DOCSLIB.ORG

Περίληψη : Founder of the Empire of Nicaea and Its First Emperor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Περίληψη : Founder of the Empire of Nicaea and Its First Emperor IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη , "Theodore I Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8481> Περίληψη : Founder of the Empire of Nicaea and its first emperor. In 1204 Laskaris sought refuge with his family to the Byzantine lands of Asia Minor, where he undertook to create a new state entity which would be a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. He established his control over the region of western Asia Minor and in 1206 he was declared Emperor of the Romans. He remained on the throne of Nicaea until his death in 1222. Άλλα Ονόματα Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης c. 1175 Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου August 1222, Nicaea Κύρια Ιδιότητα Emperor 1. Biography Theodore I Laskaris was born c.1175 into a large aristocratic family. He had six brothers, Alexios, Isaakios, Georgios, Michael and Konstantine. In around 1200 he became a relative of the emperor Alexios III Angelos, as he was married to his daughter Anna, with which he had three daughters, Eirene, Maria and Eudokia, and two sons, who died at an early age. Subsequently Laskaris was married two more times: in 1214 he was wed to the princess of Lesser Armenia Philippa, who gave him a son, Konstantine; in 1216 he married Maria de Courtenay, sister of Robert de Courtenay, the heir to the Constantinople throne. During the years of Alexios III Angelos’reign (1195-1203), Lascaris was in the service of the Byzantine emperor, while soon after his marriage to the emperor’s daughter he received the important title of despotes. In the same year he was sent against the Bulgarian defector Alexios Ivanko, while in July 1203 he distinguished himself during the skirmishes with the Latin Crusaders that besieged Constantinople. Following the expulsion of his father-in-law Alexios III, Isaakios II’s return to the throne of Constantinople (1185-1195,1203-1204) and the proclamation of his son, Alexios IV, as co-emperor, Laskaris with his family left the city and fled to the region of Asia Minor shortly before the capture of Constantinople by the Latins on April 12, 1204. His aim was to create a new state entity which would be a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. Although at first the local population was hostile towards him because of his kinship with the house of the Angeli, who had imposed strigent economic measures on the inhabitants of Asia Minor, he managed to establish his authority over western Asia Minor and proceeded to organize a new Byzantine state with Nicaea as its capital. In 1206 he was proclaimed Emperor of the Romans but his coronation took place later, in March of 1208, following the election of the new patriarch Michael IV Autoreianos.1 During his reign, Laskaris sought to expand the borders of his state, clashing on various occasions with the Latins and the Seljuk Turks of Rum, while he also laid the foundations of his emergent state’s internal governance. He died in August of 1222 and was buried in the monastery of Hyakinthos. 2. Foundation of the Empire of Nicaea – Theodore I Laskaris' coronation When Laskaris sought refuge with his family in Asia Minor,2 and in Nicaea in particular, its inhabitants did not allow him into the city, although they accepted his family. Laskaris then started a tour of the cities of Bithynia and northwest Asia Minor in an effort to convince the lords of the region of the necessity to create a centre of power able to resist Latin expansionism, while he also aspired to become recognized as the lawful heir in place of his father-in-law Alexios III Angelos. In spite of the original hostility and suspicion with which he was received by the locals, he finally managed to become recognised by the local population as a despotes. Nonetheless he had to contend with a number of issues and difficulties. The old organizational structure of the state had collapsed, Δημιουργήθηκε στις 9/10/2021 Σελίδα 1/6 IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη , "Theodore I Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8481> while all over Asia Minor small autonomous states were emerging. Theodore Mangaphas had managed to impose himself as an independent ruler in Philadelphia; the same was true of Manuel Maurozomes in the Maeander valley and of Savvas Asidenos in Samsun (ancient Priene); David Komnenos, brother of the Emperor of Trebizond, Alexios I Grand Komnenos (1204-1222) was advancing from the east along the coast of the Black Sea. During the same period he had to face the forces of the Latins, who, after the victory they had achieved over the forces of Laskaris in December of 1204 at Poimanenon, had entrenched their rule in Bithynia up to Nicaea and up to Adramyttion in the southwest. The defeat the Latins suffered, however, by the Bulgarian and Cuman troops of Kalogiannes (1197-1207) on April 14th 1205 at Adrianople forced the Latin troops in Asia Minor to withdraw and offered Laskaris an opportunity to strengthen his rule over the region by placing all the independent lords under his control, with the exception of Manuel Maurozomes. After his confrontation with the rebel, he was forced to recognize him as the lawful ruler of the areas of Laodicea and Chonai, following a treaty he signed with the Seljuk sultan of Rum and Manuel’s relative Kaykhusraw I in February/March of 1206.3 During the same period Laskaris, having earned the recognition of the locals, was proclaimed Emperor of the Romans and succeeded the Byzantine emperors of Constantinople. Due to the inability, however, of assembling a council to elect a new patriarch, he was crowned later, in the Easter of 1208, by the new patriarch Michael IV Autoreianos. The election of the patriarch in 1208 was a milestone in the history of Nicaea, as it established the city’s aspirations to becoming the seat of the Byzantine State and the Byzantine Church. At first it seemed that Laskaris faced no contenders to the throne of Nicaea. In 1210, however, his father-in-law, Alexios III, came again to the fore. Alexios III had not abandoned his plans of recapturing the throne; he enlisted the support of his cousin Michael I Doukas, despotes of Epiros,4 as well as that of the Seljuk sultan of Rum, at whose court the had found refuge. On the pretext of this supposedly lawful claim, the sultan asked Laskaris to cede the throne of Nicaea to his father-in- law Alexios. To face this contention, Laskaris assembled his army and confronted the Seljuk troops in Antioch on the Maeander in the Spring of 1211. The Byzantine troops were defeated in the battle that ensued, but the sultan himself was killed by Laskaris in a duel and the Seljuks took to flight. Alexios III was captured during this engagement; he was later put on trial for treason and was sentenced to blinding, while by Laskaris’order he remained locked up until the end of his life in the monastery of Yakinthos. 3. Domestic policy During his reign Theodore I Laskaris reorganized the structure of the emergent empire from scratch, placing the foundations of the central and provincial administration. The reconstitution of the Holy Synod, the election of a patriarch at Nicaea, as well as the legitimation of the imperial rule, represent the first steps towards the reorganization the apparatus of the state. The issue that was to absorb Laskaris subsequently, as well as his heirs, was the formation of a standing army and navy. The needs of the military dictated the form of provincial administration, as well as of the fiscal policy of the new state. The armed forces were manned by the native agrarian class and, principally, by members of the Constantinople aristocracy who had found refuge in Nicaea and were granted significant estates through the institution of the pronoiai. Due to the need to wage expansionary campaigns, a mercenary army was gradually created.5 We also have a return to the institution of the military theme in provincial administration, which had fallen into disuse during the 11th and 12th centuries. The organization of the central administration, the public servants’hierarchy and the imperial court were also organized in accordance to the old Byzantine rules, and many palatial, administrative and honorific titles and offices were reinstated. The high office of the mesazon was one of the first to be reconstituted in the apparatus of central administration; it was awarded by Laskaris to Demetrios Tornikes, who took on the functions of a prime minister and the emperor’s personal advisor. After Tornikes’death, however, the new emperor John III Vatatzes did not replace him, and the office was abolished, part of its functions being relegated to the office of the megas logothetes. 4. Foreign policy 4.1. Relations with the Latins of Constantinople The Nicaean emperor’s aspirations to recapture Constantinople and reconstitute the Empire, and the expansionary designs of the Latins of Constantinople against the realm of Asia Minor caused Laskaris to clash with the forces of Latin Constantinople on several occasions. In 1204 the two sides first joined battle closed to Poimanenon. Laskaris was defeated there and forced to sign a cease- fire, with which the rule of the Latins over a large part of Bithynia was consolidated. However, the Latin troops did not remain for long there; the forces of the Emperor of Constantinople, Baldwin I of Flanders, were defeated at Adrianople and he was captured Δημιουργήθηκε στις 9/10/2021 Σελίδα 2/6 IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Βουγιουκλάκη Πηνελόπη , "Theodore I Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INTRODUCTION the Capture of Constantinople by the Armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 Fragmented the Byzantine Empire. Territor
    INTRODUCTION The capture of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 fragmented the Byzantine empire. Territories which did not submit to the Crusaders fell into the hands of Byzantine magnates who became rulers of numerous small political entities. The most important of these newly founded states, which each claimed to be the successor of the destroyed Byzantine empire, were the empires of Trebizond and Nicaea in Asia Minor and the principality of Epiros in the Balkans.1 The so-called empire of Nicaea, which was established as a viable state by Theodore I Laskaris (1204–1221), was the most suc- cessful of these. Laskaris averted the threat of a combined attack from the Latin empire of Constantinople and the Seljuks of Rum and over- came various local lords who, in the wake of the collapse of Byzantium, had established their own independent authorities in Asia Minor. His successors, John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) and Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258), conquered large territories in the Balkans. They forced the rulers of Epiros to abandon their claim to the imperial title and reduced the military strength of the Latin empire of Constantinople. Under John III and Theodore II, Nicaea prevailed as the legitimate successor to the Byzantine empire. In 1261, the Nicaean army cap- tured Constantinople and Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282), who had seized the throne from the Laskarids, restored the Byzantine empire. Yet, despite the conquests of the Laskarids and the recovery of Constantinople by Michael VIII, much territory which had belonged to the Byzantine empire before the Fourth Crusade remained beyond imperial control.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Masters and Servants: Hybrid Power in Theodore Laskaris
    ANDRIA ANDREOU - PANAGIOTIS A. AGAPITOS Of Masters and Servants Hybrid Power in Theodore Laskaris’ Response to Mouzalon and in the Tale of Livistros and Rodamne Abstract The present paper examines two Byzantine texts from the middle of the thirteenth century, ostensibly unrelated to each other: a political essay written by a young emperor and an anonymous love romance. The analysis is conducted through the concept of hybrid power, a notion initially developed by postcolonial criticism. It is shown that in the two texts authority (that of the Byzantine emperor and that of Eros as emperor) is constructed as hybrid and thus as an impossibility, though in the case of the political essay this impossibility remains unresolved, while in the romance it is actually resolved. The pronounced similarities between the two texts on the level of political ideology (e.g. the notion of friendship between master and servant, the performance of power relations, shared key concepts) informing the hybrid form of authority and its relation to its servants is a clear indication that they belong to the same socio-cultural and intellectual environment, namely the Laskarid imperial court in Nicaea around 1250. * The present paper is a substantially The aim of this study* is to examine two ostensibly unrelated Byzan- revised and expanded version of a talk tine texts. The first is a ‘political essay’ by the emperor Theodore II given at a workshop on Theodore Doukas Laskaris (1254–58) on the relation of friendship between Laskaris as emperor and author, organized by Dimiter Angelov and rulers and their close collaborators; it can be plausibly dated between Panagiotis Agapitos in Nicosia with 1250 and 1254, at the time when the author was crowned prince.
    [Show full text]
  • Περίληψη : Manuel Laskaris Was a Member of the Laskaris Family and One of the Six Brothers of Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222)
    IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Γιαρένης Ηλίας Μετάφραση : Βελέντζας Γεώργιος Για παραπομπή : Γιαρένης Ηλίας , "Manuel Laskaris ", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=7801> Περίληψη : Manuel Laskaris was a member of the Laskaris family and one of the six brothers of Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222). In the years of John III Vatatzes (1222-1254), he was in disgrace, while when Theodore II Laskaris assumed the throne (1254-1958), he was recalled along with the rest of his relatives. He became an important trusty counselor of the emperor and was honoured by him with the notable title of protosebastos. He was not a successful fighter in the battlefield, though. After Theodore II died in 1258, he did not support the election of Michael Palaiologos as the regent of John IV Laskaris and, as a result, was exiled in Prousa. Άλλα Ονόματα Manuel Komnenos Laskaris, Manuel Tzamanturos, Maximos Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης late 12th / early 13th century Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου third quarter of the 13th century Κύρια Ιδιότητα protosebastos 1. Βiography Manuel Laskaris was the youngest brother of the emperor of Nicaea Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris, and the last of all six Laskaris brothers. The Laskaris brothers from the eldest to the younger were: Isaac, Alexios, Theodore (I Komnenos Laskaris, emperor in the exile of Nicaea), Constantine (XI Laskaris, uncrowned Byzantine emperor), Michael and Manuel.1 The activity of Michael Laskaris is also mentioned by George Akropolites, Theodore Skoutariotes and George Pachymeres, who calls him ‘Tzamanturos’( Tζαμάντουρος).2 There is information about his life and work until Michael VIII assumed the throne; Michael Laskaris must have died in exile in Prousa.
    [Show full text]
  • A Chronological Particular Timeline of Near East and Europe History
    Introduction This compilation was begun merely to be a synthesized, occasional source for other writings, primarily for familiarization with European world development. Gradually, however, it was forced to come to grips with the elephantine amount of historical detail in certain classical sources. Recording the numbers of reported war deaths in previous history (many thousands, here and there!) initially was done with little contemplation but eventually, with the near‐exponential number of Humankind battles (not just major ones; inter‐tribal, dynastic, and inter‐regional), mind was caused to pause and ask itself, “Why?” Awed by the numbers killed in battles over recorded time, one falls subject to believing the very occupation in war was a naturally occurring ancient inclination, no longer possessed by ‘enlightened’ Humankind. In our synthesized histories, however, details are confined to generals, geography, battle strategies and formations, victories and defeats, with precious little revealed of the highly complicated and combined subjective forces that generate and fuel war. Two territories of human existence are involved: material and psychological. Material includes land, resources, and freedom to maintain a life to which one feels entitled. It fuels war by emotions arising from either deprivation or conditioned expectations. Psychological embraces Egalitarian and Egoistical arenas. Egalitarian is fueled by emotions arising from either a need to improve conditions or defend what it has. To that category also belongs the individual for whom revenge becomes an end in itself. Egoistical is fueled by emotions arising from material possessiveness and self‐aggrandizations. To that category also belongs the individual for whom worldly power is an end in itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Daughter of a Byzantine Emperor – the Wife of a Galician­Volhynian Prince
    The daughter of a Byzantine Emperor – the wife of a Galician­Volhynian Prince «The daughter of a Byzantine Emperor – the wife of a Galician­Volhynian Prince» by Alexander V. Maiorov Source: Byzantinoslavica ­ Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines (Byzantinoslavica ­ Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines), issue: 1­2 / 2014, pages: 188­233, on www.ceeol.com. The daughter of a Byzantine Emperor – the wife of a Galician-Volhynian Prince Alexander V. MAIOROV (Saint Petersburg) The Byzantine origin of Prince Roman’s second wife There is much literature on the subject of the second marriage of Roman Mstislavich owing to the disagreements between historians con- cerning the origin of the Princeís new wife. According to some she bore the name Anna or, according to others, that of Maria.1 The Russian chronicles give no clues in this respect. Indeed, a Galician chronicler takes pains to avoid calling the Princess by name, preferring to call her by her hus- band’s name – “âĺëčęŕ˙ ęí˙ăčí˙ Ðîěŕíîâŕ” (Roman’s Grand Princess).2 Although supported by the research of a number of recent investiga- tors, the hypothesis that she belonged to a Volhynian boyar family is not convincing. Their arguments generally conclude with the observation that by the early thirteenth century there were no more princes in Rusí to whom it would have been politically beneficial for Roman to be related.3 Even less convincing, in our opinion, is a recently expressed supposition that Romanís second wife was a woman of low birth and was not the princeís lawful wife at all.4 Alongside this, the theory of the Byzantine ori- gin of Romanís second wife has been significantly developed in the litera- ture on the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Was It Important for the Byzantines to Read Latin? the Views of Demetrios Kydones (1324-1398)
    Why was it important for the Byzantines to read Latin? The views of Demetrios Kydones (1324-1398). Abstract Fourteenth-century Byzantium witnessed civil wars between cliques of the ruling elite, constant financial crisis and dramatic territorial reduction. As a result of two catastrophic civil wars that were fought in 1321-1328 and 1341-1347, the Byzantine empire evolved into a small state which was struggling to survive and defend itself against large numbers of hostile neighbours, some of whom had or gradually acquired the resources to develop military forces far superior to those of Byzantium. In the 1350s and1360s the Ottoman Turks began the conquest of European territories that belonged to the Byzantine empire and threatened the very existence of the Byzantine state. Seeing that it was impossible to face the Ottomans militarily many Byzantines began to support the idea of a Crusade against the Ottomans and the reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. One of the most staunchest supporters of this policy was the prolific author and politician Demetrios Kydones. This article will discuss how Kydones promoted the policy of reconciliation and alliance with Western European powers against the Ottomans. The fourteenth century was for the Byzantine empire a period of civil wars, dramatic territorial reduction and continuous political, economic and military crisis. The expansion of the Ottomans in European territories in the 1360s and the 1370s reduced Byzantium to Constantinople and its suburbs, a few cities in the Black Sea and Thrace and a few Aegean islands. Thessalonica, the second largest city of the empire was isolated and in tenuous contact with Constantinople, while the rulers of Byzantine Morea in the Peloponnese were forced to follow their own independent foreign and military policy.1 It is under this rather pessimistic political context that Demetrios Kydones pursued his career in politics and literature.
    [Show full text]
  • 1St Wife of Emp.Isaakios II
    [EIRENE?], FIRST WIFE OF EMP. ISAAKIOS II -349- [EIRENE?], FIRST WIFE OF EMPEROR ISAAKIOS II ANGELOS, IS A PROBABLE TORNIKINA AND GATEWAY TO ANTIQUITY by Don C Stone1 and Charles R Owens ABSTRACT In most printed histories and reference works the first wife of Byzantine Emperor Isaakios II Angelos is described as unknown. She had married Isaakios, borne him several children, and died, all before Isaakios became emperor. In Section 1 we review evidence relating to the name of this first wife and some relationships that might involve her, concluding that she is very likely the daughter of Demetrios Tornikes, logothetes of the dromos (foreign minister) of emperors Isaakios II and Alexios III. In Section 2 we present a genealogical sketch of the Tornikes family, noting biographical details that further support this parentage. Foundations (2011) 3 (5): 349-390 © Copyright FMG and the authors 1. Her Name and Some Relationships and Titles Five sources from the time of Emperor Isaakios II Angelos (d.1204) or slightly thereafter give or might give information about his first wife: 1. Her name was given as Herina [Eirene] in the necrology of Speyer Cathedral, where her son-in-law Philipp, second husband of her daughter Eirene-Maria, is buried. 2. The Byzantine official Konstantinos Tornikes was called the theios (uncle) of Emp. Alexios IV Angelos (son of Emp. Isaakios II Angelos and the latter’s first wife) in December 1203 in an act of the monastery of Patmos. 3. Euthymios Tornikes, brother of Konstantinos, called himself despotes in a eulogy for Emp. Alexios III in 1201.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Empire Roman Empire
    NON- FICTION UNABRIDGED Edward Gibbon THE Decline and Fall ––––––––––––– of the ––––––––––––– Roman Empire Read by David Timson Volum e I V CD 1 1 Chapter 37 10:00 2 Athanasius introduced into Rome... 10:06 3 Such rare and illustrious penitents were celebrated... 8:47 4 Pleasure and guilt are synonymous terms... 9:52 5 The lives of the primitive monks were consumed... 9:42 6 Among these heroes of the monastic life... 11:09 7 Their fiercer brethren, the formidable Visigoths... 10:35 8 The temper and understanding of the new proselytes... 8:33 Total time on CD 1: 78:49 CD 2 1 The passionate declarations of the Catholic... 9:40 2 VI. A new mode of conversion... 9:08 3 The example of fraud must excite suspicion... 9:14 4 His son and successor, Recared... 12:03 5 Chapter 38 10:07 6 The first exploit of Clovis was the defeat of Syagrius... 8:43 7 Till the thirtieth year of his age Clovis continued... 10:45 8 The kingdom of the Burgundians... 8:59 Total time on CD 2: 78:43 2 CD 3 1 A full chorus of perpetual psalmody... 11:18 2 Such is the empire of Fortune... 10:08 3 The Franks, or French, are the only people of Europe... 9:56 4 In the calm moments of legislation... 10:31 5 The silence of ancient and authentic testimony... 11:39 6 The general state and revolutions of France... 11:27 7 We are now qualified to despise the opposite... 13:38 Total time on CD 3: 78:42 CD 4 1 One of these legislative councils of Toledo..
    [Show full text]
  • Yolanda of Flanders: Latin Woman Potentate of the Roman Empire
    Advances in Historical Studies, 2018, 7, 22-29 http://www.scirp.org/journal/ahs ISSN Online: 2327-0446 ISSN Print: 2327-0438 Yolanda of Flanders: Latin Woman Potentate of the Roman Empire Valentine J. Belfiglio Department of History and Government, Texas Woman’s University, Denton, USA How to cite this paper: Belfiglio, V. J. Abstract (2018). Yolanda of Flanders: Latin Woman Potentate of the Roman Empire. Advances The main purpose of this paper is to construct a personality profile of Yolan- in Historical Studies, 7, 22-29. da, a Latin woman potentate of the Eastern Roman Empire. The key question https://doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2018.71003 the author is addressing is whether or not the personality profile of Yolanda Received: February 24, 2018 can serve as a guide to the personality traits of modern women as political Accepted: March 25, 2018 leaders. The most important information in this article is the influence of Published: March 28, 2018 family, religion, schooling, class, status, experiences, and social contacts upon the psychological development of Yolanda. The main inference in this paper is Copyright © 2018 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. that there may be similar attributes and circumstances that facilitate the elec- This work is licensed under the Creative tion of women to chiefs-of-state in modern countries. This article was written Commons Attribution International within the context of constructivism and feminist international relations License (CC BY 4.0). theory. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access Keywords Political Women, Constructivism, Personality, Experiences, Political Environment 1. Introduction The ancient Roman political system evolved through time.
    [Show full text]
  • © in This Web Service Cambridge University
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00962-2 - Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia Mark C. Bartusis Index More information Index Aaron on Zavorda Treatise, 35 archontopoulos, grant recipient, 348 Aitolia, 231 Theodore, apographeus, 627 Akapniou, monastery in Thessaloniki, 307, Achaia, 234, 241 556, 592–94, 618 Acheloos, theme of, 233 Akarnania, 333, 510 Achinos, village, 556, 592–94 akatadoulotos, akatadouloton, 308, 423–24, 425 Achladochorion, mod. village, 451 akc¸e, 586, 587 acorns, 228, 229, 364, 491, 626 Akindynos, Gregory, 255 Adam akinetos (k©nhtov) see dorea; ktema; ktesis Nicholas, grant recipient, xxi, 206, 481 Aklou, village, 148 official, xv, 123 Akridakes, Constantine, priest, 301 syr, kavallarios,landholder,206, 481 Akropolites, George, historian, 15, 224, 225, Adam, village, 490, 619 284, 358 adelphaton,pl.adelphata, 153 Akros see Longos Adrian Akroterion, village, 570, 572, 573 landholder in the 1320s, 400 aktemon (ktmwn), pl. aktemones, 70, 85, 86, pronoia holder prior to 1301, 520 139, 140, 141–42, 143, 144, 214, 215, Adrianople, 330, 551 590 Adriatic Sea, 603, 604 Alans, 436, 502 Aegean Sea, 502, 510, 602, 604 Albania, 4, 584 aer, aerikon see under taxes, specific Alexios I Komnenos, emperor (1081–1118), xl, agridion, xxii, 466, 540–42, 570 xlii Ahrweiler, Hel´ ene,` 7 chrysobulls of, xv, xvi, 84, 128, 129, 134, on Adrian Komnenos, 137 140, 160, 255 on Alopos, 197 and coinage, 116 on appanages, 290, 291, 292, 293 and gifts of paroikoi, 85 on charistike, 155 and imperial grants, 29, 30, 58, 66, 69,
    [Show full text]
  • Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    ICONS AND SAINTS OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Alfredo Tradigo | 384 pages | 01 Sep 2006 | Getty Trust Publications | 9780892368457 | English | Santa Monica CA, United States Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church PDF Book In the Orthodox Church "icons have always been understood as a visible gospel, as a testimony to the great things given man by God the incarnate Logos". Many religious homes in Russia have icons hanging on the wall in the krasny ugol —the "red" corner see Icon corner. Guide to Imagery Series. Samuel rated it really liked it Jun 21, It did not disappoint on this detail. Later communion will be available so that one can even utilize the sense of taste during worship. Statues in the round were avoided as being too close to the principal artistic focus of pagan cult practices, as they have continued to be with some small-scale exceptions throughout the history of Eastern Christianity. The Art of the Byzantine Empire — A Guide to Imagery 10 , Bildlexikon der Kunst 9. Parishioners do not sit primly in the pews but may walk throughout the church lighting candles, venerating icons. Modern academic art history considers that, while images may have existed earlier, the tradition can be traced back only as far as the 3rd century, and that the images which survive from Early Christian art often differ greatly from later ones. Aldershot: Ashgate. In the Orthodox Church an icon is a sacred image, a window into heaven. Purple reveals wealth, power and authority. Vladimir's Seminary Press, The stillness of the icon draws us into the quiet so that we can lay aside the cares of this world and meditate on the splendor of the next.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominalia of the Bulgarian Rulers an Essay by Ilia Curto Pelle
    Nominalia of the Bulgarian rulers An essay by Ilia Curto Pelle Bulgaria is a country with a rich history, spanning over a millennium and a half. However, most Bulgarians are unaware of their origins. To be honest, the quantity of information involved can be overwhelming, but once someone becomes invested in it, he or she can witness a tale of the rise and fall, steppe khans and Christian emperors, saints and murderers of the three Bulgarian Empires. As delving deep in the history of Bulgaria would take volumes upon volumes of work, in this essay I have tried simply to create a list of all Bulgarian rulers we know about by using different sources. So, let’s get to it. Despite there being many theories for the origin of the Bulgars, the only one that can show a historical document supporting it is the Hunnic one. This document is the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans, dating back to the 8th or 9th century, which mentions Avitohol/Attila the Hun as the first Bulgarian khan. However, it is not clear when the Bulgars first joined the Hunnic Empire. It is for this reason that all the Hunnic rulers we know about will also be included in this list as khans of the Bulgars. The rulers of the Bulgars and Bulgaria carry the titles of khan, knyaz, emir, elteber, president, and tsar. This list recognizes as rulers those people, who were either crowned as any of the above, were declared as such by the people, despite not having an official coronation, or had any possession of historical Bulgarian lands (in modern day Bulgaria, southern Romania, Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, and northern Greece), while being of royal descent or a part of the royal family.
    [Show full text]