminus

452T. Menenius Agripp.f. Lanatus P. Sestius Q.f. Capito Vaticanus

451Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus II T. Genucius L.f. Augurinus

450 Decemviri

449L. Valerius P.f. Potitus M. Horatius Barbatus

448Lars (or Sp.) Herminius Coritinesanus T. Verginius Tricostus Caeliomontanus

447M. Geganius M.f. Macerinus C. Iulius (Iullus?)

446T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus IV Agrippa Furius Fusus

445M. Genucius Augurinius C. (or Agripp.) Curtius Philo

444Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. suff.: L. Papirius Mugillanus L. Sempronius A.f. Atratinus

443M. Geganius M.f. Macerinus II T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus V

a "surname," which can be legally granted in recognition of some service to Rome, or might accrue informally. For instance, Pompey the Great, Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus, did not have a cognômen, but then acquired Magnus, "Great," as the equivalent. One might expect this to have happened informally, but it was in fact legally granted by Sulla.

The praenômen is usually abbreviated in the table, as follows:

● A. = Aulus ● Ap. = Appius ● C. = Gaius ● Cn. = Gnaeus ● Corn. = Cornelius ● D. = Decimus ● Fl. = Flavius ● K. = Kaeso ● L. = Lucius ● M. = Marcus ● M'. = Manius ● N. = Natus ● P. = Publius ● Q. = Quintus ● Ser. = Servius ● Sex. = Sextus ● Sp. = Spurius ● T. = Titus ● Ti. = Tiberius

Thus, Caesar's name is actually listed as C. Iulius C.f. Caesar. Augustus, a nephew of Caesar, and originally C. Octavius, but as a son by adoption, assumed exactly the same name, with the agnômen Octavianus. This is how he is listed as a Consul for the year 43.



442M. Fabius Q.f. Vibulanus Post. Aebutius Helva Cornicen

441C. Furius Pacilus Fusus M'. (or M.) Papirius Crassus

440Proculus Geganius Macerinus T. Menenius Agripp. Lanatus II

439Agrippa Menenius T.f. Lanatus T. Quinctius L.f Capitolinus Barbatus VI

L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus, Dictator, 439

438 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.

437M. Geganius M.f Macerinus III L. Sergius L.f. Fidenas Suff.: M. Valerius M.f. Lactuca Maximus

436L. Papirius Crassus M. Cornelius Maluginensis

435C. Iulius (Iullus?) II L. (or Proc.) Verginius Tricostus

434

C. Iulius Iullus III L. (or Proc.) Verginus Tricostus II or M. Manlius Capitolinus Q. Sulpicius Ser.?f. Camerinus Praetextatus

433-432 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.

431T. Quinctius L.f. Poenus Cincinnatus C. (or Cn) Iulius Mento

430L. (or C.) Papirius Crassus L. Iulius Vop.f Iullus

429Hostus Lucretius Tricipitinus L. Sergius C.f Fidenas II

Subsequently, however, he is listed as Imp. Caesar Divi f., "Emperor Caesar, son of the Divine [Caesar]."

For the year 43 Octavian is actually given as a suffectus (Suff.), a "substitute" Consul.

The first list of Consuls was apparently compiled around 300 BC, and undoubtedly contained a great deal of legendary material and speculative chronology. As Bickerman says:

The cornerstone of ancient Roman chronology was the capture of Rome by the Gauls, since this event was the earliest fact of Roman history mentioned and dated by contemporary Greek authors. The date corresponded to 387/6 BC... Yet, the roman consular list indicated 382 BC. In order to use the Greek synchronism, Diodorus twice gives the names of the same Roman eponyms... Livy reaches the date 387/6 by inserting a quinquennium of anarchy without the magistrates... The Fasti Capitolini



428

A. Cornelius M.f. Cossus T. Quinctius L.f Poenus Cincinnatus II (Listed by Diodorus between the colleges of 428 and 427: L. Quinctius (L.f. Cincinnatus) A. Sempronius (L.f. Atratinus))

427C. Servilius Structus Ahala L. Papirius L.f Mugillanus


423C. Sempronius Atratinus Q. Fabius Q.f. Vibulanus

422 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.

421Cn. (or N.) Fabius Vibulanus T. Quinctius T.f Capitolinus Barbatus


413A. (or M.?) Cornelius Cossus L. Furius L.f. Medullinus

412Q. Fabius Ambustus Vibulanus C. Furius Pacilus

411L. Papirius L.f. Mugillanus Sp. (or C.) Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus

410M'. Aemilius Mam.f. Mamercinus C. Valerius L.f. Potitus Volusus

409Cn. Cornelius A.f. Cossus L. Furius L.f. Medullinus II


Seige & Capture of Veii, 405-396

393

L. Valerius L.f. Potitus P.? (or Ser.) Cornelius Maluginensis Suff.: L. Lucrrtius Tricipitinus Flavus Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Camerinus

insert four years of dictators sine consule and in this way arrive at 391/0 as the date of the Gallic sack of Rome... [p.69-70]

Nevertheless, histories usually give the sack of Rome as an unproblematic 390 BC.

The purpose of dividing executive power between two Consuls for annual terms was to prevent the concentration and accumulation of power and the restoration of something like the monarchy. Nevertheless, times of crisis might call for greater authority and unified command. Consequently, a Dictator could be appointed, for a term of six months. The archetype of what a Dictator should be like, with legendary embelishments, was L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus, who was supposed to have been appointed in 458 and 439. Cincinnatus had been impoverished and was simply farming his own land. The story is that the messengers from the Senate found him working on his farm, dirty and undressed. They asked him to put on his toga and then informed him that he had been appointed Dictator. This scene is clearly cherished by the historian Livy, Titus Livius, who relates it thus:

Now I would solicit the particular attention of those numerous people



392L. Valerius L.f. Potitus II M. Manlius T.f. Capitolinus


Gauls sack Rome, 390


366L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus L. Sextius f. Sextinus Lateranus

365L. Genucius M.f. Aventinensis Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala

364C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus C. Licinius C.f. Stolo or Calvus

363Cn. Gentucius M.f Aventinensis L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus II

362Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala II L. Genucius M.f. Aventinensis II

361C. Licinius C.f. Calvus or Stolo C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus II

360M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus

359M. Popillius M.f. Laenas Cn. Manlius L.f. Capitolinus Imperiosus

358C. Fabius N.f. Ambustus C. Plautius P.f. Proculus

357C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus Cn. Manlius L.f. Capitolinus Imperiosus II

356M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus II M. Popillius M.f. Laenas II

355C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus III M. Valerius L.f. Poplicola

who imagine that money is everything in this world, and that rank and ability are inseparable from wealth: let them observe that Cincinnatus, the one man in whom Rome reposed all her hope of survival, was at that moment working a little three-acre farm (now known as the Quinctian meadows) west of the Tiber, just opposite the spot where the shipyards are today. A mission from the city found him at work on his land -- digging a ditch, maybe, or ploughing. Greetings were exchanged, and he was asked -- with a prayer for the god's blessing on himself and his country -- to put on his toga and hear the Senate's instructions. This naturally surprised him, and, asking if all were well, he told his wife Racilia to run to their cottage and fetch his toga. The toga was brought, and wiping the grimy sweat from his hands and face he



354M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus III T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus

353C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus IV M. Valerius L.f. Poplicola II

352P. Valerius P.f. Poplicola C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus II

351C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus V T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus II

350M. Popillius M.f. Laenas III L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio

349

L. Furius M.f. Camillus Ap. Claudius P.f. Crassus Inregillensis (Listed under this year by Diodorus: M. Aemilius, T. Quinctius)

348M. Valerius M.f. Corvus M. Popillius M.f. Laenas IV

347C. Plautius Venno (or Venox) T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus

346M. Valerius M.f. Corvus II C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus II

345M. Fabius Dorsuo Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus Rufus

344C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus III T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus II

343M. Valerius M.f. Corvus III A. Cornelius P.f. Cossus Arvina

First Samnite War, 343-341

342Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala III C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus IV

341C. Plautius Venno (Venox) II L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus Privernas

put it on; at once the envoys from the city saluted him, with congratulations, as Dictator, invited him to enter Rome, and informed him of the terrible danger of Minucius's army. [Livy, The Early History of Rome, translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt, Penguin Books, 1960, p.197 -- "God's" changed to "the god's," ed.]

This resonated in the 18th century for everyone who believed in Republican government, limited government, by honest private, disinterested citizens. That is how Cincinnati, Ohio, got its name.

Nevertheless, the office of Dictator itself contained the potential for danger. Although the end of the Republic is usually dated to 27 BC, when Octavian became Augustus, a key date certainly would be 44 BC, when Caesar was made Dictator for life. A lifetime office is not a Republican office. Of course, Caesar was then assassinated, but his friends and his heir, Octavian, defeated the Republicans. Augustus, indeed, did not assume or create a Dictatorship for life (refusing Dictatorship or Consulship for life in 22 BC), maintaining a fiction of Republican government, but he did become



340T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus III P. Decius Q.f. Mus

Latin War, 340-338

339Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo

338L. Furius Sp.f. Camillus C. Maenius P.f.

Annexation of Campania, 338

337C. Sulpicius Ser.f Longus P. Aelius Paetus

336L. Papirius L.f. Crassus K. Duillius

335M. Atilius Regulus Calenus M. Valerius M.f. Corvus IV

334Sp. Postumius Albinus (Caudinus) T. Veturitis Clavinus

333 Dictator year

332Cn. Domitius Cn.F. Calvinus A. Cornelius P.f. Cossus Arvina II

331C. Valerius L.f. Potitus M. Claudius C.f. Marcellus

330L. Papirius L.f. Crassus II L. Plautius L.f. Venno (Venox)

329L. Aemilius L.f Mamercinus Privernas II C. Plautius P.f. Decianus

328

C. Plautius Decianns II or P. Plautius Proculus P. Cornelius Scapula or P. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus

Tribune for life, and his informal constructions gradually solidified into the lifetime office of Imperator. Rule by one man had threatened earlier. The first real threat may have been Marius, C. Marius C.f., who reformed and enlarged the army, enrolling landless proletarii, and was then able to help defeat the revolt of Jugurtha (112-105). Marius was elected to five successive Consulships, 104-100, even though it was supposed to be illegal for anyone to succeed himself in the office (or serve again for ten years). Eventually, he seized Rome by force in 87, driving out Sulla. But then he died of natural causes the next year. Sulla himself, L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix (felix = "happy" or "lucky," an apparently informal agnômen), was the next threat. He was made Dictator in 82 and continued in the office until he resigned in 80 or 79, dying in 78. One of Sulla's supporters, Pompey would have represented the next threat of one-man rule, but he had to contend with powerful rivals like Crassus, M. Licinius P.f. Crassus, and then Caesar himself. Crassus was killed by the Parthians, and Caesar defeated Pompey in 48 BC. A fleeing Pompey was then obligingly executed by Cleopatra, with whom, as we know, Caesar ushered in the height of his power. The last century of the Republic thus looks like little more than a continuing civil war to see which individual would assume the equivalent of a permanent


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#parthian



327L. Cornelius Lentulus Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo II

Second Samnite War, 326-304

326C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus III L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor

325L. Furius Sp.f. Camillus II D. Iunius Brutus Scaeva

324 Dictator year

323C. Sulpicius Ser.f. Longus II Q. Aulius Q.f. Cerretanus

322Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus L. Fulvius L.f. Curvus

321T. Veturius Calvinus II Sp. Postumius Albinus (Caudinus) II

320L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor II Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo III

319L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor III Q. Aulius Q.f. Cerretanus II

318L. Plautius L.f. Venno (Venox) M. Folius C.F. Flaccinator

317Q. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus

316Sp. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus M. Popillius M.f. Laenas

315L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor IV Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo IV

314M. Poetelius M.f. Libo C. Sulpicius Ser.f. Longus III

313L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor V C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus II

dictatorship. Why this should have happened is a good question for any kind of elective government.

The fasces, "bundles," axes tied with red ribbon in a bundle of birch (or elm) rods, were symbols of the imperium, "command," the power and authority of the Roman State and of its offices, each carried by a lictor who accompanied officials. These were symbols of Etruscan Kings, and originally the axe might be double-bladed, the labrys, familiar from the Aegean world and which apparently gave its name to the great palace at Knossos, the Labyrinthos. Twelve fasces were carried (by twelve lictores) for the Roman Kings, a number inherited by the Consuls. Other officials rated their own number of fasces, as follows, though the display of them in Rome itself was often limited.

● Dictators, 24 ● Consuls, 12 ● Praetors, Proconsuls, 6 ● Legates, 5 ● Priests, 1

Although they continued to be used



312M. Valerius M.f Maximus (Corrinus) P. Decius P.f. Mus

311C. Iunius C.f Bubulcus Brutus III Q. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula II

310Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus II C. Marcius C.f. Rutilus (Censorinus)

309 Dictator year

308P. Decius P.f. Mus II Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus III

307Ap. Claudius C.f. Caenus L. Volumnius C.f. Flamma Violens

306Q. Marcius Q.f. Tremulus P. Cornelius A.f. Arvina

305L. Postumius L.f. Megellus Ti. Minucius M.f. Augurinus Suff.: M. Fulvius L.f. Curvus Paetinus

304P. Sempronius P.f. Sophus P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Saverrio

303Ser. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus L. Genucius Aventinensis

302M. Livius Denter M. Aemilius L.f. Paullus

301 Dictator year

300M. Valerius M.f. Corvus V Q. Appuleius Pansa

299M. Fulvius Cn.f. Paeyinus T. Manlius T.f. Torquatus Suff.: M. Valerius M.f. Corvus VI

298L. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Barbatus Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Maximus Centumalus

for the Emperors, originally 12, after Domitian, 24, by the 18th century they were symbols more of Republican than of Imperial government. As such, fasces turn up in American, French, Swiss, and other modern Republican iconography. However, Mussolini, seeking his own version of modern Roman power, liked the symbolism more of power and unity than of Republicanism, and he adopted the fasces to symbolize his own political party. This made the party the Fascist Party, which then contributed its name to related political ideologies, which in the simplest terms would be totalitarian, collectivist, and nationalistic. Now, a form of collectivism, of subordinating the individual to the state, is not alien to Roman sensibility, as considered elsewhere. While the power of the Emperors would have been to Mussolini's liking, the purposes of Roman Republican government, however, dividing and limiting authority, were alien to "Fascist" purposes, which were for unlimited and absolute government.

The saying is that Rome conquered the world in self-defense. If all one does is read Roman sources, this is what it sounds like. The dynamic of this is simple enough. If your neighbors are giving you trouble, defeat them. Right from the beginning, however, the Roman viewed disputes with neighbors as something like betrayal and began to conquer them instead of just



http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm#note-1


Third Samnite War, 298-290

297Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus IV P. Decius P.f. Mus III

296Ap. Claudius C.f. Caecus II L. Volumnius C.f. Flamma Violens II

295Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus V P. Decius P.f. Mus IV

294L. Postumius L.f. Megellus II M. Atilius M.f. Regulus

293L. Papirius L.f. Cursor Sp. Carvilius C.f. Maximus

292Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges D. Iunius D.f. Brutus Scaeva

291L. Postumius L.f. Megellus III C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus

290M'. Curius M'.f Dentatus P. Cornelius Cn.f. Rufinus

289M. Valerius M.f. Maximus Corvinus II Q. Caedicius Q.f. Noctua

288Q. Marcius Q.f Tremulus II P. Cornelius A.f. Arvina II

287M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus C. Nautius Rutilus

286M. Valerius Maximus (Potitus?) C. Aelius Paetus

285C. Claudius M.f. Canina M. Aemilius Lepidus

284C. Servilius Tucca L. Caecilius Metellus Denter

setting them back. But they also began to truly absorb neighbors, not always giving them the same rights as Roman citizens, but giving them something, and benefiting from their participating in the Roman army. Since absorbing a neighbor means that one acquires the neighbors of their far borders, the process begins over again.

By 301 BC, Rome, after a very long process, had risen from a city state to dominate Latium and then Campania. In the South of Italy the Romans faced Greek city states. They called the area Magna Graecia, "Great Greece," but got their own word for the Greeks, which modern Western European languages still use, from some tribe in the area.

The maps here duplicate the treatment at the Hellenistic Monarchs page, except for the last map, for 44 BC. For the following maps, click on the map for a full sized popup.

By 270, the Romans have absorbed Etruria (Tuscany) and have defeated and absorbed the Greek


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm



283P. Cornelius Dolabella Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Calvinus Maximus

282C. Fabricius C.f. Luscinus Q. Aemilius Cn.f. Papus

281L. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula Q. Marcius Q.f. Philippus

280P. Valerius Laevinus Ti. Coruncanius Ti.f.

War with Pyrrhus, 280-275

279P. Sulpicius P.f. Saverrio P. Decius P.f. Mus

278C. Fabricius C.f. Luscinus II Q. Aemilius Cn.f. Papus II

277P. Cornelius Cn.f. Rufinus II C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus I

276Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges II C. Genucius L.f. Clepsina

275M'. Curius M'.f. Dentatus II L. Cornelius Ti.f. Lentulus Caudinus

274M'. Curius M'.f. Dentatus III Ser. Cornelius P.f. Merenda

273C. Fabius M.f. Licinus C. Claudius M.f. Canina II

272L. Papirius L.f. Cursor II Sp. Carvilius C.f. Maximus II

Surrender of Tarentum, 272

271K. Quinctius L.f. Claudus L. Genucius L.f. Clepsina

270C. Genucius L.f. Clepsina II Cn. Cornelius P.f. Blasio

cities in Italy, despite the best effort of Pyrrhus, King of Epirus. Pyrrhus contributed an enduring phrase to discourse. Although he won his first battles against the Romans, the slaughter was so great, he commented that one more such victory and he would be ruined. Hence, a "Pyrrhic Victory," where one might as well have lost, because of the cost.

Carthage was the Great Power of the Western Mediterranean in these days, and relations with Rome had initially been friendly. But once the two powers found themselves strategically adjacent, Rome's attitude changed. Roman diplomacy towards Carthage became touchy and demanding, with a simmering hostility. The disputes were over Sicily, where Rome had no possessions, but of course any Greek cities appealing to Rome for help could become "allies." Carthage put up with this for a while, but the perhaps inevitable war broke out in 264. This was the First Punic (i.e. Phoenican) War, which lasted a punishing 20 years (264-241). Syracuse got caught in the middle, and eventually went over to the Romans, thereby preserving some


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#epirus


http://www.friesian.com/archon.htm#syracuse


269Q. Ogulnius L.f. Gallus C. Fabius C.f. Pictor

268P. Sempronius P.f. Sophus Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Russus

267M. Atilius M.f. Regulus L. Iulius L.f. Libo

266D. Iunius D.f. Pera N. Fabius C.f Pictor

265Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges L. Mamilus Q.f. Vitulus

264Ap. Claudius C.f. Caudex M. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus

First Punic War, 264-241

263M'. Valerius M.f. Maximus (Messalla) M'. Otacilius C.f. Crassus

262L. Postumius L.f. Megellus Q. Mamilius Q.f. Vitulus

261L. Valerius M.f. Flaccus T. Otacilius C.f. Crassus

260Cn. Cornelius L.f Scipio Asina C. Duilius M.f.

259L. Cornelius L.f. Scipio C. Aquillius M.f. Florus

258A. Atilius A.f. Caiatinus C. Sulpicius Q.f. Paterculus

257C. Atilius M.f. Regulus Cn. Cornelius P.f. Blasio II

256L. Manlius A.f. Vulso Longus Q. Caedicius Q.f. Suff.: M. Atilius M.f. Regulus II

autonomy. The land campaign was a tough one, but the decisive actions came at sea. Carthage was a thalassocracy, and the Romans could only contend by building a navy. The initial tactics, since the Roman were not knowledgeable seafarers, where to grapple and board Carthaginians ships. Until the Carthaginians could counter such tactics, the Romans got an advantage and experience at sea. They inexperience, however, told several times when Roman fleets were caught by storms at sea. Storms ended up doing more damage than the Carthaginians. Carthage was at a disadvantage in that the Carthaginian state did not have the manpower of the Roman, relying on allies and mercenaries; and since the state was essentially a commercial one, there was a certain lack of enthusiasm for the investment in military power that would have been necessary. Rome won Sicily, and then rubbed in its victory by annexing Corsica and Sardinia in 237.

By 220 Carthage itself had acquired new resources. Hamilcar Barca, the Carthaginian commander in Sicily during the First Punic War, prepared for the future by moving to Spain and enlarging Carthaginian possessions there. He died, but his son Hannibal planned on what would need to be done to deal with Rome. Once Rome acquired "allies" in Spain and began making demands, Hannibal knew it was time.



255Ser. Fulvius M.f Paetinus Nobilior M. Aemilius M.f. Paullus

254Cn. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Asina II A. Atilius A.f. Caiatinus II

253Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio C. Sempronius Ti.f. Blaesus

252C. Aurelius L.f. Cotta P. Servilius Q.f. Geminus

251L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus C. Furius C.f. Pacilus

250C. Atilius M.f. Regulus II L. Manlius A.f. Vulso II

249P. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher L. Iunius C.f. Pullus

248C. Aurelius L.f. Cotta II P. Servilius Q.f. Geminus II

247L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus II N. Fabius M.f. Buteo

246M'. Otacilius C.f. Crassus II M. Fabius C.f. Licinus

245M. Fabius M.f. Buteo C. Atilius A.f. Bulbus

244A. Manlius T.f. Torquatus Atticus C. Sempronius Ti.f. Blaesus II

243C. Fundanius C.f. Fundulus C. Sulpicius C.f. Galus

242C. Lutatius C.f. Catulus A. Postumius A.f. Albinus

241A. Manlius T.f. Torquatus Atticus II Q. Lutatius C.f. Cerco

What Hannibal did was to take his seasoned army from Spain and to march over the Alps into Italy, initiated the Second Punic War (218-201). This is the most serious threat that Rome ever faced to the growth of its power. It didn't help that Hannibal turned out to be one of the greatest generals in all of history. For centuries thereafter, Roman mothers could frighten their children with, "Hannibal is at the gates!" In three years, Hannibal won three crushing victories and killed two Roman Consuls. The third victory, at Cannae (in 216), all but annihilated four Legions, enveloping them on each flank and then surrounding them. This has become the ideal battle of military history, though rarely matched. Hannibal, however, labored against three insuprable disadvantages: (1) Rome had the manpower resources to recover quickly from the defeats; (2) Hannibal did not have a seige train and was unable to take or seriously threaten Roman cities; and (3) his hope that his victories would inspire defections from the cities of Latium, Campania, and Magna Graecia proved generally



240C. Claudius Ap.f Centho M. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus

239C. Mamilius Q.f. Turrinus Q. Valerius Q.f. Falto

238Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus P. Valerius Q.f. Falto

237L. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus Caudinus Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus

Occupation of Corsica & Sardinia, 237

236P. Cornelius L.f Lentulus Caudinus C. Licinius P.f. Varus

235T. Manlius T.f. Torquatus C. Atilius A.f. Bulbus II

234L. Postumius A.f. Albinus Sp. Carvilius Sp.f. Maximus (Ruga)

233Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus M'. Pomponius M'.f. Matho

232M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus M. Publicius L.f Malleolus

231M. Pomponius M'.f. Matho C. Papirius C.f. Maso

230M. Aemilius L.f. Barbula M. Iunius D.f. Pera

229L. Postumius A.f. Albinus II Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Centumalus

First Illyrian War, 229-228

228Sp. Carvilius Sp.f. Maximus II Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus II

227P. Valerius L.f. Flaccus M. Atilius M.f. Regulus

unfounded. His prospective allies knew what Rome was like, what Roman vengeance could be like, and Hannibal seemed to have little to offer them by way of certainties or sureties.

While Hannibal endured no real defeats in Italy, the strategy of Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, made dictator in 217, was to avoid battle. This made him Cunctator, "Delayer." Repudiation of this, and a determination to come to grips with Hannibal, simply led to Cannae. Fabius was vindicated, and now he has contributed another phrase to modern discourse, "Fabian tactics." This has even ended up in political history, as "Fabian Socialism," the idea that socialism could be instituted, not by an abrupt Marxist revolution, but through piecemeal and incremental victories. As a device to institute socialism, not only was this quite successful, but it continues to be successful even when everyone has forgotten, or at least doesn't admit, what the purpose of the process is -- and even the word "socialism" is avoided.


http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#modern


226M. Valerius M'.f. (Maximus) Messalla L. Apustius L.f. Fullo

225L. Aemilius Q.f. Papus C. Atilius M.f. Regulus

224T. Manlius T.f Torquatus II Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus II

223C. Flaminius C.f. P. Furius Sp.f. Philus

222Cn. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Calvus M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

221P. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Asina M. Minucius C.f. Rufus Suff.: M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II

220

M. Valerius P.f. Laevinus Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola Suff(?): L. Veturius L.f. Philo C. Lutatius C.f. Catulus

219L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus M. Livius M.f. Salinator

218P. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Ti. Sempronius C.f. Longus

Second Punic War, 218-201; Defeat by Hannibal at Trebia River, 218

217Cn. Servilius P.f. Geminus C. Flaminius C.f. II Suff.: M. Atilius M.f. Regulus II

Defeat by Hannibal at Lake Trasimene, Flaminius killed, Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus Dictator, 217

216L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus II C. Terentius C.f. Varro

While Hannibal was largely neutralized in Italy, Rome continued to dominate the sea and Roman strategy began to focus on conquering Spain in Hannibal's rear. At first this had its ups and downs, against Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal, and then seemed to be going very badly when the brothers P. Cornelius L.f. Scipio and Cn. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Calvus were both killed there in 211. They were immediately succeeded by the former's son, P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio -- who would become Africanus. Scipio captured New Carthage (Carthago Nova, Cartagena), Hamilcar's capital, in 209. Hasdrubal, defeated in 207, left to join Hannibal in Italy. C. Claudius Ti.f. Nero secretly took his army away from watching Hannibal and joined M. Livius M.f. Salinator at the River Metaurus to defeat and kill Hasdrubal. The head of Hannibal's brother was then thrown into his camp. This must have been the most bitter of moments for Hannibal, who now knew that he could expect no more from the resources of Spain -- all his father's work lost.

Wrapping things up in Spain, Scipio return to Rome and then led an invasion of Africa itself in 204. This had been tried in the First Punic War and had not gone well. Now Scipio tempted over the Carthagian ally, Masinissa of Numidia. The Numidians had supplied much of the best Carthaginian cavalry. Now, as



Defeat by Hannibal at Cannae, Paullus killed, Varro escapes, 216

215

Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus L. Postumius A.f. Albinus III Suff.: M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus II abd. Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus (Cunctator) III

214Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus IV M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus III

First Macedonian War, 214-205

213Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus II

212Ap. Claudius P.f. Pulcher Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus III

211P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Maximus Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Centumalus Maximus

210M. Valerius P.f. Laevinus II M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus IV

209Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus V Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus IV

208M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus V T. Quinctius L.f. Crispinus

207C. Claudius Ti.f. Nero M. Livius M.f. Salinator II

206Q. Caecilius L.f. Metellus L. Veturius L.f. Philo

205P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus P. Licinius P.f. Crassus Dives

204M. Cornelius M.f. Cethegus P. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus

Scipio Africanus invades Africa, 204

Hannibal at last returned to Africa to deal with the threat, this cavalry was turned against him when he finally met decisive defeat at Zama in 202. Carthage then repudiated Hannibal and the War was settled expeditiously. Carthage was left with a rump African state, with few rights to pursue her own policies. Rome became the dominant, almost the only, state in the Western Mediterranean.

A sad and ugly episode of the War was when M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus took Syracuse (which had switched sides to Carthage) in 212. Archemides, probably the greatest mathematician of antiquity, had used his powers of invention to create engines that helped withstand the Roman seige for three years. Before the city fell, Marcellus instructed his men to respect Archemides, but the great man was killed, for various legendary reasons, when a Roman soldier found him.

By 192 Rome had defeated Macedonia (Second Macedonian War, 200-196) in revenge for siding, for a while, with Carthage. T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus defeated Philip V at Cynoscelphalae (197) and proclaimed the "Freedom of Greece" at the Isthmian Games (196). This made Rome a player in the Aegean, and naturally it made enemies of anyone on the hither shore. This turned out to be the Seleucid King Antiochus III, the



http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#macedon



203Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio C. Servilius C.f. Geminus

202Ti. Claudius P.f. Nero M. Servilius C.f. Pulex Geminus

Scipio Africanus defeats Hannibal at Zama, 202

201Cn. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus P. Aelius Q.f. Paetus

200P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Maximus II C. Aurelius C.f. Cotta

Second Macedonian War, 200-196

199L. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus P. Villius Ti.f. Tappulus

198T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus Sex. Aelius Q.f. Paetus Catus

197C. Cornelius L.f Cethegus Q. Minucius C.f. Rufus

196L. Furius Sp.f. Purpureo M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

195M. Porcius M.f. Cato (the Elder) L. Valerius P.f. Flaccus

194P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus II Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Longus

193L. Cornelius L.f. Merula A. Minucius Q.f. Thermus

192L. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus Cn. Domitius L.f. Ahenobarbus

Syrian War, 192-188

191M'. Acilius C.f. Glabrio P. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Nasica

Great, who had marched to India and apparently restored the power of his Kingdom.

Antiochus, however great, was no match for the Romans. At Magnesia in 190, Antiochus was defeated by Scipio Africanus, who allowed the glory to go to his brother, L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio, as nominal commander. L. Cornelius was then honored with the agnômen Asiaticus or Asiagenus. The Seleucids ceded Anatolia north and west of the Taurus, never to return. The Romans rewarded Pergamum with most of this territory.

By 145 two major changes had occured. The Third Punic War (149-146) had ended with the annihilation of Carthage. This had been urged on by M. Porcius M.f. Cato, better known as Cato the Elder, who always ended his speeches with a ringing, Delenda est Carthago, "Carthage must be destroyed." It was, under the direction of P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus, adopted as a grandson of Scipio Africanus, accompanied by the Greek historian Polybius. At the same time, Greece was conquered by L. Mummius L.f. (Fourth


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#pergamum


190L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Asiaticus/Asiagenus C. Laelius C.f.

Defeat of Antiochus III the Great, 190

189Cn. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso M. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior

188C. Livius M.f. Salinator M. Valerius M.f. Messalla

187M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus C. Flaminius C.f.

186Sp. Postumius L.f. Albinus Q. Marcius L.f. Philippus

185Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher M. Sempronius M.f. Tuditanus

184P. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher L. Porcius L.f. Licinus

183Q. Fabius Q.f. Labeo M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

182L. Aemilius L.f. Paullus Cn. Baebius Q.f. Tamphilus

181P. Cornelius L.f. Cethegus M. Baebius Q.f. Tamphilus

180A. Postumius A.f. Albinus (Luscus) C. Calpurnius C.f. Piso Suff.: Q. Fulvius Cn.f. Flaccus

179L. Manlius L.f. Acidinus Fulvianus Q. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus

178M. Iunius M.f. Brutus A. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso

177C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher Ti. Sempronius P.f. Gracchus

Macedonian War, 149-146). Corinth was brutally sacked in an example of Roman revenge. Meanwhile, Parthia, independent since 248, tossed the Seleucids out of eastern Iran by 185. And Judaea had thrown off Seleucid control by 164.

By 74 BC, when Cyrene was made a province, Asia, meaning western Anatolia, had also been annexed, when the lands of Pergamum were willed to Rome in 133 by the last King, Attalus III. Cilicia was annexed after a campaign against priates by M. Antonius M.f. in 102. Cilician pirates had kept Rome well supplied with slaves. The existence of so many slaves led to notable slave revolts, in Sicily up to 100, and especially the huge revolt of Spartacus coming in 73. Warfare was carried on by Marius against the revolt of Jugurtha and invasions by the Celtic (not German) tribes of the Teutones and Cimbri. The Social War (91-88) led to Italian provincials being given full Roman citizenship. A different sort of conflict was between the Popular and the Senatorial parties at Rome itself, with Marius for the former and Sulla emerging for the latter. Sulla was given command to deal with Mithridates III of Pontus,






176Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Hispallus Q. Petillius Suff.: C. Valerius M.f. Laevinus

175P. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II

174Sp. Postumius A.f. Albinus Paullulus Q. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola

173L. Postumius A.f. Albinus M. Popillius P.f. Laenas

172C. Popillius P.f. Laenas P. Aelius P.f. Ligus

Third Macedonian War, 172-168/7

171P. Licinius C.f. Crassus C. Cassius C.f. Longinus

170A. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus A. Atilius C.f. Serranus

169Q. Marcius L.f. Philippus II Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio

168L. Aemilius L.f. Paullus II C. Licinius C.f. Crassus

167Q. Aelius P.f. Paetus M. Iunius M.f. Pennus

166C. Sulpicius C.f. Galus M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

165T. Manlius A.f. Torquatus Cn. Octavius Cn.f.

164A. Manlius A.f. Torquatus Q. Cassius L.f. Longinus

163Ti. Sempronius P.f. Gracchus II M'. Iuventius T.f. Thalna

who turned the Black Sea into a Pontic lake, overran Anatolia, and invaded Greece (First Mithridatic War, 88-85). It came down to Civil War between Marius and Sulla, with Marius in possession of Rome in 87. But then he died the next year. Sulla and the Senate took control. Sulla then had to deal with Mithridates again (Second Mithridatic War, 83-82). When Sulla died in 78, his political heir was Pompey.

By 44, when Caesar was assassinated, the outlines of the future were in place. L. Licinius L.f. Lucullus had been left by Sulla to fight Mithridates, which he did successfully. But his army didn't like him, and in 66 he was replace by Pompey, who then destroyed Mithridates and imposed a Roman settlement on Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine (67-63). Local autonomous states were allowed to remain, but it is revealing that several of these rulers sported names like Philorhômaios, "Lover of Rome."

Pompey enjoyed a unique opportunity in history, when he took Jerusalem in 63. According to Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias or Flavius Josephus):



162

P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica (Corculum) C. Marcius C.f. Figulus Suff.: P. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus

161M. Valerius M.f. Messalla C. Fannius C.f. Strabo

160L. Anicius L.f. Gallus M. Cornelius C.f. Cethegus

159Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Dolabella M. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior

158M. Aemilius M'.f. Lepidus C. Popillius P.f. Laenas II

157Sex. Iulius Sex.f. Caesar L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes

156L. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Lupus C. Marcius C.f. Figulus II

155P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica II M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus II

Carneades at Rome, introduces Greek philosophy, 155

154Q. Opimius Q.f. L. Postumius Sp.f. Albinus Suff.: M'. Acilius M'.f. Glabrio

153Q. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior T. Annius T.f. Luscus

152M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus III L. Valerius L.f. Flaccus

151L. Licinius M.f. Lucullus A. Postumius A.f. Albinus

150T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus M'. Acilius L.f. Balbus

Among the disasters of that time nothing sent such a shudder through the nation as the exposure by aliens of the Holy Place, hitherto screened from all eyes. Pompey and his staff went into the Sanctuary, which no one was permitted to enter but the high priest, and saw what it contained -- the lampstand and the lamps, the table, the libation cups and censers, all of solid gold, and a great heap of spices and sacred money totalling £2,000,000. Neither on this nor on any other of the sacred treasures did he lay a finger, and only one day after the capture he instructed the custodians to purify the Temple and perform the normal sacrifices. [The Jewish War, translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin, 1959, p.41]

Noteworthy in Joseph's description of the contents of the Sanctuary is the absence of the Ark of the Convent, whose fate is discussed


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#hellen


149L. Marcius C.f. Censorinus M'. Manilius P.f.

Third Punic War, 149-146

148Sp. Postumius Sp.f. Albinus Magnus L. Calpurnius C.f. Piso Caesoninus

Fourth Macedonian War, Rome annexes Greece & Macedonia, 148

147P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus C. Livius M. Aemiliani f. Drusus

146Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus L. Mummius L.f.

Carthage destroyed by Scipio Aemilianus, 146

145Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Aemilianus L. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus

144Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f Galba L. Aurelius L.?f. Cotta

143Ap. Claudius C.f. Pulcher Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Macedonicus

142L. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Calvus Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Servilianus

141Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio Q. Pompeius A.f.

140C. Laelius C.f. Q. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio

139Cn. Calpurnius Piso M. Popillius M.f. Laenas

138P. Cornelius P.F. Scipio Nasica Serapio D. Iunius M.f. Brutus (Callaicus)

137M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus Porcina C. Hostilius A.f. Mancinus

elsewhere.

Spartacus defeated several Roman armies, including that of the Consul C. Cassius L.f. Longinus at Mutina in 72. He was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified with his entire army along the Appian Way. The shadow of Spartacus, however, looms larger in modern political history than in Roman. The Communists who attempted a revolution in Berlin in 1919, led by Rosa Luxemburg, were the "Spartacists," seeing workers through Marxist theory as slaves under Capitalism. This Communist connection continued much later with the movie Spartacus (1960), whose screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo, a man who had been an active member of the Communist Party USA, was blacklisted after being found in Contempt of Congress, but then was given screen credit by Kirk Douglas, a star and producer of the movie, breaking the blacklist for the first time (it had been an agreement among Hollywood producers, with no legal force). While Trumbo wrote under a pseudonym during the blacklist, hardly even suffering professionally, and of course was not shipped off to a Gulag or shot the way similar dissidents in his beloved Soviet Union were, he continues to be celebrated as a martyr by the people who don't want to admit how bad Josef Stalin was or who, more disturbingly, still



http://www.friesian.com/marx.htm

http://www.friesian.com/variety.htm

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#essential



136L.? Furius Philus Sex. Atilius M.f. Serranus

First Sicilian Slave War, 136-132

135Ser. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus Q. Calpurnius C.f. Piso

134P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus II C. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus

133P. Mucius P.f. Scaevola Calpurnius L.f. Piso Frugi

Pergamum willed to Rome, 133

132P. Popillius C.f. Laenas P. Rupilius P.f.

131P. Licinius P.f. Crassus Mucianus L. Valerius L.f. Flaccus

130L. Cornelius Lentulus M. Perperna M.f. Suff.: Ap. Claudius Pulcher

129C. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus M'. Aquillius M'.f.

128Cn. Octavius Cn.f. T. Annius Rufus

127L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna

126M. Aemilius Lepidus L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes

125M. Plautius Hypsaeus M. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus

124C. Cassius Longinus C. Sextius C.f. Calvinus

promote forms of collectivism and political correctness that differ little from Soviet principles. Note well: Trumbo was not penalized for his opinions or for free speech -- he never exercised free speech by honestly voicing his opinions in public. His very success and celebrity were a joke on capitalism and clueless liberals.

Julius Caesar began his career as an adherent of Marius's popular party. However, Caesar allied with Pompey and Crassus in the First Triumvirate (60). This enabled him to win command in Gaul. "Cisalpine" Gaul, in northern Italy, was already Roman. "Transalpine" Gaul, beyond the Alps, he conquered from 58 to 51. This gave him a large and loyal army, with which he invaded Italy in 49, when he crossed the Rubicon River, the boundary of his command. By 44 BC, he had defeated Pompey (at Pharsalus, 48), dallied with Cleopatra, married her as a second wife (rather shocking to the Romans), and consolidated his position as de facto monarch. This was the Roman Empire in most essentials, though disposing of final opposition and the definitive forms of Imperial power had to be engineered by Augustus, who also had to defeat Caesar's own friend and adherent, M. Antonius M.f. -- Marc Anthony, who famously succeeded Caesar in the arms of Cleopatra.





123Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus (Baliaricus) T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus

122Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus C. Fannius M.f.

121L. Opimius Q.f. Q. Fabius Q. Aemiliani f. Maximus

120P. Manilius P.?f. C. Papirius Carbo

119L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus (Delmaticus) L. Aurelius Cotta

118M. Porcius M.f. Cato Q. Marcius Q.f. Rex

117L. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Diadematus Q. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola

116C. Licinius P.f. Geta Q. Fabius Q. Serviliani f. (Augur) Maximus Eburnus

115M. Aemilius M.f. Scaurus M. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus

114M'. Acilius M'.f. Balbus C. Porcius M.f. Cato

113C. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Caprarius Cn. Papirius C.f. Carbo

112M. Livius C.F. Drusus L. Calpurnius L.f. Piso Caesoninus

War against Jugurtha, 112-106

111P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica Serapio L. Calpurnius Bestia

110M. Minucius Q.f. Rufus Sp. Postumius Albinus

The cause of the Republican assassins of Caesar ended at the battle of Philippi in 42. Most notable among the assassins was Brutus, Marcus Iunius Brutus, "the noblest Roman of them all." Although Brutus's name meant "heavy" or "immovable," and was used to mean dull or stupid, and is now used to mean brutal ("You brute!" -- indeed, "brutal" is just the adj. brutalis from brutus), it was a cognômen of the gens Iunius and recalls the name of the first Consul of the Republic, L. Iunius M.f. Brutus. Brutus was widely respected for his conscientiousness, integrity, and patriotism -- though Cicero thought him guilty of extortion. He joined Pompey but was pardoned by Caesar after Pharsalus. His adherence to the plot against Caesar gave it most of its moral weight. When Caesar saw that Brutus was among his attackers on the Ides of March, he reportedly lost heart. Suetonius, C. Suetonius Tranquillus ["The Deified Julius," Lives of the Caesars], reports that Caesar said nothing during the attack, "though some have written" that he said to Brutus, Kaì sù téknon? "And you,



109Q. Caecilius L.f. Metellus (Numidicus) M. Iunius D.f. Silanus

l08Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Q.? Hortensius Suff.: M. Aemilius Scaurus

107L. Cassius L.f. Longinus C. Marius C.f.

l06C. Atilius Serranus Q. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio

105P. Rutilius P.f. Rufus Cn. Mallius Cn.f. Maximus

104C. Marius C.f. II C. Flavius C.f. Fimbria

Second Sicilian Slave War, 104-100

103C. Marius C.f. III L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes

102C. Marius C.f. IV Q. Lutatius Q.f. Catulus

Marius defeats Teutones & Cimbri, 102-101; anti-piracy campaign in Cilicia, 102

101C. Marius C.f. V M'. Aquillius M'.f.

100C. Marius C.f VI L. Valerius L.f. Flaccus

99M. Antonius M.f. A. Postumius Albinus

98Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Nepos T. Didius T.f.

97Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulas P. Licinius M.f. Crassus

child?" in Greek [Loeb Classical Library, Suetonius, Volume I, Harvard, 1913, 1998, p.140-141 -- Shakespeare puts it, loosely, in Latin, Et tu, Brute?]. This phrase, among other things, continues to fuel speculation that Brutus was actually Caesar's own natural son, a twist that puts the whole business in an even more tragic light than it already has. Although driven out of Rome by riots, in 43 the Senate itself rewarded Brutus with a proconsular command in the Balkans. Nevertheless, the matter would be settled by force, and after the defeat by Anthony and Octavian at Philippi, Brutus committed suicide. The Roman Republic thus may be said to have ended with a Iunius Brutus the way it had begun with a Iunius Brutus.

So, we must ask, what went wrong with the Roman Republic? From Polybius to Machiavelli and beyond, it was admired as a system of government, and it did have a good run, but in the end it unquestionably failed. What happened?



http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm#note


96Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus C. Cassius L.f. Longinus

95L. Licinius L.f. Crassus Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola

94C. Coelius C.f. Caldus L. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus

93C. Valerius C.f. Flaccus M. Herennius M.f.

92C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher M. Perperna M.f.

91L. Marcius Q.f. Philippus Sex. Iulius C.f. Caesar

Social War, 91-87

90L. Iulius L.f. Caesar P. Rutilius L.f. Lupus

89Cn. Pompeius Sex.f. Strabo L. Porcius M.f. Cato

88L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla (Felix) Q. Pompeius Q.f. Rufus

First Mithridatic War, 88-85

87Cn. Octavius Cn.f. L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna Suff.: L. Cornelius Merula

Marius seizes Rome, 87

86L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna II C. Marius C.f. VII Suff.: L. Valerius C.?f. Flaccus

Marius dies, 86

85L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna III Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo

Machiavelli, in a tradition from the Greeks to the present, thought that that the Roman Republic worked because of a mixture of institutions, designed to correct each other and limit the abuses that various pure forms of government would have. Thus, he believed that Monarchy alone led to Tyranny, Aristocracy alone let to Oligarchy, and Democracy alone led to Anarchy. The Republic included a (limited) Monarchical power in the Consuls, Aristocratic power in the Senate, and Democratic power in the Tribunes and other institutions of the Plebs. We have other features, such as the custom for most of the Republic that one Consul would be from the Patrician/Senatorial class, while the other would be a Pleb.

Since, for at least the last century, most trendy political opinion has despised the principles of limited government and naively imagined that the more democracy the better, most recent judgment about the Roman Republic would be that it was insufficiently democratic. Indeed, a great deal of the political conflict through the whole history of the Republic was in the direction of greater democracy, of greater power for the Plebs; and for the last century, from Marius to Caesar, there was a virtual, and sometimes very real, civil war between Senatorial and Popular factions. That was perhaps initiated by the two Gracchi brothers, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (Tribune 133) and C. Sempronius



http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm#note


84Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo II L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna IV

83L. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Asiaticus C. Norbanus

Second Mithridatic War, 83-82

82C. Marius C.f. Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo III

Sulla Dictator, 82-79

81M. Tullius M.f. Decula Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Dolabella

80L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix II Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius

79P. Servilius C.f. Vatia (Isauricus) Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher

78M. Aemilius Q.f Lepidus Q. Lutatius Q.f. Catulus

77D. Iunius D.f. Brutus Mam. Aemilius Mam.f. Lepidus Livianus

76Cn. Octavius M.f. C. Scribonius C.f. Curio

75L. Octavius Cn.f. C. Aurelius M.f. Cotta

74L. Licinius L.f. Lucullus M. Aurelius M.f. Cotta

Third Mithridatic War, 74-63

73M. Terentius M.f. Varro Lucullus C. Cassius L.f. Longinus (Varus?)

Slave Revolt of Spartacus, 73-71

Gracchus (Tribune 123 & 122). A land reform bill, trying to redistribute agricultural holdings to small farmers, instead of their being worked by slaves for landlords, got Tiberius lynched by Senatorial opponents. Gaius continued with other democratizing proposals but also provoked, for the time being, successful opposition. Their cause, however, continued and would be championed, not always consistently, by Marius and Caesar. The trouble with viewing this history as a simple Aristocracy vs. Democracy morality play is that in winning, the leader of the Popular faction, Julius Caesar, did not usher in utopian Democracy but simply dictatorship and then a very durable Monarchy. Disturbingly, this is no less than what Plato would have predicted for the outcome of democratization.

The key to all this is the prinicple of rent-seeking, the desire to live off one's capital, off the labor of others, or off pseudo-property created by political fiat (e.g. monopolies, unnecessary offices, etc.). With the cynicism of politicians, this is obvious. Even uncynical politicians, who may be above mere power seeking, inevitably pass from the scene and are rapidly replaced by more mercenary and venal successors. Roman politicians are rarely either purely idealistic or completely cynical. Whether someone like Caesar thought he was doing good or was simply out for himself is a




http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm



72L. Gellius L.f. Poplicola Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Clodianus

71P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Sura Cn. Aufidius Cn.f. Orestes

Crassus defeats Spartacus, 71

70Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus M. Licinius P.f. Crassus

69Q. Hortensius L.f. Hortalus Q. Caecilius C.f. Metellus (Creticus)

68L. Caecilius C.f. Metellus Q. Marcius Q.f. Rex Suff.: Servilius Vatia

67C. Calpurnius Piso M'. Acilius M'.f. Glabrio

Pompey's Settlement of the East, 67-63

66M'. Aemilius Lepidus L. Volcacius Tullus

65L. Aurelius M.f. Cotta L. Manlius L.f. Torquatus

64L. Iulius L.f. Caesar C. Marcius C.f. Figulus

63M. Tullius M.f. Cicero C. Antonius M.f. Hybrida

62D. Iunius M.f. Silanus L. Licinius L.f. Murena

61M. Pupius M.f. Piso Frugi Calpurnianus M. Valerius M.f. Messalla Niger

60Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Celer L. Afranius A.f.

First Triumvirate, Pompey, Caesar, & Crassus, 60

good question. They were rarely unwilling to employ the support of the opposition if circumstances warranted or allowed it. None of this is suprising. More importantly, however, is the fact that democracy can also easily become a form of rent-seeking, with politicians promising benefits in general. The triumph of Caesar and the Empire depended, in a sense, on the essential tendency of democracy, even if the forms and functions of democracy were overriden and gradually eliminated. The means of this triumph can be summed up in a familiar phrase: Panem et Circenses, "Bread and Circuses." Free food and free entertainment. The population of Rome, and later of Constantinople, was favored with a free ration -- one reason why Augustus kept Egypt, with its agricultural productivity, as his personal possession. This meant that large parts of the populations of the metropolitan cities of the Roman Empire didn't need to work much for a living and were provided with something else to do. The loss of productivity, creativity, and enterprise can hardly be imagined. The migration of power and intiative out of Rome itself, however, does not surprise. The state was much better off once that happened, and the subsequent loss of North Africa and then Egypt, the breadbaskets of the Empire, eventually ended the possibility of free rations -- though, at the same time, such reductions in territory greatly limited the resources



59C. Iulius C.f. Caesar M. Calpurnius C.f. Bibulus

58L. Calpurnius L.f. Piso Caesoninus A. Gabinius A.f.

Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, 58-51

57P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Spinther Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Nepos

56Cn. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Marcellinus L. Marcius L.f. Philippus

55Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus II M. Licinius P.f. Crassus II

54L. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher

53Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus M. Valerius Messalla Rufus

Parthians kill Crassus at Carrhae, 53

52Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus III Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius Scipio

51Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Rufus M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

50L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus Lepidus C. Claudius C.f. Marcellus

49C. Claudius M.f. Marcellus L. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Crus

Caesar Crosses Rubicon, Dictator, 49

48C. Iulius C.f. Caesar II P. Servilius P.f. Vatia Isauricus

Pompey defeated by Caesar, murdered in Egypt, 48

available for recovery.

The institutions under which this all happened, however admired by Machiavelli or others, obviously allowed for their degeneration. The principles were not wrong, but their weaknesses can be identified. When military commands were political offices, the danger of a

successful general, with loyal troops, using his army for his own political purposes became very great. Caesar could cross the Rubicon because his men were willing to obey illegal orders and because there was no army or commander his equal in his way. In comparison to such a general, who might hold a command for years, the power of the legal Executives of the state, the Consuls, was paltry. With this in mind, one understands why the President of the United States, in office for a substantial four years, is Constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief over armed forces whose own tradition is apolitical. The political appointment of generals, especially in the Civil War, has existed in American history, but successful generals, from the Civil War on, have tended to be career military professionals. Generals dissatisfied with political decisions concerning



http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm


47Q. Fufius Q.f. Calenus P. Vatinius P.f.

Caesar Dictator II, 47-46

46C. Iulius C.f. Caesar III M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus

Caesar Dictator III, 46-45

45

C. Iulius C.f. Caesar IV (without collega) Suff.: Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus C. Trebonius C.f. C. Caninus C.f. Rebilus

Caesar Dictator IV, 45-44

44C. Iulius C.f. Caesar V M. Antonius M.f. Suff.: P. Cornelius P.f Dolabella

Caesar Dictator for Life, assassinated, 44 BC

43

C. Vibius C.f. Pansa Caetronianus A. Hirtius A.f. Suff.: C. Iulius C.f. Caesar Octavianus Q. Pedius (Q.f.?) P. Ventidius P.f. C. Carrinas C.f.

Second Triumvirate, Antony, Lepidus, & Octavian, Cicero executed, 43

42M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II L. Munatius L.f. Plancus

41L. Antonius M.f. P. Servilius P.f. Vatia Isauricus II

40

Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus II C. Asinius Cn.f. Pollio Suff.:L. Cornelius L.f. Balbus P. Canidius P.f. Crassus

them, like Robert E. Lee, Joseph Stillwell, or Douglas McArthur, might complain, but would end up doing nothing worse than resigning. Also, a modern army is so dependant on its logisical support, ultimately back to civilian sources, that no general really commands an independent force.

Thomas Jefferson said that when he was young, he and his friends used to say, "Where annual election ends, tyranny begins." He was unhappy with how long the term of the President was, was appalled at the term of a Senator (six years), but was terrified that the President could be elected over and over again. What frightened him so was the example of Poland, where the election of the Kings of Poland had come entirely under the control of foreign powers. As it happened, for more than the first century of American history, all the Presidents who might have successfully run for a third term -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Grant -- declined to do so. The precedent of Washington, who could easily have been President, or King, for Life, came to be viewed as morally binding.

Thus, the Julius Caesar of American history was no general but a President, the one who broke with Washington's



http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#valois


39

L. Marcius L.f. Censorinus C. Calvisius C.f. Sabinus Suff.: C. Cocceius (Balbus) P. Alfenus P.f. Varus

38

Ap. Claudius C.f. Pulcher C. Norbanus C.f. Flaccus Suff.: L. Cornelius L. Marcius L.f. Philippus

37M. Vipsanius L.f Agrippa L. Caninus L.f. Gallus Suff.: T. Statilius T.f. Taurus

36

L. Gellius L.f Poplicola M. Cocceius Nerva Suff.: L. Nonius (L.f Asprenas) Marcius

35

L. Cornificius L.f. Sex. Pompeius Sex.f. Suff.: P. Cornelius (P.f. Scipio) T. Peducaeus

34

M. Antonius M.f. II L. Scribonius L.f. Libo Suff.: L. Sempronius L.f. Atratinus Paullus Aemilius L.f. Lepidus C. Memmius C.f. M. Herennius

33

Imp. Caesar Divi f. II L. Volcacius L.f. Tullus Suff.: L. Autronius P.f. Paetus L. Flavius C. Fonteius C.f. Capito M. Acilius (M'. f.?) Glabrio L. Vinicius M.f. Q. Laronius

32

Cn. Domitius L.f. Ahenobarbus C. Sosius C.f. Suff.: L. Cornelius M. Valerius Messalla

precedent (literally becoming President for Life), and the one who turned government into a promise of ever increasing benefits, rations, and subsidies. This was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the damage done to American government is still evident, not just in the rent-seeking practices that now overwhelm political life, but in the respect paid to Roosevelt by both Democrats and Republicans. Neither Party intends to reverse the principle, ennunciated in their day and rejected by Jefferson and Madison, but embraced by Roosevelt, that the United States Government can tax and spend money for any purpose, as long as this can be construed as promoting the "general welfare." Free benefits for everyone would certainly produce a kind of "general welfare," except for the effects produced similar to the Panem et Circenses. Again the damage to productivity, creativity, and enterprise can only be vaguely estimated, though the decline in all of these in countries, like France, where taxation and welfare provisions are much greater than in the United States, is obvious to anyone who cares to look. While dictatorship is not an immediate threat, we already see one interesting effect, where aggitation for more democracy and honest elections has led to a law, passed by






31Imp. Caesar Divi f. III M. Valerius M.f. Messalla Corvinus Suff.: M. Titius L.f. Cn. Pompeius Q.f.

30

Imp. Caesar Divi f. IV M. Licinius M.f. Crassus Suff.: C. Antistius C.f. Vetus M. Tullius M.f. Cicero L. Saenius L.f.

Suicides of Antony & Cleopatra, annexation of Egypt, 30

29Imp. Caesar Divi f. V Sex. Appuleius Sex.f. Suff.: Potitus Valerius M.f. Messalla

28Imp. Caesar Divi f. VI M. Vipsanius L.f. Agrippa II

27Imp. Caesar Divi f. VII M. Vipsanius L.f. Agrippa III

Octavian becomes Augustus, 27

Congress, approved by the President, and allowed by the Supreme Court, that prohibits criticism of candidates for federal office in advertisements purchased by advocacy groups. This grotesquely abridges the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is rather obviously motivated, like most campaign "reform" laws, by the desire to protect politicians from criticism. Avenues thus open to real tyranny and perhaps even to real Caesars, leaving us with no confidence that modern Democracies, or even the Great Republic itself, might not go the way of the Respublica Romana.

As Caesar was rising to power, one of his most vocal critics was Cato the Younger, M. Procius Cato. Cato originally opposed all the Triumvirs; but as hope for withstanding Caesar

focused on Pompey, he threw his lot with that faction. Cato ended up holding Utica in North Africa (hence the informal agnômen "Uticensis") under Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius Scipio (Consul with Pompey in 52), who fled there after Pharsalus. Caesar invaded North Africa in 46 and defeated the Pompeian forces at Thapsus. Metellus and Cato both committed suicide. Cato's defense of the Republic was remembered in the British Whig politics of the 18th century. Joseph Addison (1672-1719, admired more than Locke by Hume) wrote a play, Cato: A Tragedy, in 1713:

While Cato lives, Caesar will blush to see Mankind enslaved, and be ashamed of empire. [Act IV, scene iv]

This was followed by a series of 138 letters under the pseudonym "Cato," published by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, between 1720 and 1723. These Cato's Letter were reprinted many times, in Britain and in America, and played a large part, after the pattern of John Locke's natural law and natural rights justification of the Glorious Revolution (1688), in the formulation of the ideology of the American Revolution. Trenchard died in 1723; and Gordon, who did not die until 1750, threw his lot, a bit like Cato himself, with a particular political faction. The Whig Party of Sir Robert Walpole (considered the first Prime Minister of England), however, was rather more suitable than the faction of Pompey the





http://www.friesian.com/conserv.htm

http://www.friesian.com/hume.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#prime


Great. Today, both Cato himself and the Cato's Letters are remembered in the work of the Cato Institute, whose efforts on behalf of limited, Jeffersonian, and Constitutional government are occasionally even noticed in Washington.

Consuls of the Roman Empire

Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History

The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History

Rome and Romania

● Animated History of Romania


Home Page

Copyright (c) 2004, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved


http://www.cato.org/

http://www.cato.org/








"History Instructing Youth," United States $1 Silver Certificate, "Educational Series," 1896

Essays

● The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Pericles to Heinlein [29.3K]

● Decadence, Rome and Romania, and the Emperors Who Weren't [53.8K]

● The Vlach Connection, and Further Reflections on Roman History [54.5K]

● The Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian [28.7K] ❍ The Semitic and Other Afroasiatic Languages [24.8K]

● Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom [49.5K]

● Conservatism, History, and Progress [26.7K]

● Violence, Non-Violence, and Progress in History [40.2K]

http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm (1 of 27)8/25/2006 5:36:36 AM

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm




http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm#semitic

http://www.friesian.com/tombs.htm

http://www.friesian.com/conserv.htm

http://www.friesian.com/gandhi.htm


● The Great Republic: Presidents and States of the United States, and Comments on American History [172.6K]

❍ Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ❍ The Old Rebublic, 1789-1861

■ The Star-Spangled Banner [40.2K] ■ California [67.4K] ■ Sequoia ■ Sam Houston & Texas

■ Elisabet Ney ■ The Astors [64.2K] ■ The Vanderbilts [107.9K]

❍ The Middle Rebublic, 1861-1933 ■ John Brown's Body and The Battle Hymn of the Republic [40.1K] ■ Marching Through Georgia [15.2K] ■ American Colonial Possessions ■ The Kings of Hawai'i [24.6K]

■ How to Pronounce "Hawai'i" ■ A Syllabary for Hawaiian

■ The Rockefellers [64.2K] ■ The Hearsts ■ The Fords ■ The Roosevelts & Delanos

❍ The New Rebublic, 1933-2005? ■ Six Kinds of United States Paper Currency [48.7K]

■ American Dollars ■ Statistics on Inflation, 1946-1997

■ Alpine County and Equal Representation [26.2K] ■ The Hiltons [7.3K] ■ The Kennedies [60.7K] ■ The Bushes [67.4K]

❍ The Next Rebublic, 2005?-?

● British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime [72.3K] ❍ The Bank of England ❍ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947

● The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History [9.4K] ❍ The Essential Anti-Communist Bibliography

■ The Post-Modern Left

Hence arises the fact that everything better struggles through only with




http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#supreme

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#old

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#banner


http://www.friesian.com/ross/calif.htm#sequoia

http://www.friesian.com/ross/calif.htm#houston

http://www.friesian.com/ross/calif.htm#ney

http://www.friesian.com/capit-1.htm#astors

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#vanderbilt

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#middle

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#johnbrown

http://www.friesian.com/ross/marching.htm

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#possess

http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm

http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm#pronounce

http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm#syllabary

http://www.friesian.com/capit-1.htm#johnd

http://www.friesian.com/capit-1.htm#hearst

http://www.friesian.com/capit-1.htm#ford

http://www.friesian.com/capit-1.htm#delano

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#new

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm

http://www.friesian.com/coins.htm#note

http://www.friesian.com/inflatin.htm

http://www.friesian.com/capit-2.htm#apline

http://www.friesian.com/ross/trinity.htm#hiltons

http://www.friesian.com/corrupt.htm#kennedy

http://www.friesian.com/ross/calif.htm#bush

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm#next

http://www.friesian.com/coins.htm

http://www.friesian.com/coins.htm#bank

http://www.friesian.com/coins.htm#india


http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#essential



difficulty, becomes effective, or meets with a hearing, but the absurd and perverse in the realm of thought, the dull and tasteless in the sphere of art, and the wicked and fraudulent in the sphere of action, really assert a supremacy that is disturbed only by brief interruptions.

Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, §59, p. 324 [Dover Publications, 1966, E.F.J. Payne translation]

● Military History ❍ The Battleship Kongô [55.9K]

■ Japanese Battleships ■ U.S. Battle Cruisers & Aircraft Carrier Names

❍ The Pearl Harbor Strike Force [30.3K] ■ Advanced Japanese Destroyers of World War II [17.7K] ■ A Guadalcanal Chronology & Order of Battle, 7 August 1942 - 6 March 1943 [38.7K] ■ Naval Aircraft Designations of Japan and the United States [28.2K]

■ U.S. Army Air Corps, Air Force, and Navy-Airforce Aircraft Designations ❍ Zen and the Art of Divebombing, or The Dark Side of the Tao [77.3K] ❍ Dreadnought [87.0K]

■ Russian Battleships ■ United States Battleships and Other Ships Named After States

■ United States Ships Named After Rivers ■ Japanese Battleships ■ Dreadnoughts in Other Navies

❍ The Treaty Cruisers ■ Renamed U.S. Cruisers ■ U.S. Light Aircraft Carriers and Lost Carriers

❍ Military Rank [55.7K] ■ Strategy, Tactics, and Operations ■ Feudal Hierarchy

❍ Reflections on Fencing [12.8K] ■ Sir Richard Burton, 1821-1890

...and thus we can understand how the work of War, although so plain and simple in its effects, can never be conducted with distinguished success by people without distinguished powers of the understanding.

Carl von Clausewitz, On War [Penguin Classics, 1968, 1982, p. 155]


http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm#navy

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm#note-2

http://www.friesian.com/pearl.htm

http://www.friesian.com/destroy.htm

http://www.friesian.com/history/guadal.htm

http://www.friesian.com/history/navy.htm

http://www.friesian.com/history/navy.htm#air

http://www.friesian.com/divebomb.htm


http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#navy

http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#battleships

http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#rivers


http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#othernavies

http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#treaty

http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#note

http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#carriers

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#ops


http://www.friesian.com/ross/fencing.htm

http://www.friesian.com/ross/fencing.htm#burton


● Calendars ❍ Groundhog Day and Chinese Astronomy [15.8K] ❍ Julian Day Numbers for dates on the Gregorian and Julian Calendars [14.8K] ❍ The Solar Terms and the Chinese Calendar [19.7K]

■ The Chinese 60 Year Calendar Cycle ■ The Occurrence of the Solar Terms 1995-2006

❍ Chronology and Julian Day Numbers for the Egyptian XII Dynasty [35.4K] ■ The Egyptian Calendar

❍ The Babylonian Calendar [69.0K] ❍ The Jewish and Moslem Calendars with the Era of Nabonassar

■ The Jewish Calendar ■ Islâmic Dates with Julian Day Numbers

❍ A Modern Luni-Solar Calendar ❍ The Determination of Easter [34.3K] ❍ The Greek Orthodox and Soviet Calendar Reforms [41.4K] ❍ Iranian Calendars ❍ The Calendar in India ❍ The Mayan Calendar [86.7K] ❍ Traditional English Names of Full Moons, and the "Blue Moon" ❍ The French Revolutionary Calendar ❍ The Days of the Week [15.6K]

■ David Ewing Duncan's Calendar [Avon, 1998]

The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration; as the playwright [Sophocles] says, it "brings to light that which was unseen and shrouds from us that which was manifest." Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion.

Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad, translated by E.R.A. Sewter [Penguin Classics, 1969, p.17]. Contemporary image of the Empress Maria, the Alan.


http://www.friesian.com/grndhog.htm

http://www.friesian.com/numbers.htm

http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm

http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm#60

http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm#terms

http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm

http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm#calendar

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#nabo

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#jewish

http://www.friesian.com/numbers.htm#islam

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#modern

http://www.friesian.com/easter.htm

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#calendar

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#iran

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#india

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#calendar

http://www.friesian.com/century.htm#blue

http://www.friesian.com/century.htm#note

http://www.friesian.com/week.htm

http://www.friesian.com/week.htm#note-2


Book Reviews

● American Sphinx, The Character of Thomas Jefferson, Joseph J. Ellis, Alfred A. Knopf, 1997 [18.8K]

● Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, A History of the American Civil War, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court, 1996 [27.2K]

❍ I am a Union man [52.3K] ■ Marching Through Georgia [15.2]

Should a traveller, returning from a far country, bring us an account of men, wholly different from any with whom we were ever acquainted; men, who were entirely divested of avarice, ambition, or revenge; who knew no pleasure but friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should immediately, from these circumstances, detect the falsehood, and prove him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and dragons, miracles and prodigies. And if we would explode any forgery in history, we cannot make use of a more convincing argument, than to prove, that the actions ascribed to any person are directly contrary to the course of nature, and that no human motives, in such circumstances, could ever induce him to such a conduct.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. VIII, Part I, p. 65 [Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1972, L.A. Selby-Bigge edition, p. 84]

Reference Resources

● Guide and Index to Lists of Rulers [59.5K] ❍ Feudal Hierarchy


http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

http://www.friesian.com/civil.htm

http://www.friesian.com/civil.htm

http://www.friesian.com/ross/ross-7.htm#union

http://www.friesian.com/ross/marching.htm

http://www.friesian.com/hume.htm




Most of the following reference items are perhaps not, strictly speaking, philosophy of history. The editorial intention originally was to provide some material of more general interest than the purely philosophical content of The Proceedings of the Friesian School to attract attention to the website. However,

history provides countless examples for the application of ideas from both ethics and political economy. If philosophy is to be historically practical in the Socratic or Platonic sense, then it helps to know history. Political commitment is also an important

characrteristic of the Friesian School. Therefore, there has been increasing use of the historical files for these purposes. Not all of history may be covered here, but a very extensive fragment of it certainly is.

● The Earliest Civilizations ❍ Languages with more than 30,000,000 Speakers as of 1993 [48.8K] ❍ "Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages [19.8K] ❍ Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages ❍ The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe [36.1K]

● Index of Egyptian History [49.6K] ❍ The Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian [28.7K] ❍ Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom [49.5K]

● The Archaic or Early Dynastic Period of Egypt ❍ I Dynasty ❍ II Dynasty

● The Old Kingdom of Egypt ❍ III Dynasty ❍ IV Dynasty ❍ V Dynasty ❍ VI Dynasty

● Index of Mesopotamian and Ancient Middle Eastern History ● Kings of Sumer and Akkad ● The First Intermediate Period of Egypt

❍ VII Dynasty ❍ VIII Dynasty ❍ IX Dynasty ❍ X Dynasty

● The Middle Kingdom of Egypt [35.4K] ❍ XI Dynasty ❍ Chronology and Julian Day Numbers for the Egyptian XII Dynasty

■ The Egyptian Calendar


http://www.friesian.com/

http://www.friesian.com/

http://www.britannica.com/

http://www.friesian.com/ethics.htm

http://www.friesian.com/econ.htm

http://www.friesian.com/friesian.htm

http://www.friesian.com/upan.htm#civiliz

http://www.friesian.com/upan.htm

http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm

http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm#sanskrit

http://www.friesian.com/upan.htm#steppe

http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm


http://www.friesian.com/tombs.htm

http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#archaic

http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#1


http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#old





http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#mesopotamia

http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#sumer

http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm#first





http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm

http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm#11


http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm#calendar


● The Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods ● The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt

❍ XIII Dynasty ❍ XIV Dynasty ❍ XV Dynasty ❍ XVI Dynasty ❍ XVII Dynasty

● Chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom [96.9K] ❍ XVIII Dynasty ❍ XIX Dynasty ❍ XX Dynasty ❍ Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom, List

● Kings of Babylonia ❍ The Canon of Kings

● Kings of Assyria ● Kings of the Hittites ● Kings of Mitanni ● Kings of Urart.u ● Kings of Israel and Judah ● Arabia Felix, Yemen [226.5K]

❍ at-Tababi'a ❍ Saba/Sheba ❍ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar

● The Third Intermediate Period of Egypt ❍ XXI Dynasty ❍ XXII Dynasty ❍ XXIII Dynasty ❍ XXIV Dynasty ❍ XXV Dynasty & Kings of Kush

● Historical Background to Greek Philosophy, Middle Eastern Political Events During the Course of Greek Philosophy [109.9K]

❍ Kings of Assyria ❍ Kings of Babylon, Neo-Babylonian Period ❍ Kings of the Medes ❍ Kings of Lydia ❍ Kings of Phrygia ❍ Kings of Egypt in the Late Period

■ XXVI Dynasty ■ XXVII (& "XXXI") Dynasty ■ XXVIII Dynasty ■ XXIX Dynasty


http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm#babylon

http://www.friesian.com/notes/midking.htm#second






http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm




http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#kv

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#babylon

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#canon

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#assyria

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#hittite

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#mitanni

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#urartu

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#israel

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#yemen

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#tababia

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#saba

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#himyar

http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#late








http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#assyria

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#babylon

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#media

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#lydia

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#phrygia

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#text-2


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#525


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#mendes


■ XXX Dynasty ❍ Great Kings of Persia, Achaemenids

■ Genealogy of the Achaemenids ❍ Kings of Macedonia ❍ Eponymous Archons of Athens [13.2K] ❍ Dialects of Greek ❍ Kings of Sparta ❍ Tyrants and Kings of Syracuse ❍ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K] ❍ The Bosporan Kingdom

● Historical Background to Hellenistic Philosophy & Hellenistic Monarchs [135.9K] ❍ Macedonian Great Kings ❍ Kings of Epirus ❍ The Bosporan Kingdom ❍ Antigonid Kings ❍ Kings of Thrace ❍ Kings of Macedonia ❍ Aetolian & Achaean Leagues ❍ Tyrants and Kings of Syracuse ❍ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K] ❍ The Seleucids, Macedonian Kings of Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.

■ The Seven Wonders of the World ■ Kings of Armenia [42.0K] ■ Kings of Pontus ■ Chiefs & Kings of Galatia ■ Kings of Bithynia ■ The Attalids of Pergamum ■ Kings of Cappadocia ■ Macedonian Kings of Bactria ■ The Parthian Arsacids [28.2] ■ Leaders & Kings of Judaea ■ Kings of Commagene ■ Kings of Caria ■ Kings of Osrhoene or Edessa ■ Kings of Emesa or Homs

❍ The Ptolemies, Macedonian Kings of Egypt ("XXXII" Dynasty) ❍ The Kingdom of the Nabataeans ❍ Arabia Felix, Yemen [226.5K]

■ at-Tababi'a ■ Saba/Sheba ■ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar


http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#sebennytus

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#persia

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#macedon

http://www.friesian.com/archon.htm

http://www.friesian.com/archon.htm#dialects

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#sparta








http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#thrace

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#macedon

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#leagues



http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#wonders



http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#galatia

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#bithynia


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#cappadocia



http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#commagene

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#caria

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#edessa

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#homs


http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#petra






● Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD, Maps and List of Emperors [264.3K] ❍ Index

■ Animated History of Romania [202.5K] ■ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K] ■ Sources

❍ First Empire, "Rome," 27 BC-284 ■ A. "Principate," 27 BC-235, 261 years

■ 1. JULIO-CLAUDIANS ■ Consuls of the Roman Empire [50.7K] ■ Roman Coinage

■ 2. The Bosporan Kingdom ■ 3. Armenia, c.330 BC-428 AD [42.0K]

■ The Patriarchs of Armenia [213.4K] ■ 4. Numidia ■ 5. Judaea ■ 6. Nabataeans ■ 7. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES ■ 8. SEVERANS

■ B. Crisis of the Third Century, 235-284, 49 Years ■ Crisis of the Third Century Chart [27.0K]

❍ Second Empire, Early "Romania," 284-610 ■ A. "Dominate," 284-379, 95 years

■ 1. TETRARCHS ■ Chart of the Tetrarchy [11.9K] ■ Late Roman Capitals [10.9]

■ 2. CONSTANTIANS ■ The Approaches and Environs of Constantinople [22.1K] ■ The Theodosian Walls of Constantinople [23.0K]

■ Cross Section of the Walls [7.0K] ■ The Patriarchs of Jerusalem [213.4K] ■ The Patriarchs of Antioch ■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople

■ 3. VALENTIANS ■ B. Crisis of the Fifth Century, 379-476, 97 Years

■ 1. THEODOSIANS ■ Bishops & Archbishops of Milan ■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon ■ Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch ■ King Arthur ■ Visigoths [64.3K] ■ Burgundians ■ Vandals ■ Western Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD [18.1K]






http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#petra

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#jerusalem

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#antioch


http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#milanbishop


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#syrian


■ Eastern Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD [15.2K] ■ The Roman Army, c. 408 AD [15.1K]

■ 2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS ■ the End of Roman Gaul

■ C. The East Alone, 476-518, 42 Years ■ 1. LEONINES

■ Ostrogoths ■ Roman Coinage

■ D. Returning to the West, 518-610, 92 years ■ 1. JUSTINIANS

■ Lombards ■ Provinces at the Death of Justinian, 565 AD

■ 2. Georgia, 588-1505 [42.0K] ■ 3. Ghassanids, 220-638

❍ Third Empire, Middle "Romania," Early "Byzantium," 610-1059 ■ A. The Advent of Islam, 610-802, 192 years

■ 1. HERACLIANS ■ The Organization of the Themes and Exarchates, at the

Death of Constans II, 668 AD ■ 2. Armenia, 628-806 AD [42.0]

■ Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem ■ 3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS) ■ 4. Doges (Dukes) of Venice, 727-1797

■ Patriarchs of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice [11.8K] ■ B. Revival and Ascendency, 802-1059, 257 years

■ 1. NICEPHORANS ■ 2. AMORIANS (PHRYGIANS) ■ 3. Bulgaria before Roman Conquest

■ Macedonian Bulgaria ■ 4. MACEDONIANS

■ Mt. Athôs ■ 5. Armenia, 806-1064 [42.0K]

❍ Fourth Empire, Late "Romania/Byzantium," 1059-1453 ■ A. The Advent of the Turks, 1059-1185, 126 years

■ 1. DUCASES ■ 2. Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm ■ 3. COMNENI ■ 4. Lesser Armenia [42.0K]

■ Patriarchs of the Great House of Cilicia [3.8K] ■ 5. Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1099-1489 [160.0K]

■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem ■ County of Edessa ■ Principality of Antioch



http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#georgia










■ County of Tripoli ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem ■ Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem

■ B. The Latin Empire, 1185-1261, 76 years ■ 1. ANGELI ■ 2. Bulgaria, Asens ■ 3. LATINS

■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople [213.4K] ■ Kings of Thessalonica ■ Dukes of Athens ■ Princes of Achaea

■ 4. Eprius ■ 5. Trebizond ■ 6. LASCARIDS

■ C. The Last Days, 1261-1453, 192 years ■ 1. Serbia ■ 2. Bosnia [246.4K] ■ 3. Bulgaria, Terters ■ 4. The Oghullar of Rûm [75.5K]

■ Aydïn Oghullarï ■ Sarukhân Oghullarï ■ Menteshe Oghullarï ■ Germiyân Oghullarï ■ H.amîd Oghullarï ■ Tekke Oghullarï ■ Jândâr Oghullarï ■ Qaramân Oghullarï ■ Eretna Oghullarï ■ Dulghadïr Oghullarï ■ Osmanli Oghullarï

■ 5. PALAEOLOGI ■ The Flag of ROMANIA

■ 6. Romanians ❍ The Bishops of Rome, the Popes, 42 AD-present [213.4K]

■ Patriarchal Index

● Emperors of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) [13.5K] ❍ Kings of Kush (Ethiopia), XXV Dynasty of Egypt [96.9K] ❍ The Coptic & Melkite Patriarchs of Alexandria ❍ Patriarchs of Ethiopia

● Rivals to Rome:












http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#aydin

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#sarukhan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#menteshe

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#germiyan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#hamid

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#tekke

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#jandar

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#qaraman

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#eretna

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#dulghadir

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#index

http://www.friesian.com/ethiopia.htm


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#coptic

http://www.friesian.com/ethiopia.htm#primate


❍ Irân [28.2K] ■ The Parthian Arsacids, 248 BC-227 AD ■ The Sassanid Shâhs (Great Kings), 224-651 AD

■ Patriarchs of the East [213.4K]

● Successors of Rome in Romania ❍ Islâmic Romania/Byzantium: The Ottoman Sultâns, 1290-1924 AD, Maps and

List of Emperors [122.3K] ■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople [213.4K] ■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon ■ Patriarchs of the East ■ Animated History of Turkiya [80.8K]

❍ Modern Romania, Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans ■ 1817, Serbian Autonomy ■ 1834, after Greek Independence ■ 1858, after the Crimean War

■ Romania, 1611-present ■ 1875 ■ Congress of Berlin, 1878

■ Montenegro, 1697-1918 ■ 1908

■ Greece, 1821-present ■ 1912, before the Balkan Wars

■ Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present ■ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I

■ Bulgaria, 1879-present ■ 1925, after World War I

■ Albania, 1914-present ■ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II ■ 1947, after World War II

■ Macedonia, 1991-present ■ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing

■ Armenia, 1991-present [42.0K] ■ Georgia, 1991-present

■ Culmen Europae

● Successors of Rome: Germania, Francia, Russia, & the Periphery of Francia ❍ Germania & Francia, 395 AD-Present

■ Germania, 395-774 [67.9K] ■ Index ■ Introduction ■ Visigoths

■ Suevi


http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm



http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#east

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#ottoman


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#east


http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#georgia2

http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#culmen


■ Early Gothic History ■ Burgundians ■ Vandals ■ Ostrogoths ■ Lombards

■ Dukes of Benevento and Spoleto ■ Thuringians

■ Dukes of Thuringia ■ Bavarians ■ Alemanni ■ Saxons ■ Franks [248.5K] ■ Anglo-Saxon England

■ Kings of Kent ■ Archbishops of Canterbury

■ Kings of Sussex ■ Kings of Northumbria ■ Kings of Essex ■ Kings of Mercia ■ Kings of East Anglia ■ Kings of Wessex

■ Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia ■ Runes ■ Earls of Orkney

■ Francia, 447-Present [268.6K] ■ Index

■ Sources ■ Introduction

■ Feudal Hierarchy ■ Merovingian Franks ■ Carolingian Franks

■ Early ■ Middle ■ Late

■ Lorraine ■ Vermandois

■ Francia after the Carolingians ■ Francia Occidentalis, France

■ Margraves & Counts of Flanders [104.9K] ■ Counts of Artois ■ Kings & Dukes of Brittany ■ Counts of Anjou ■ Dukes of Normandy








http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#index







http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#carolmid

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bald

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#duklorr

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#vermandois

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#after

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#occident

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#artois

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#brittany

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#anjou



■ CAPETIAN KINGS ■ Counts of Blois & Champagne

■ Seigneurs of Châtillon ■ Dukes of Burgundy ■ Counts of Toulouse ■ Dukes of Aquitaine

■ Dukes of Gascony ■ Counts of Barcelona ■ Lords & Counts of Foix ■ VALOIS KINGS

■ ORLÉANS & ANGOULÊME KINGS ■ BOURBON KINGS

■ House of Condé ■ French Colonial Possessions

■ Kings of Tahiti ■ Kings of Madagascar ■ Governors of Kwangchouwan

■ BONAPARTE EMPERORS ■ First Empire ■ Second Empire

■ Presidents of France ■ Second Republic ■ Third Republic

■ La Marseillaise [40.2K] ■ Vichy State ■ Provisional Government ■ Fourth Republic ■ Fifth Republic

■ Francia Media ■ Lorraine [119.7K]

■ DUKES OF LORRAINE ■ Counts & Dukes of Brabant ■ Counts & Dukes of Bar

■ Counts of Hainault ■ Counts & Dukes of Berg, Jülich, Mark, & Cleves ■ Counts & Dukes of Luxemburg ■ Counts of Holland ■ Stadholders and Kings of the Netherlands ■ Kings of Belgium ■ Grand Dukes of Luxembourg

■ Burgundy ■ KINGS OF BURGUNDY

■ Culmen Franciae


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#capet

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#champ

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#chatillon


http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#toulouse

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#aquitaine

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#gascony

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#provence

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#foix

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#valois

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#orleans

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bourbon

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#frenchcolon

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#tahiti

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#madagascar

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#kwangchouwan


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#1emp


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#presidents



http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#france

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#vichy

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#provis



http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#media

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#dukeslorraine

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#brabant

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#bar

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#hainaut

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#cleves

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#luxemold

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#holland





http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#kingdom

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#culmen


■ The Welfs ■ Counts of Burgundy, the Free County ■ Princes of Orange ■ Counts of Viennois and Dauphiné ■ Counts of Provence ■ Counts & Dukes of Savoy ■ Grimaldi Princes of Monaco

■ Italy [123.2K] ■ The Bishops of Rome, the Popes [213.4K] ■ Doges of Venice [264.3K]

■ Patriarchs of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice [11.8K] ■ Dukes of Spoleto ■ KINGS OF ITALY & EMPERORS ■ Margraves of Tuscany and Spoleto ■ Margraves of Montferrat ■ Margraves & Dukes of Mantua ■ Counts & Dukes of Urbino ■ Kings of Sardinia ■ d'Estes & Dukes of Modena ■ Dukes of Milan ■ Bishops & Archbishops of Milan ■ Doges of Genoa ■ The Medici, and the Hapsburgs of Tuscany ■ Dukes of Parma ■ KINGS OF ITALY ■ Presidents of Italy

■ Italian Colonial Possessions ■ Prime Ministers of Italy

■ Francia Orientalis, Germany ■ The Stem Duchies [137.8K] ■ FRANCONIAN KING ■ Dukes of Franconia ■ SAXON KINGS & EMPERORS ■ Dukes, Electors, & Kings of Saxony ■ Counts & Princes of Schwarzburg ■ Lords, Counts, & Princes of Reuß ■ Dukes of Brunswick, Electors & Kings of Hanover

■ Dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel ■ Archbishop-Electors of Mainz, Trier, & Cologne [213.4K]

■ Grand Duke of Frankfurt ■ FRANCONIAN EMPERORS ■ Dukes & Landgraves of Thuringia

■ Margraves of Meißen


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#hanover

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#franchecomte

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#orange

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#dauphine


http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#savoy

http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#monaco

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#media-I

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#oldtuscany


http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#mantua

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#urbino

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#sardinia

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#modena

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#milan

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#milanbishop


http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#tuscany

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#parma


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#italpresiden

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#italcolon

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#italministers

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#orient-G


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#frank

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#franconia

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#saxon

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#saxony

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#schwarz

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#reuss


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#brunswick

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#electors

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#frankfurt

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#frank-2

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#thuringia

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#meissen


■ Dukes of Swabia ■ HOHENSTAUFEN EMPERORS

■ The Welfs ■ Dukes & Kings of Württemberg ■ Margraves & Grand Dukes of Baden ■ Princes of Liechtenstein ■ Lords, Counts, & Princes of Lippe ■ Counts & Princes of Waldeck ■ Dukes, Electors, & Kings of Bavaria

■ Wittelsbach Dukes & Electors ■ Counts & Prince Electors of the Palatinate ■ Kings of Bavaria ■ Dukes of Carinthia

■ Archbishops of Salzburg [213.4K] ■ Grand Duke of Würzburg

■ Margraves & Dukes of Austria ■ Hapsburg Dukes of Austria

■ NON-DYNASTIC EMPERORS ■ Switzerland

■ HAPSBURG EMPERORS ■ Margraves & Electors of Brandenburg & Kings of Prussia

■ The Descent of the Hohenzollern ■ Princes of Hohenzollern Henchingen-Sigmaringen ■ Hohenzollern Margraves & Electors of Brandenburg ■ Kings of Prussia

■ Princes & Dukes of Anhalt ■ Counts & Dukes of Berg, Jülich, Mark, & Cleves ■ Counts & Dukes of Schleswig & Holstein ■ Counts, Dukes, & Grand Dukes of Oldenburg ■ Counts, Dukes, & Princes of Nassau ■ Lords, Counts, & Prince of Layen/Leyen ■ Princes, Dukes, & Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg ■ Landgraves, Electors, & Grand Dukes of Hesse

■ Landgraves & Electors of Hesse-Cassel ■ Landgraves & Grand Dukes of Hesse-Darmstadt ■ Landgraves of Hesse-Homburg

■ Teutonic and Livonian Knights ■ The German Confederation, 1815-1866 [48.1K] ■ HAPSBURG EMPERORS of Austria

■ Republic of Austria ■ Republic of Slovenia

■ HOHENZOLLERN EMPERORS of German "Second Reich" ■ German Colonial Possessions


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#swabia



http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#wurttemberg

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#baden

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#wurttemberg

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#lippe

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#waldeck


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#wittelsbach

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#palatine

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#bavaria2

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#carinthia


http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#salzburg2

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#austria

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#hapsburg


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#swiss


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#prussia

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#descent

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#hohenzol

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#prussia2

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#kingpruss

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#anhalt

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#cleves

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#holstein

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#oldenburg

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#nassau

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#leyen

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#mecklen

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#hesse

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#cassel

http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#darmstadt

http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#homburg


http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#orient-A

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#auspresiden

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#slovenia

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#second

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#germcolon


■ The Weimar Republic, 1919-1934 ■ Deutschland über Alles [40.2K]

■ No Emperors of German "Third Reich" ■ Federal Republic, 1949-present

❍ The Periphery of Francia, 445 AD-Present [258.3K] ■ Introduction ■ Index ■ The Kings of Spain and Portugal

■ Counts of Aragón ■ Counts of Castile ■ Spanish & Portuguese Colonial Possessions [86.7K]

■ The Pillars of Hercules ■ Aztec Tlatoani ■ Viceroys of New Spain

■ Governors of Cuba ■ California [67.4K] ■ Spanish and Mexican Governors of Texas [5.9K]

■ The Incas ■ Viceroys of Peru ■ Viceroys of New Granada ■ Viceroys of the Rio de la Plata ■ The Maya and the Kings of Tikal

■ The Mayan Calendar ■ The French Kings of Navarre ■ Counts of Barcelona ■ Presidents of Portugal ■ Prime Ministers of Portugal and Spain

■ The Kings of England, Scotland, & Ireland ■ Anglo-Saxon England

■ Kings of Kent ■ Kings of Sussex ■ Kings of Northumbria ■ Kings of Essex ■ Kings of Mercia ■ Kings of East Anglia ■ Kings of Wessex

■ Archbishops of Canterbury ■ Kings and Princes of Wales ■ God Save the Queen [40.2K] ■ British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime

[57.1K] ■ The Bank of England ■ Earls of Orkney


http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#weimar

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#germany

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#third

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#gerpresident


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#intro

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#index


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#aragon

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#castile

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#hercules

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#aztec

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#newspain

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#havana


http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#inca

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#peru

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#granada

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#plata

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#maya

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#calendar

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#navarre


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#portpres

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#spainpms





http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#wales

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#godsave





■ Kings and Lords of Man ■ Dukes of Marlborough & Earls of Spencer, 1702/1765-Present

■ The Vanderbilts ■ Dukes of Buccleuch, Grafton, & St. Albans, 1663-Present ■ Dukes of Berwick & Fitzjames, 1687-Present ■ Prime Ministers of Britain, 1721-present ■ British Emperors and Viceroys of India, 1876-1947 (1858-1950) [356.3K]

■ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947 ■ The Sun Never Set on the British Empire [64.2K; contains a 81.9K animated GIF file]

■ Sir Richard Burton, 1821-1890 [12.8K] ■ Rule Britannia [40.2K] ■ Gibraltar [86.7K] ■ Hong Kong ■ Kings of Tonga

■ Prime Ministers of the Dominions ■ Prime Ministers of Canada ■ Prime Ministers of New Zealand ■ Prime Ministers of Australia

■ Waltzing Matilda [40.2K] ■ Prime Ministers of South Africa

■ Kings of the Zulus ■ Kings of Swaziland ■ Kings of Basutoland/Lesotho

■ Prime Ministers of Ireland ■ Prime Ministers of India ■ Prime Ministers of Pakistan

■ The Kings of Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland ■ Kings of Great Moravia ■ Dukes & Kings of Croatia ■ Bans & Kings of Bosnia ■ Grand Dukes of Lithuania ■ Princes of Transylvania ■ Dukes & Kings of Bohemia, Hungary, & Poland ■ Teutonic and Livonian Knights ■ Modern Latvia ■ Modern Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Croatia, & Bosnia

■ Norman, Swabian, Anjevian, Aragonese, & Bourbon Counts, Dukes, and Kings of Naples and Sicily [91.0K]

■ Dukes of Benevento ■ Anjevian and Aragonese Kings of Naples and Sicily ■ Savoyard and Bourbon Kings of Naples and Sicily ■ Kings of Sardinia

■ The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden


http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#man

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#marl

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#vanderbilt

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#monmouth

http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#berwick

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#prime

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#british



http://www.friesian.com/ross/fencing.htm#burton

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#britannia

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#british

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#hongkong

http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm#tonga

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#ministers

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#canada

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#newzealand

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#australia

http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#matilda

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#southafrica

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#zulu

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#swazi

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#lesotho

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#ireland

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#india

http://www.friesian.com/british.htm#pakistan


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#moravia

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#croatia


http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#lith




http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#latvia






http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#bourbon

http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#sardinia



■ Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia ■ Grand Princes of Kiev [75.9K] ■ Earls of Orkney ■ Counts & Dukes of Schleswig & Holstein ■ Swedish and Danish Colonial Possessions ■ Modern Finland, Estonia, & Iceland

■ Outremer, 1099-1489 [160.0K] ■ Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus

■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem [213.4K] ■ Counts of Edessa ■ Norman Princes of Antioch ■ Counts of Tripoli ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem ■ Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon ■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem ■ Latin Emperors of Constantinople [264.3K]

■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople ■ Kings of Thessalonica ■ Dukes of Athens ■ Princes of Achaea ■ The State of Israel

❍ Russia, 862-present [75.9K] ■ Index

■ Sources ■ Introduction ■ Grand Princes of Kiev ■ Grand Dukes of Vladimir ■ Grand Dukes of Moscow and Emperors of Russia ■ Romanov Emperors

■ The Russian Empire ■ Russian Battleships

■ Provisional Government ■ General Secretaries of the Communist Party &

Presidents of the Russian Federation/Soviet Union ■ The Greek Orthodox and Soviet Calendar Reforms

■ Presidents of Russia ■ Presidents of Belarus ■ Hetmans & Presidents of the Ukraine ■ Presidents of Armenia [42.0K] ■ Presidents of Georgia

■ Culmen Europae

● Rivals to Rome:



http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#holstein

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#scancolon

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#modnor
















http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#index

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#sources

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#russia


http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#vladimir



http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#empire

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#navy

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#provis

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#soviet

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#soviet

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#calendar

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#president

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#belarus

http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#ukraine


http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#georgia2

http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#culmen


❍ Islâm, 622 AD-present [233.9K] ■ The Prophet, 622-632 AD ■ The Rightly Guided Caliphs, 632-661 AD ■ The Shi'ite Imâms, 632-878 AD ■ The Omayyad Caliphs, 661-750 AD ■ The Abbasid Caliphs, 750-1258 AD

■ The Aghlabids, 800-909 AD ■ The T.âhirids, 821-873 AD ■ The T.ûlûnids, 868-905 AD ■ The Sâmânids, 819-1005 AD ■ The S.affârid, 861-1003 AD ■ The Ikhshîdids, 935-969 AD ■ The H.amdânids of Aleppo, 944-1004 ■ The Qarakhânids, c.992-1212 AD ■ The Ghaznawids, 977-1186 AD ■ The Ghûrids, 1011-1215 AD ■ The Buwayhids, 945-1055 AD

■ Islâmic Rulers of Spain, 756-1492 AD ■ The Omayyad Amirs, 756-912 ■ The Omayyad Caliphs, 912-1031 ■ The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1010-1114

■ The Jahwarids of Cordova ■ Murcia ■ The 'Abbâdids of Seville ■ The H.ammûdids of Málaga ■ The Zîrids of Granada ■ Aft.asids of Badajoz ■ The 'Âmirids of Valencia ■ The Dhu'n-Nûnids of Toledo ■ The Banû Mujâhid of Denia and Majorca ■ The Tujîbids of Saragossa ■ The Hûdids of Saragossa

■ The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD ■ The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1145-1266

■ Cordova ■ Valencia ■ Murcia ■ The Banû Ghâniya of Majorca

■ The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238 ■ The Nas.rid Sult.âns of Granada, 1232-1492 AD

■ The Hûdids of Murcia ■ Islâmic Rulers of North Africa, 789-1163 AD

■ The Idrîsids of Morocco, 789-985 AD



http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#prophet


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#imams


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#abbas


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#tahir

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#tulun

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#saman

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#saffar

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ikhshid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#hamdan

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#qara

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ghazna

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ghur

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#buway



http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#abdur

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#taifa



















http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#granada


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#idris

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#idris


■ The Rustamids of Algeria, 778-909 AD ■ The Aghlabids, 800-909 AD ■ The Shi'ite Fatimid Caliphs, 909-1171 AD ■ The Zîrids of Tunisia, 947-1163 AD ■ The Hammâdids of Algeria, 1015-1152 AD ■ The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD ■ The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238 AD

■ The Seljuk Great Sult.âns, 1037-1157 AD ■ Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm, 1078-1307 AD [264.3K] ■ The Zangid Atabegs of Mosul, Aleppo, & Damascus, 1127-1262 AD ■ The Khwârazm Shâhs, 1097-1231 AD ■ The Oghullar of Rûm [75.5K]

■ Aydïn Oghullarï ■ Sarukhân Oghullarï ■ Menteshe Oghullarï ■ Germiyân Oghullarï ■ H.amîd Oghullarï ■ Tekke Oghullarï ■ Jândâr Oghullarï ■ Qaramân Oghullarï ■ Eretna Oghullarï ■ Dulghadïr Oghullarï ■ Osmanli Oghullarï

■ The Il Khâns, 1256-1353 [49.0K] ■ The Jalâyirids, 1340-1432 ■ The Qara Qoyunlu, 1351-1469 ■ The Timurids, 1370-1500 ■ The Aq Qoyunlu, 1396-1508

■ The Khâns of the Golden Horde ■ The Khâns of the White Horde ■ The Khâns of Kazan ■ The Khâns of Astrakhan ■ The Khâns of the Crimea

■ The Ayyûbid Sult.âns, 1169-1252 AD ■ Islâmic Rulers of North Africa, 1217-1659 AD

■ The Marînid Amîrs of Morocco, 1195-1465 ■ The Wat.t.âsid Amîrs of Morocco, 1472-1554 ■ The Sa'did Sharîfs of Morocco, 1510-1659 ■ The H.afs.id Amirs, Caliphs, or Sult.âns of Tunisia, 1229-1574 ■ The Zayyânid or Ziyânid Amîrs of Algeria, 1236-1555 ■ The 'Alawid Sharîfs, Sult.âns, & Kings of Morocco, 1640-present ■ The H.usaynid Beys of Tunisia, 1705-1957

■ The Keita Kings of Mali, 1230-1390


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#rustamid


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#fatimid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#zirid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#hammadid




http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#zangid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#khwarazm


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#aydin

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#sarukhan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#menteshe

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#germiyan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#hamid

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#tekke

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#jandar

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#qaraman

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#eretna

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#dulghadir


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#jalay

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#qaraqoy




http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#white

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#kazan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#astrakhan


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ayyub

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#marin

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#marin

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#wattasid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#sadid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#hafsid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ziyanid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#alawid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#husaynid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#mali


■ The Si & Askiya Kings of Songhay, 1464-1592 ■ The Mamlûk Sult.âns of Egypt, 1252-1517 AD

■ The Abbasid Puppet Caliphs of Egypt, 1261-1517 AD ■ The Ottoman Sultâns, 1290-1924 AD, Maps and List of Emperors [122.3K]

■ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD ■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon

■ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD ■ The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD

■ Shibânid Özbegs, 1438-1599 ■ Kazakhs, 1394-1748 ■ Toqay Temürids, 1599-1758 ■ Mangïts of Bukhara, 1747-1920 ■ The Shâhs of Irân, 1501-1979 AD [28.2K]

■ The Safavids, 1501-1736 ■ The Afsharids, 1736-1750 ■ The Zands, 1750-1794 ■ The Qajars, 1794-1924 ■ The Pahlavis, 1924-1979

■ Sult.âns of Delhi, 1206-1555 [356.3K] ■ Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings, 1206-1290 ■ Khaljîs, 1290-1320 ■ Tughluqids, 1320-1414 ■ Sayyids, 1414-1451 ■ Lôdîs, 1451-1526 ■ Sûrîs, 1540-1555

■ Moghul Emperors, 1526-1540, 1555-1858 ■ Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765 ■ Nawwâbs of Oudh, 1722-1856 ■ Niz.âms of Hyderabad, 1720-1948

■ Sult.âns of Malacca, 1403-1511 ■ Sult.âns of Acheh, c.1450-1903 ■ Yemen, 1230 BC-1962 AD

■ at-Tababi'a, 1230 BC-533 AD ■ Saba/Sheba, 755 BC-100 AD ■ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar, 120 BC-629 AD ■ Rassids, 860-1226 ■ Ayyûbids, 1173-1229 ■ Rasûlids, 1229-1454 ■ T.âhirids, 1454-1517 ■ Qâsimids, 1597-1962

■ Modern Islâm ■ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD ■ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#songhay




http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#uzbek

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#kazakh

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#toqay

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#mangit



http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#afsharid

http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#zand

http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#qajar

http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#pahlavi

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#delhi

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#slaves

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#khaljis

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tughluqids

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sayyids

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#lodis

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#suris

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#moghuls

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#bengal

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#oudh

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#hyderabad

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#malacca

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#acheh





http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#rassids

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#yemenayyub

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#rasulids

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#tahirids

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#qasimid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#modern


■ The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD ■ The Sult.âns of Oman and Zanzibar, 1754-present ■ The Hâshimites, 1827-present ■ The 'Alawid Sharîfs, Sult.âns, & Kings of Morocco, 1640-present ■ The H.usaynid Beys of Tunisia, 1705-1957 ■ The House of Sa'ûd, 1735-present ■ The Sultans of Brunei, 1405-present

■ The Rajahs of Sarawak, 1841-1946 ■ Afghanistan, 1747-1973 [35.2K] ■ Prime Ministers & Presidents of Pakistan ■ Islâmic Fascism and Satyagraha in Palestine

● Emperors of the Sangoku, the "Three Kingdoms," of India, China, & Japan [356.3K] ❍ Index ❍ Emperors of India

■ The Mauryas, c.322-184 BC ■ The Macedonian Kings of Bactria, 256-c.55 BC ■ The Sakas/Parthians, 97 BC-125 AD

■ The Saka Era, The Indian Historical Era, 79 AD ■ The Calendar in India

■ The Kushans, c.20 BC-c.260 AD ■ The Guptas, c.320-550 AD ■ Thanesar, c.500-647 AD ■ the Carnatic & Maharashtra, 543-1317 AD ■ Sult.âns of Delhi, 1206-1555

■ Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings, 1206-1290 ■ Khaljîs, 1290-1320 ■ Tughluqids, 1320-1414 ■ Sayyids, 1414-1451 ■ Lôdîs, 1451-1526 ■ Sûrîs, 1540-1555 ■ Sikh Gurûs and the Khâlsâ

■ Moghul Emperors, 1526-1540, 1555-1858 ■ Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765 ■ British Governors of Bengal and Governors-General of India, 1765-1858

■ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947 ■ Nawwâbs of Oudh, 1722-1856 ■ Niz.âms of Hyderabad, 1720-1948

■ British Emperors and Viceroys, 1876-1947 (1858-1950) ■ Culmen Mundi ■ Prime Ministers of India ■ Prime Ministers of Pakistan

❍ Emperors of China


http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#oman

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#hashem

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#alawid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#husaynid

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#saudi

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#brunei

http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#sarawak

http://www.friesian.com/afghan.htm



http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#top

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#india

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#mauryas


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#saka

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#india-era

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm#india

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#kushan

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#guptas

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#thanesar

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#maharashtra

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#delhi

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#slaves

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#khaljis

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tughluqids

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sayyids

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#lodis

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#suris

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sikhs


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#bengal

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#britgov


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#oudh

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#hyderabad

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#british

http://www.friesian.com/buddhism.htm#note



http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#china


■ The Chinese Historical Era, 2637 BC ■ Eras (Nien-hao) of Chinese History

■ Shang Dynasty, 1523-1028 ■ Chou Dynasty, 1027-256

■ Spring and Autumn Period ■ Warring States Period ■ States of the Eastern Chou [26.1K]

■ Ch'in Dynasty, 255-207 BC ■ Former Han Dynasty, 206 BC-25 AD ■ Later Han Dynasty, 25-220 AD ■ The Three Kingdoms, 220-265 ■ Northern and Southern Empires, 265-589

■ The Six Southern Dynasties, 266-589 ■ The Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians, 304-439 ■ The Five Northern Dynasties, 386-581

■ Sui Dynasty, 590-618 ■ T'ang Dynasty, 618-906 ■ The Five Dynasties, 907-960

■ The Ten Kingdoms, 896-979 ■ Tartar Dynasties

■ Liao (Khitan) Dynasty, 907-1125 ■ Hsi-Hsia (Tangut) State, 990-1227

■ Sung Dynasty, 960-1126 ■ Tartar Dynasties

■ Northern Liao (Khitan) Dynasty, 1122-1123 ■ Western Liao (Qara-Khitaï) Dynasty, 1125-1218 ■ Kin/Chin (Jurchen) Dynasty, 1115-1234

■ Southern Sung Dynasty, 1127-1279 ■ Yüan (Mongol) Dynasty, 1280-1368 ■ Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644 ■ Southern Ming Dynasty, 1644-1662 ■ Manchu Ch'ing Dynasty, 1644-1911

■ Foreign Encroachments ■ Macao ■ Hong Kong ■ Kwangchouwan ■ Tibet

■ Republic of China, 1912-present ■ Communist China, 1949-present ■ Categories of Chinese Characters [35.5K] ■ The Dialects of Chinese

■ Examples of Dialect Differences Between Peking, Shanghai and, Canton ■ Pronouncing Mandarin Initials


http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#china-era

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#shang

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#chou

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sp&au

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#warring

http://www.friesian.com/choustat.htm

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ch'in



http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#three

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#north-south

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#north-south

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sixteen

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#fivenorth

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sui

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#t'ang

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#five

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#five

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tartar

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#liao

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tangut

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sung

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tartar2

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#northliao

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#westliao

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#chin

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sung-s

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#yuan

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ming

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#south

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ch'ing

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#foreign

http://www.friesian.com/newspain.htm#macao

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#hongkong

http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#kwangchouwan

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#tibet

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#republic

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#communist

http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm#characters

http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm#dialects

http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm#dialects2



■ The Contrast between Classical and Modern Chinese ■ The Solar Terms and the Chinese Calendar [19.7K]

■ The Chinese 60 Year Calendar Cycle ■ The Occurrence of the Solar Terms in 1995-2005 ■ Groundhog Day and Chinese Astronomy [15.8K]

❍ Emperors, Shoguns, & Regents of Japan ■ The Japanese Historical Era, 660 BC

■ Eras (Nengô) of Japanese History ■ The Legendary Period, 660 BC-539 AD ■ The Historical Period, 539-645 ■ The Yamato Period, 645-711 ■ The Nara Period, 711-793 ■ The Heian Period, 793-1186

■ Fujiwara Chancellors and Imperial Regents, 858-1867 ■ The Kamakura Period, 1186-1336

■ Hôjô Regents ■ The Nambokuchô Period, 1336-1392

■ Ashikaga Shôguns ■ The Muromachi Period, 1392-1573 ■ The Azuchi-Momoyama Period, 1573-1603

■ Himeji Castle ■ The Edo Period, 1603-1868

■ Edo Castle, Tôkyô Imperial Palace ■ The Modern Period, 1868-

■ Prime Ministers, 1885-present ■ The Pearl Harbor Strike Force [28.2K] ■ A Guadalcanal Chronology & Order of Battle, 7 August 1942 - 6 March 1943 [38.7K]

■ The Battleship Kongô [55.9K]

■ Japanese Battleships ■ The Treaty Cruisers ■ Advanced Japanese Destroyers of World War II [17.7K] ■ Naval Aircraft Designations of Japan and the United States [28.2K]

❍ The Periphery of China -- Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Tibet, and Mongolia [114.3K]

■ Kings of Korea ■ Kings of Koguryo ■ Kings of Paekche ■ Kings of Silla and Korea

■ Kings and Emperors of Vietnam ■ Kings of Champa ■ Kings and Emperors of Annam and Vietnam

■ Kings of Thailand



http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm

http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm#60

http://www.friesian.com/chinacal.htm#terms

http://www.friesian.com/grndhog.htm

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#japan

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#japan-era

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#legend

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#history

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#yamato

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#nara

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#heian

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#note

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#kamakura

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#hojo

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#nambokucho

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ashikaga

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#muromachi

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#azuchi

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#edo

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#modern

http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ministers

http://www.friesian.com/pearl.htm

http://www.friesian.com/history/guadal.htm

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm


http://www.friesian.com/dreadnot.htm#treaty

http://www.friesian.com/destroy.htm

http://www.friesian.com/history/navy.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#korea

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#koguryo

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#paekche

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#silla

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#viet

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#champa

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#annam

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#siam


■ Kings of Sukhothai ■ Kings of Lan Na ■ Chao of Chiang Mai ■ Kings of Ayudhya ■ King of Thonburi ■ Kings of Bangkok, Chakri Dynasty

■ Kings of Laos ■ Kings of Vientiane, 1353-1778 ■ Kings of Luang Prabang, 1707-1975

■ Kings of Cambodia, 6th century AD-present ■ Kings of Burma

■ Kings of Arakan, 788-1784 ■ Kings of Pagan, c.900-1325 ■ Kings of Pinya, 1298-1364 ■ Kings of Ava, 1364-1555 ■ Kings of Shan, 1287-1757 ■ Kings of Taungu, 1531-1751 ■ Kings of Konbaung/Burma, 1753-1885

■ The Kings of Tibet and the Dalai Lamas ■ Culmen Mundi ■ First Kingdom of Tibet ■ Mongol Regents ■ Second Kingdom of Tibet ■ The Dalai Lamas ■ The Panchen Lamas

■ The Mongol Khâns [75.5K] ■ Index ■ The Conquests of Chingiz Khân, 1227 ■ The Great Khâns and the Yüan Dynasty of China ■ The Grandsons of Chingiz Khân, 1280 ■ The Chaghatayid Khâns ■ The Khâns of the Golden Horde

■ The Khâns of the Blue Horde ■ The Khâns of the White Horde ■ The Khâns of the Golden Horde ■ The Khâns of Kazan ■ The Khâns of Astrakhan ■ The Khâns of the Crimea

■ The Il Khâns ■ The Jalâyirids, 1340-1432 ■ The Qara Qoyunlu, 1351-1469 ■ The Timurids, 1370-1501 ■ The Aq Qoyunlu, 1396-1508


http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#siam2






http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#laos

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#vientiane

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#luang

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#cambodia

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#burma

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#arakan

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#pagan

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#pinya

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#ava

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#shan

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#taungu

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#konbaung

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#tibet

http://www.friesian.com/buddhism.htm#note

http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#tibet2




http://www.friesian.com/perigoku.htm#panchen

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#top

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#map-1


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#map-2

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#chaghaty



http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#white

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#gold

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#kazan

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#astrakhan



http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#jalay

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#qaraqoy




■ Shibânid Özbegs, 1438-1599 ■ Kazakhs, 1394-1748 ■ Toqay Temürids, 1599-1758 ■ Mangïts of Bukhara, 1747-1920

Links

● Brian Tompsett's Royal and Noble Genealogy

● Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies

● WW-Person, A WWW Data base of European nobility

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved


http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#uzbek

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#kazakh

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#toqay

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm#mangit

http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/catalog.html


http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/cgi-bin/stoyan/wwp/LANG=engl/?1




The Fragility of Thalassocracy

The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Pericles to Heinlein

Thalassocracy means the rule (krateîn, to rule) of the sea (thálassa, thálatta in Attic). This does not mean rule by the sea, as "aristocracy" means the rule by the "best," which wouldn't make much sense, but rule by those who control the sea. The first systematic discussion of this, although not the use of the term, may have been by Alfred Thayer Mahan in his classic The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 [1890, Little Brown and Company]. Mahan, however, does not discuss what is usually considered the first thalassocracy, that of Athens in the 5th Century BC.

A thalassocracy is a state that uses its navy to project its power and to unite various possessions that are separated by water. Not all naval powers are thalassocracies. Indeed, the key to a state being a thalassocracy is if its power, even its political existence, would collapse completely with the annihilation of its navy. This is the noteworthy fragility of a thalassocracy -- a navy can be crippled or destroyed, sometimes even in a day, leaving the state dismembered and helpless. Mahan's book, by highlighting the importance of sea power, set off a tremendous naval arms race that lasted through World War I, but the competing Powers paid no more attention than Mahan to the fragility of the power they were seeking -- Mahan may have avoided analysis of the Athenian experience just because it ended in failure. Britain, Mahan's own prime exemplar of naval power, managed to lose its "Empire" despite victories in both World War I and World War II. They were Pyrrhic victories; and Britain, as the principal modern thalassocracy, proved to wield a power so fragile that even victory could not preserve it.

The first nation whose power depended principally on its ships may have been Crete, about which we known little, and then Phoenicia, about which we know a great deal. Phoenicia, however, was never politically unified, was often under foreign rule, did not effectively retain control of its colonies, and never used colonies as footholds of conquest. The greatest Phoenician colony, Carthage, itself came rather closer to a thalassocracy, retaining control of colonies in the Western Mediterranean and then, under Hamilcar Barca, undertaking the conquest and development of Spain as a Carthaginian imperial possession.

By then a major thalassocracy had already come and gone. In general Greece exhibited the same characteristics as Phoenicia. Greek city states founded colonies but then retained little or no control over them. With Athens, we got something different. The power of Athens began with the League of Delos, a defensive confederation formed to oppose the Persian invasion of Greece in 480. All members made

http://www.friesian.com/thalasso.htm (1 of 11)8/25/2006 5:36:59 AM



proportional contributions to the common defense, which were kept at the Temple of Apollo on the Island of Delos. Hence the name. With the Persians defeated, the League continued. But the status of Athens as the predominant member began to tell. Pericles wanted to move the Treasury of the League from Delos to Athens. He did this even though no other members of the League agreed. Athens then began spending the money for its own purposes, and the contributions of League members became in effect Tribute paid to Athens. The League became what historians now like to call the "Athenian Empire," although such terminology is pretty anachronistic. Nor is it apt. The "Empire" of Athens, with more or less unwilling participants, depended wholly on the ability of Athens to maintain naval supremacy in the Aegean Sea. If that were lost or disrupted, Athens would be powerless.

This is exactly what happened in the war with Sparta, the Peloponnesian War (430-404). Sparta had an invincible army, so the best that Athens could do was avoid it -- relatively easy in a land of peninsulas and islands. If some Spartans could be trapped on an island, as did happen, then they could even be defeated and captured. This all worked fine until the Spartans began building their own navy. Now Athenian "allies" had an easier time defecting, since they were no longer entirely at the mercy of Athens. The Spartans could now support even island friends. And, if Sparta could wipe out the Athenian fleet in a great battle, it would win the war in one day. The great battle came in 405 at Aegospotami. Destroying the Athenian fleet, the Spartans proceeded at once to the siege of Athens, which surrendered in 404. The Athenian thalassocracy burst like a bubble.

The next state heavily dependent on sea power was, indeed, Carthage. In the First Punic War (264-241) the Romans defeated Carthage and conquered Sicily, in great measure by destroying the Carthaginian fleet. No one would ever say this was done by finesse. The Romans simply filled their ships with soldiers, grappled the Carthaginian ships, dropped gangways, and overwhelmed the enemy with infantry. Carthage never regained naval supremacy -- the best moments

for Carthage in the First Punic War were when storms destroyed Roman fleets. The response was Hamilcar's, to recreate Carthage as a land power in Spain. Hamilcar's son, Hannibal, then invaded Italy itself in the Second Punic War (218-202). The Romans, unable to defeat Hannibal in open battle, then used their own sea power to defeat him indirectly. Spain was conquered behind him. And then Africa itself was invaded. Hannibal had to abandon his army in Italy and return to defend Carthage itself.

There he was finally defeated in battle.

The Romans turned the Mediterranean into their own lake, the Mare Nostrum, "Our Sea." This control,



except for some periods of piracy, endured until the Vandals captured Carthage in 439. They then, with exquisite irony, built a fleet that swept the Romans from the Western Mediterranean. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410, they came by land, but when the Vandals sacked Rome in 455, they arrived, and left, by boat. This supremacy survived until Belisarius arrived in 534. Their base was abruptly yanked from under the Vandals by the Roman fleet and army from Constantinople. This reestablished Roman maritime control until the 9th century.

At that point two things went wrong. The Arabs, who had conquered the Mediterranean coast from Syria to Spain, and who had already arrived twice by boat to besiege Constantinople (674-677 & 717-718), began asserting naval dominance, resulting in the loss of Roman island possessions, like Crete (823) and Sicily (827-878). Islamic states never organized on the basis of naval supremacy or detached possessions, so there was no real Islamic thalassocracy. The closest may have been by Oman in the Arabian Sea, which projected naval and colonial power all the way to Zanzibar. Otherwise, it is noteworthy that the first possession over which that Caliphate lost control (in 756) was Spain -- the only large conquest separated from the others by water. For the Romans, meanwhile, the other naval challenge was the Vikings, or, as they were called in the East, the Varangians. They arrived at Constantinople, having come down the rivers of Russia, in 839. Several attacks and wars followed, until a Treaty in 988 and the subsequent conversion of Russia to Christianity. Things were improving a bit. Crete was recovered in 961 and Cyprus in 964. The real end of Roman sea power, however, can be precisely dated. It happened in 1082 when the Emperor Alexius Comnenus signed a commercial agreement with Venice. In short order, the Italian cities, Venice, Pisa, and Genoa in particular, became the great commercial and naval powers of the Mediterranean. Venice countenanced no revival of Roman naval power.

Looking back on the Roman experience, what it looks like is that Rome had a great deal of power apart from its maritime possessions and navy. The Roman Empire, however, was wrapped around the Mediterranean Sea -- as Socrates said, like frogs around a pond. This meant that naval power was necessary for complete mastery of the area. Loss of naval predominance might not be fatal, as it was for Athens, but it would be a serious blow to Roman power. Where naval supremacy was lost, as to the Vandals, or in the 9th century, the state was doomed to retreat to a continental redoubt. The Chinese experience is interesting in comparison. The contemporary of the early Roman Empire, the Han Dynasty, broke up (220 AD) and was partially conquered by barbarians, just like Rome. China, however, recovered and was reunited by the Sui Dynasty (590), not long after Justinian partially retrieved the Western Empire. China, however, was not wrapped around an empty Sea. China was also culturally, ethnically, and religiously rather more homogeneous. In the Mediterranean world, every little peninsula had a different nationality, different language, and, before Christianity, a different religion. The sort of separatism, manifesting itself in religious dissent, that made Egypt and Syria welcoming of the Arab Conquest, was much more of a danger for Rome than for China. The Roman Empire, even in its Mediaeval incarnation, thus shrank and ultimately collapsed, while China was reconstituted time after time. The disunity of Europe and the Mediterranean world may actually have made for greater cultural and technological innovation. China was historically more conservative. The disunity, however, looks



http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#oman





http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#sui


dictated by the geography, and especially by the seas that both separated and connected the lands.

The Italian cities were thalassocracies, but their power remained very limited and could not effectively project itself in continental struggles. They had no effective continental redoubts to speak of. Venice retreated before the Ottomans, and Genoa was successively occupied by France. The rising Great Powers had resources beyond what any Italian city could ever claim. The new Great Powers, however, became tied to naval power with the acquisition of colonial empires. Spain derived much of its power from the silver mines of Mexico and Peru. Every year, Spanish finances hung on the treasure fleet sailing from Vera Cruz to Cadiz. Spain itself, however, did not put its own revenues to use in the development of modern commercial culture and banking. The Netherlands, revolting against Spain (1568-1648), was able to do that. In the 17th century, the new Maritime Powers -- the Netherlands, Britain, and France -- surpassed Spain and Portugal in wealth and power. This had little to do with colonial possessions or even sea power. The European Balance of Power was determined on land, and even all the American silver of Spain could not keep it competitive with the cultural and institutional advantages of its rivals. Britain, as an island, realized how important its navy was, but a purely naval strategy did not begin to tell until well into the 18th century.

British predominance at sea was definitely established in the Seven Years War (1756-1763), when France lost the principal assents of its colonial empire, particularly Canada. This quickly gives us the picture of Britain as the paradigmatic modern thalassocracy. There are already features of this picture, however, that are singularly revealing of both its power and its fragility. The particular power of the British colonial empire was the degree to which British possessions were settled by immigrants and grew into powers in their own right. America was the first in this direction, but then the fate of America reveals a fundamental flaw in the tendency. The American colonies, the originally British ones (not, as it happened, Canada), revolted against Britain. With the help of France and other enemies of Britain, the American Revolution (1776-1783) was successful. This is usually regarded as the end of the "First" British Empire. Just as importantly, it was a grave shock to a British thalassocracy. America ended up, although settled and created from Britain itself, more like the unwilling "allies" of Athens in the League of Delos.

As it happened, British naval dominance was retrieved at the end of the war by victory at the Battle of the Saints in 1782, with which Mahan's original book ends. It did not restore the American colonies. The subsequent French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Eras repeated the experience of the Seven Years War. At the Congress of Vienna, Britain had its pick of strategic colonial possessions, like Malta and South Africa. Subsequently, British dominion rapidly emerged in what were to be the principal classic possessions of the British Empire in the 19th century: India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New






Zealand. To most at the time, and many since, these possessions, and the Royal Navy that united and/or protected them, were the source of the great power of Britain. Marxists even came to think that British Imperialism was the means by which Britain had derailed history and fended off the revolution of the proletariat against capitalism. But Britain was not wealthy because of its empire; and the way in which the empire might have enabled Britain to contend on more equal terms with the rising superpowers of the 20th century was undermined by a characteristic of thalassocracy that had already been revealed in the American Revolution.

Britain was powerful mainly because of (1) commercial culture, though which Britain had risen with the Netherlands, (2) banking, which Britain took over from Amsterdam, creating modern governmental finance through the Bank of England in 1694, and (3) the Industrial Revolution. British colonial

possessions often began simply by securing (or building) a safe trading station. Cities like Bombay, Singapore, and Hong Kong began in this way. Whether this grew into something more depended on the local conditions, usually whether the hinterland was politically organized enough to control the area and whether this organization was hostile or receptive to British trade and the security of British traders. Thus, African possessions, with small and poorly organized native states in the background, grew into large colonies, while the British presence in China remained confined to a few small outright possessions together with trading privileges, usually extorted by force, from China itself. India fell somewhere in between, as many of the small successor states of the Moghuls were successively

acquired, while many other states (the "Princely States") were domesticated with subordinating treaties and close supervision.

Both Imperialist and Marxist opinion was that, since India was a very large and rich place, this is what made Britain rich. There are more and less sophisticated versions of this view. One would be that Britain simply took the wealth of India and transferred it to Britain. Since there weren't exactly cotton mills and battleships in India, this view doesn't hold up too well. Such things were created in Britain, not in India.








Nevertheless, even today such a perspective, a sort of Cargo Cult version of economics, is the subtext of many political debates about "natural resources." Marxism itself (as opposed to what Robert Hughes calls recent "lumpen" Marxism, which is of the Cargo Cult sort, what I would call "English Department Marxism") was more sophisticated: Lenin said that Britain needed India as a place to sell production that the British proletariat was too poor to buy, and as an outlet for the "excess capital" that had to be invested somewhere but for which no use could be found in Britain. Unfortunately, as a theory of how the British proletariat became unnaturally content with capitalism, this wasn't very good, since it did not mean, with overproduction sent to India, that the wealth of the British proletariat would increase. The British proletariat would be just as impoverished as before. Also, if British production was being sold to India rather than to domestic consumers, where did Indians get the money to buy it? India, after all, was being "exploited," which should mean that it would become poorer, not richer. Soaking up production from Britain would make it richer. If Lenin's theory of imperialism is going to make any sense, it would have to be that wealth from India is used to enrich and so pacify the proletariat -- but that would not have been consistent with Marxist principles about overproduction and excess capital. There is also the little problem of the matter of fact about where British production and investment actually went. As examined elsewhere, it happens that most British production and investment was either absorbed domestically or exported to (1) other capitalist countries or (2) British immigrant consumers in places like Australia. The largest British trade and investment partner was thus the United States, which had nothing to do with the British Empire and, before World War I, conducted a foreign policy that was often hostile to Britain (strongly encouraged by Anglophobe Irish immigrants).

Britain, therefore, was not rich because of India; and this became painfully evident after Indian independence in 1947, when India failed to develop much economically (with Nehru applying Stalinist economic planning) all the way up through the 1980's and Britain, after the folly of Labour post-war nationalizations and regulation, went on to become richer than ever (although eventually falling behind its own exploited Chinese colony, Hong Kong, in per capita income). More importantly, however, Britain had by then long fallen behind the United States, which covered a continental sized state with immigrant settlement, grew into the largest economy in the world, and saved Britain (and France) from European enemies (i.e. Germany) in World War I and World War II. The American paradigm was, of course, derived from Britain herself. The American colonies of 1776 had simply continued doing, on a larger and larger scale, what they were already doing then. The "Second" British Empire, of the 19th century, continued this kind of thing itself, and also had other continental sized areas, Canada and Australia, to do it in. Why was Britain then not able to keep up?

One problem was simply that other British immigrant colonies never got anywhere near as big as the United States. Even as recently as 2000, the population of the United States was 283 million, the United Kingdom, 59 million, Canada, 31 million, Australia, 19 million, and New Zealand, 4 million. Much of Canada and Australia was simply not as inviting as most of the United States. The other British self-governing "Dominion," South Africa (43 million in 2000), largely consisted of culturally and economically unassimilated Africans. The successful immigrant states, from the United States on, were areas of predominantly thin paleolithic or neolithic tribal settlement. Where British settlement was attempted in areas of larger, more organized, and more advanced (usually iron age) populations, as in





South Africa or Rhodesia, a demographic and cultural predominance of immigrants was not achieved. Nothing of the sort could even be attempted in India, where the entire population of Britain could have been lost among the natives -- whose own memories were easily of the firearms and Empire of the Moghuls.

A large population, of course, does not translate directly into wealth or power, or India and China never would have been poor or weak. What counts is a population that is culturally entrepreneurial and industrious. Immigrants to the United States were preferentially of such populations. With such people, production increases, which means that 283 million Americans are going to vastly outproduce 113 million Britons, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders. Indeed, the Gross Domestic Product of the United States in 2000, adjusted for purchasing power, was 9.8 trillion dollars, while that of the others combined was 2.5 trillion -- 25.8% (with China just at a trillion and India less than half that). The day of reckoning for the difference came in World War I, when Britain simply ran out of money for the war -- something that had been unthinkable at least since the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1713). [note]

More than just relative size, however, was the problem peculiar to a thalassocracy. British possessions were never politically integrated into the home country and saw themselves increasingly as distinct --politically, economically, and culturally -- from the Mother Country. The lesson that Britain took from the American Revolution was not that colonies should be given political power commensurate with their importance in a central government, but that they should be allowed enough self-rule to keep them happy. This gradually became complete self-rule for the Dominions, and finally virtual independence, confirmed with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. This division not only sometimes created conflicting political purposes but also introduced commercial diseconomies, since territories with self-rule began even in the 19th century to prefer protective tariffs. With the Depression, even Britain abandoned free trade. Since protective tariffs are a negative sum game, i.e. total value decreases rather than increases, the British Commonwealth ended up as an economic organization much worse off than the United States, which contained within itself what was in effect a colossal free trade zone.

The physical detachment of British possessions from Britain created a centrifugal tendency towards distinct identity and interest that was fatal to British thalassocracy all the way from the American Revolution to World War II. Unlike Athens, Britain did not need to rely on "allies" forcefully incorporated into its system. Unlike Rome, Britain did not need to create a super-identity overlaying older historically and culturally distinct communities that it had conquered (though something of the sort was tried in India and other purely imperial acquisitions). No, in America and elsewhere, it had its worst problems with English speaking immigrants who became divided in identity and interest from the Mother Country. When Britain lost its predominance at sea, in World War I and World War II, albeit to a fraternal ally, the United States, the British "Empire" was a bubble that burst as decisively as did that of Athens -- although leaving a symbolic and sentimental structure, the British Commonwealth, behind. The symbolic and sentimental, however, does not translate into geopolitical force, and Britain lapsed into the second rank of Powers. A key year in that respect was 1967, when Britain withdrew from all its traditional strategic commitments East of Suez. It was on the verge of retiring the aircraft carriers that



http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm


gave the Royal Navy any remote strike capability when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982. If the Argentines had just waited a couple of years, Britain would have had grave difficulty mounting an effective naval response.

Meanwhile, the Age of the Superpowers had arrived, initially meaning the United States and the Soviet Union. The power of the Soviet Union, although credibly based on a continental mass and a large population, turned out to be largely founded on bluff. The regime actively suppressed the commercial culture and economic institutions that could have made it a real competitor with the United States and the European democracies. While the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the European Community was trying, through economic integration, to achieve equality with the United States -- a project extended in the 90's into an actual "European Union." But it is handicapped by a controlling and bureaucratic mentality, with socialist purposes, that sometimes rises nearly to Sovietizing levels. China, although allowing hardly a spark of democracy, nevertheless seems rather more aware of what it needs to do economically.

Ideological objections to the United States, as a "neo-colonialist" or "neo-imperialist" power, still rest on the Cargo Cult or Marxist misconceptions already mentioned. The United States uses its sea power in one of the ways that Britain did, to secure the seas for shipping and to promote the political stability that is favorable to trade. Objections to this, if not mere envy, will usually dismiss trade as either unnecessary or a positive evil. The poverty of the countries presumptively "exploited" by the United States is attributed, if not by standard Marxist analysis to alienated labor, etc., then most commonly by the Cargo Cult explanation to the notion that in international trade countries are denied the true value (the Mediaeval "just price") of their own "natural resources." Hence, African countries are poor because they don't get paid enough for the materials they mine and export.

Unfortunately for these views, there has been an international oil cartel for many years now, OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), whose entire purpose is to drive up oil prices through price fixing and other monopoly practices that are usually regarded as diabolical when used by private businesses in any country. OPEC has been relatively ineffective for two reasons: (1) The natural working of supply and demand, which determines free market prices, tends to overcome price fixing, since OPEC members are tempted to cheat on each other, and OPEC has no enforcement powers to prevent this. (2) Even the monopoly rents sought by OPEC members, like Spanish silver, do not translate into genuine economic development in their countries, something that requires the entrepreneurial population and legal and financial institutions that those with oil wealth tend to regard as unnecessary or undesirable. Thus, even the wealthiest of the oil states, like Saudi Arabia, have high unemployment [note] and the sort of restless and ideologized malcontents, with not much to do, who figure that they are just not getting paid "enough" for what is rightfully theirs. Even worse, we find the phenomenon of someone like the millionaire Osama ben Laden, who apparently would like to force everyone to live in Mediaeval ascetic poverty, while using his wealth to destroy, with some of its own weapons, the religious enemy manifest in the power of the West.

The dynamic of world history, consequently, has left behind the last thalassocracy. But this may not be





the end of the phenomenon. It is hard to imagine that human colonization will not someday extend out into the solar system, although so far it is has been surprisingly delayed well beyond the introduction of space travel. When such colonization does develop, the conditions characteristic of thalassocracy will return. Communication, indeed, will be no problem between extraterrestrial human colonies, but travel will be another matter. Getting to Mars by spaceship for some time to come will be not unlike getting to Australia by sailing ship. It took Columbus a month to get across the Atlantic, but that is not enough to get anywhere in the solar system beyond the Moon. Indeed, technological innovations can make such travel easier. Mars may be weeks rather than months away with ion engines. But all this does is move outward the boundary of what is conveniently accessible. Even communication will become problematic in one sense, because the limitation of the velocity of light will render convenient dialogue impossible. Out at Jupiter or Saturn, the round trip for a message to Earth will be measured, not in seconds or even minutes, but in hours. Distance and awkwardness, at least, of communication will render remote colonies, once they become populous and self-sustaining, liable to the same dynamic of distinct identity and interest, not to mention the same limitations of military control, that inevitably fragmented the British thalassocracy. An exploration of this theme in science fiction, with a human colony as close as the Moon, can be found in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [1966], where the Moon in 2076 successfully revolts against the Earth. As the Earth itself seems to be moving towards ever more centralized political control, even in the democracies, with devices of police state control expanding, it may prove to be the greatest hope for human freedom and flourishing that there will be Americas and Australias of the future beyond effective political control on all the thousands of hunks of rock in the Solar System, if not beyond. Light speed or instantaneous transportation might overcome that barrier, but, again, all it will do is push out the boundary. The stars, if not the asteroids, will always be there, with refuge for any future Mayflower. The fragility of a thalassocracy thus, as it happens, may be the very best thing about it.


Home Page


The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Note 1

World War I also revealed the fragility of thalassocracy in another way. The British Navy was fully aware that while Germany would not lose the war even with a devastating naval defeat, it could win the war with a devastating victory. The Battle of Jutland in 1916 was something that could easily have been the British Aegospotami. If the British Grand Fleet were crippled or destroyed, the German Navy could have cut off Britian from food and arms imports, stranded the British Army in France, and devastated






British cities. This being the case, German actions show extreme ignorance and foolishness. It it is as though the Germans hadn't quite thought through what their Navy was for, or what the strategic situation was. Except for Jutland, from which the German fleet only tried to escape, there was no other general fleet action in the War, even though the Germans had nothing to lose (except face, and a few thousand men -- no more lives than were thrown away every few days in the trenches) and everything to gain. After Jutland, the Germans even knew from direct experience that their ships were very well built, tough, and could take tremendous punishment (British 15-inch shells) without sinking -- while three British battlecruisers had simply blown up and sunk with all hands. This didn't make any difference. When the War was obviously lost in 1918, the Kaiser finally instructed the High Seas Fleet to sail out in a final, desperate attack. It was way too late. The British fleet by then was not only larger by its own construction, but was reinforced with American battleships. But the attack never happened because the German sailors mutinied. They were not going to throw away their lives in a lost cause.

By the way, although the British thought they had a pretty good idea why their ships had sunk so catastrophically, there is no certainty that they had found all the problems. A new class of battlecruisers was designed with the "lessons of Jutland" in mind. Of the new ships, only the great Hood was completed. As it happened, the Hood, like its Jutland predecessors, blew up and sank with all hands when hit by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941. Exactly why the Hood sank is still a mystery, though now it has become possible to locate sunken ships in the deep ocean (like the Bismarck itself) and minutely examine the wrecks.

Return to Text

The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Note 2

I notice that The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2003 doesn't even give an unemployment figure for Saudi Arabia [p.194]. It does, however, list Saudi Arabia with one of the lowest "labor force participation" figures in the world. Only 32.9% of the Saudi population is even in the labor force. This contrasts with 50.1% in the United Kingdom, 51.4% in the United States, 53.8% in Japan, and 60.0% in China.

The Los Angeles Times of 16 May 2003 [p.A11] does give unemployment figures for the Kingdom:

Officially, unemployment is about 8%. Private economists put the figure closer to 13%, and some Saudi political scientists have said it may be about 25%, if one considers the large number of young adults still living at home with their parents.



The last figure may include "discouraged" workers, who have dropped out of the workforce, since they can't find work. This contributes to the low labor force participation number. The 8% unemployment figure would be better than France and Germany, but 13% is really a Depression level -- 25% would be a Great Depression level of unemployment.

Return to Text


history - rome and romania, 27 bc - 1453 ad

Documents