DOCSLIB.ORG

Der Strategos Autokrator Bet Der Geburt Der

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Der Strategos Autokrator Bet Der Geburt Der DER STRATEGOS AUTOKRATOR BETDER GEBURT DER HELLENISTISCHEN MONARCHIE von Satoru AlSAKA I Das Problem Wenn man sich mit der Entstehung der hellenistischen Monarchie beschaftigt, fragt es sich zunachst, wie das Aleχanderreich seine Verfassungen von Persern erbte. Nahert man siclinun der Frage von Seiten der Griechen, kommt es zuerst daruf an, wie sich die griechische Monarchie zur hellenistischen entwickelte. Isokrates nannte den Mekedonenkonig Phillpp II. den Hegemon der Griechen （vgl. Diod. XVT 89, 1:π臨功ぐ勁ぐ’Eλμ船吋祚εμ訟ﾉ）undAristoteles empfahl dem Alexander d. Gr.,die Hellenen als Hegeraon zu fuhren，die Barbaren aber als Despot zu herrschen.'^）Die Demokraten warfen nun dem Philipp und seinem Sohn die Verletzung der Autonomie der einzelnen Polls vor und hielten beider PolitifcfiirTyrannis （Dem. XVII 3,4. vgl. XVIII 235）.2）Wahrend Philipp beim Hellenenbund als Hegemon （Syll.!･*,260, Z. 21）bezeichnet wurde, nannte man Antigonos und Demetrios Basileus in der sog. epidaurischen Bundesstele vom Jahre 302 V. Chr.（IG IX 1",68, Z. 68/69, 71/72; Vgl. Plut. Demetr. X ； XVIII ； XXV）. Wir nehmen hier also drei Formen der griechischen Monokratie auf: die HEGEMONIA, die TYRANNIS und die BASILEIA und stellen uns die Frage, wie sich bei der Geburt der hellenistischen MONARCHIA die drei oben genannten Formen verhielten, und zwar im Zusam- raenhang mit der Entwicklung des STRΛTEGOS AUTOKRATOR. D E. Barker, The Conception of Empire （in: The Legacy of Rome八.923)、p. 47. 2） Vgl. H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte-. 1960, S. 308. II.Der Strategos Autokrator und die griechische Hegemonie Das Verhalthis zwischen Philipp und den griechischen Stadten wurde von seiner Haltung bei der Schlacht in Chaironeia an den Tag gebracht : nee regem se Graeciae, sed ducem appel- lari iussit (Just. IX 4,2)1)，Diese Stellung wurde spater bei dem Hellenenbund als Hegemon bzw. Strategos Autokrator konstituiert (Vgl. Diod, XVI, 89, 3 ; XVII, 4, 9； Pap. 0x. ed. Grenfell- －43－ DER STRATEGOS AUTOKRATOR Hunt, I, p. 27, col.3, 9 ff.）,"）EinigeForscher, die den Hegemon von Seiten des Demos/Syn- hedrion auffassen, vertreten die Behauptung, daB der makedonische Konig beim Hellenenbund die Rolle des Hegemons im klassischen Sinne gespielt habe : das Synhedrion, das nationale Spiel und der Hegemon entsprachen dem Rat（β0"λ力），demDemos （iicKXVa句）und dem Magis- trat（砂X。ソIazp£x訂oZ），Dieser Standpunkt steht im Zusammenhang mit dem Gedanken des Isokrates, der es vorschlage, dafi die griechischen Freistaaten eine militarische Entente unter sich bilden soUten, um die Hegemonie der Hellenen zu sichern, und daB der Makedone nur als gewahlter Kommandant gelte.3）Wer gり auf die Vollmacht des Strategos Autokrator aufmerksam macht, ist der Meinung, daB die Organisation des korinthischen Bundes mit der Idee des Isokrates nichts zu tun habe, sondern daB es sich liierim Gegenteil um das Interesse der makedonischen Machtpolitik handele*）: der Strategos Autokrator, zu dem Philipp und Aleχander gewahlt wurden, ist weit davon entfernt, Hegemon zu sein, und ist nichts anderes als eine Stellung, die aus dem Rahmen des Demos/Synhedrion heraustritt^）und mit der Polisverfassung im Widerspruch steht｡ Im Tahre 338/7 wurden drei Vertrage abgeschlossen :（1）der zwischen Philipp und den einzelnen Staaten, (2）der des Landfriedens （にocv-hel)加rf）und（3）der der Symmachie gegen die Perser.*"）Der erste war die Vorstufe des zweiten, des Landfriedensvertrags, der aber nicht nur als Zusammensetzung der Yerhandlungen zwischen Philipp und der einzelnen Polis gait, sondern auBerdem etwas Neues, das Synliedrion mit einem Protektor, umfafite.''）Die Koine Eirene ist aber nichts Neues, sie hat ihren Vorlaufer im Vertrag vom Jahre 362/1, obwohl dieser weniger umfassend war als jene, die alle griechischen Staaten auBer Sparta in sich einschlossen.**）DieSynhedrionverfassung war auch nichts Besonderes. Wir finden sie schon beim 2. athenischen Seebund， in dessen Vertrag die Λutonomie der einzelnen Staaten ebenso gut gesichert wurde wie 338几 wo die Verfassungen der das Synhedrion bildenden Staaten nicht geringgeachtet werden sollten,"）eine Bestimmung, die es auch in den Vertragen zwi- schen Athen und den peloponnesischen Staaten（Syll. 13 181, Z、24 ff.）wiezwischen Athen und Thessalien （Syll.I" 184,Z. 18f.,28）gab,io）Das, was neu ist, ist die Tatsache, daB das Syn- hedrion trotz seinem konstitutionellen Schein, einer Art von Reprasentativsystem, von einem Machthaber abhiingig war, und daB die Selbstverwaltung der einzelnen Mitglietstaaten be- drohte. Der Hegemon trittin den Friedensvertrag hervor alsilﾐか琵拓OiVfj 0Uλ£哺Tex汀μとﾉo気 in der Inschrift von Epidauros als o aでpaで駿辰6 'moて命ソ駈£肌λ隔ソ（scil.Antigonos et Deme- trios）乱! r聊Kotﾉ叙㈹忽可ぐretaeXecμivoぐ. Der 邨忽ぐ回ぐむρ和lz，der im Kriegsfall als Hegemon die Kontingente der Alliierten kommandierte, stand aber unter der Kontrolle des Synhedrions und hatte nur das Vollziehungsrecht,^^）indem dieses endgiiltig abstimmte. Das Recht des Hegemons stammt zwar aus dem des Synhedrions, und es ist zu erklaren mit dem Standpunkt der reprasentativen Verwaltung, eines Prinzips der Polisautonomie.-'^^）Esist nun aber zu bemerken, daB Makedonien weder zum Hellenenbund gehorte, noch Reprasentanten zum Synhedrion sandte.^^）Daraus erkljirtsich, da6 die Hegemonie Philipps auBerhalb den Polisprinzipien stand, als das Synhedrion in der Hauptsitzung （剛plcC びiソoSoC）den Philipp, der kein Mitglied des Synhedrions war, zum Protektor bzw. Hegemon wahlte. Philipp hat den Griechen den Friedensvertrag aufoktroyiert（Just.IX 5,2: pacis legem statuit）,eine Folge, die sich keineswegs aus der freien Verhandlung ergab.^*'） Es ist nicht zu iibersehen, da6 neben der Koine Eirene eine Symmachie zur Welt gekommen war, und zwar in Verbindung mit der ersteren. Das Synhedrion wurde zusammenberufen, eine 44 ― Satoru AlSAKA Sitzung, die das Schutz，und Trutzbiindnis schloC und den Philipp zum Hegemon ernannte.-'^^） Die Symmachie war mit der Koine Eirene untrennbar verbunden, wie es daraus hervorkommt, daB schon beim ぶθoﾉovびuvidPi即der Zug gegen die Perser diskutiert wurde （Diod. XVI 89,3）. Das Wesen der neugegriindeten Symmachie trittin der Tatsache zutage, daB sie nicht einfach ein Bund, sondern ein Biindnis war, das gegen die Perser gerichtet war. Die Friedens- organisation unter den Griechen istalso in die Kriegsorganisation umgewandelt, und das Interesse des Makedonen spielte dabei eine groBe RoUe. Als tierBund den Krieg erkliirte，wurde der Hegemon Philipp zum Strategos Autokrator （Diod.χVI 89,3.Vgl. Arr. VII 9,5:r'.reμふジ dhxOKpaxωP auμπ前竹rfぐ"Eλλ萌oc 面oo心O心i:剱inいrov UiPaVv a回)ヱ仙cCZ）?-^'）Wiesich die Organisation des Friedens in die des Krieges veranderte, verwandelte sich auch der Hegemon, der selbst auBenstehend das Synhedrion der Koine Eirene fiihrte,in den Strategos Autokrator, der auBerhalb der Symmachie die Griechen kommandierte. Gerade in diesen Verhaltnissen schien die Eigentiimlichkeit des Strategos Autokrator der klassischen Art wider, also die Stellung des Perikles Monarchos, der als angeblicher Strategos Autokrator die Demokratie von aufien des Rahmens des Demos her leitete.i'^） Wir bemiihen uns nun, die Stellung des Strategos Autokrator im Hellenenbund mlt der der fiihrenden Amtstrager in den anderen Staatenbiinden Oder Bundesstaaten zu vergleichen｡ Zuerst im peloponnesischen Bund。 Als Sparta sich beschloB, den spartanischen Flihrer zu senden, um iiber die Bundestruppen （ミリvcCTが）dieAufsicht zu fuhren，fand sich die glinstige Gelegenheit zur Herrschaftsstellung Spartas,-"^**）obowohlSparta nicht als Herrscher （vgl. Hdt. VI 93: aPXrj），sondernals Hegemon （vgl. Thuk. 1 18,2:'EλλかQ>ノヤ加心xo）sie fiihrteund in diesem Sinne innerhalb der 号μμθvl（i，alsoder 。legal fundierten Fiihrang“（V.Ehrenberg）^^'） blieb｡ fiber den athenischen Seebund hat der Schreiber schon untersucht, und zwar im Zusammen- hang mit dem historischen Sinn des Perikles Monarchos.-"）Er versuchte zu zeigen, wie stch die perikleische Monarchie auf die Sterategie stiitzte und wie sich die atlienische Arche vermittels der Strategie entfaltete.Er kam zu dem SchluB, daB die innenpolitische Arche des Perikles einerseits und die auBenpolitische Arche Athens andererseits in enger Verbindung standen, und zwar so, daB diese Verbindung der beiden Λrche durch die Strategie hergestellt wurde. Der 2. athenische Seebund verfolgte, obwohl er sich die Autonomie der einzelnen Staaten zu bewahren bemiihte （Syll.I-!,147,Z. 20ff.,35f£.）den gleichen Weg, wie der friihere Bund, also den Weg zum athenischen Seereich, indem das Synhedrion zu einer nur beratenden Korperschaft wurde und das Bestehen der Kleruchen und Garnisonen die athenische Herrscher- stellung sicherte."^） Bei den griechischen Bundesstaaten, die sich, wie die nach den Polismagistraten benannten Beamten （z.B. Archon, Strategos und Demiurgos）und das Bestehen des Demos （der Bundesver- sammlung）zeigten, um die Erweiterung der Polisverfassung bemuhten, hatten die Beamten das Ubergewicht uber den Rat（凹vidpcoﾉ, 面vedPoc,βouXrj）,wie die Boiotarchen liber den 紐μ吋 der Booter. Auch dabei spielten die Strategen die bedeutendste Rolle, und zwar nicht nnr in den militarischen, sondern auch in den politischen Verhaltnissen. Der arkadische Bundesstaat, dessen Begriinder einer der Strategen, Lykomedes von Mantineia （Diod.χV 62,2; 67,2）,war. hatte zwar die Bundesbehorden （50 Damiurgen）und die Bundesversammlung （die p.6pwt）， konnte es aber nicht verhindern, daB sich die Staatsgewalt auf das Zentrum konzentrierte. －45－ DER STRATEGOS AUTOKRATOR Auch bei den hellenistischen Bundesstaaten, dem achaischen und dem atolischen，ist der Vorrang der Strategen nicht zu libersehen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Quipment of Georgios Maniakes and His Army According to the Skylitzes Matritensis
    ΠΟΡΦΥΡΑ da un’idea di Nicola Bergamo “Saranno come fiori che noi coglieremo nei prati per abbellire l’impero d’uno splendore incomparabile. Come specchio levigato di perfetta limpidezza, prezioso ornamento che noi collocheremo al centro del Palazzo” La prima rivista on-line che tratta in maniera completa il periodo storico dei Romani d’Oriente Anno 2005 Dicembre Supplemento n 4 A Prôtospatharios, Magistros, and Strategos Autokrator of 11th cent. : the equipment of Georgios Maniakes and his army according to the Skylitzes Matritensis miniatures and other artistic sources of the middle Byzantine period. a cura di: Dott. Raffaele D’Amato A Prôtospatharios, Magistros, and Strategos Autokrator of 11th cent. the equipment of Georgios Maniakes and his army according to the Skylitzes Matritensis miniatures and other artistic sources of the middle Byzantine period. At the beginning of the 11th century Byzantium was at the height of its glory. After the victorious conquests of the Emperor Basil II (976-1025), the East-Roman1 Empire regained the sovereignty of the Eastern Mediterranean World and extended from the Armenian Mountains to the Italian Peninsula. Calabria, Puglia and Basilicata formed the South-Italian Provinces, called Themata of Kalavria and Laghouvardhia under the control of an High Imperial Officer, the Katepano. 2But the Empire sought at one time to recover Sicily, held by Arab Egyptian Fatimids, who controlled the island by means of the cadet Dynasty of Kalbits.3 The Prôtospatharios4 Georgios Maniakes was appointed in 1038 by the
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantium's Balkan Frontier
    This page intentionally left blank Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier is the first narrative history in English of the northern Balkans in the tenth to twelfth centuries. Where pre- vious histories have been concerned principally with the medieval history of distinct and autonomous Balkan nations, this study regards Byzantine political authority as a unifying factor in the various lands which formed the empire’s frontier in the north and west. It takes as its central concern Byzantine relations with all Slavic and non-Slavic peoples – including the Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians and Hungarians – in and beyond the Balkan Peninsula, and explores in detail imperial responses, first to the migrations of nomadic peoples, and subsequently to the expansion of Latin Christendom. It also examines the changing conception of the frontier in Byzantine thought and literature through the middle Byzantine period. is British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Keble College, Oxford BYZANTIUM’S BALKAN FRONTIER A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, – PAUL STEPHENSON British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow Keble College, Oxford The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Paul Stephenson 2004 First published in printed format 2000 ISBN 0-511-03402-4 eBook (Adobe Reader) ISBN 0-521-77017-3 hardback Contents List ofmaps and figurespagevi Prefacevii A note on citation and transliterationix List ofabbreviationsxi Introduction .Bulgaria and beyond:the Northern Balkans (c.–) .The Byzantine occupation ofBulgaria (–) .Northern nomads (–) .Southern Slavs (–) .The rise ofthe west,I:Normans and Crusaders (–) .
    [Show full text]
  • Imperator, Autokrator - ~~~ Romeinse Keizerschap, De Keizercultus En Egypte Sinds De Oudheid Wordt Beaamd Dat Rome Diepgaand Is Beïnvloed Door De Griekse Cultuur
    " rits Naerebout Imperator, Autokrator - ~~~ Romeinse keizerschap, de keizercultus en Egypte Sinds de oudheid wordt beaamd dat Rome diepgaand is beïnvloed door de Griekse cultuur. Aan de hand van de heersercultus in de Griekse wereld, bij de Romeinen en in Egypte, toont aerebout in onderstaand artikel aan dat Rome niet om een vermeende 'Hellenisering', maar om het deelnemen aan acculturatieprocessen in de Hellenistische wereld, een Hellenistische staat genoemd kan worden. Wie het Hellenisme wil bestuderen, moet zeker aandacht schenken aan de meest succesvolle hellenistische staat: Rome. Rome is niet alleen een hellenistische staat omdat het deel uitmaakt van de hellenistische staten­ wereld en de rechtsopvolger is van, naarmate de tijd verstrijkt, steeds meer hellenistische monarchieën, maar ook omdat Rome voluit deelt in de ac­ culturatieprocessen die de hellenistische wereld kenmerken. Maar welke zijn precies die processen? Is het wat ook wel hellenisering wordt genoemd? Dat Rome diepgaand beïnvloed is door de Griekse cultuur is al sinds de oudheid een gemeenplaats. Wanneer we echter het feitelijke beïnvloedingsproces proberen te ontrafelen, dan blijkt dat niet eenvoudig. Het strekt zich over lange tijd uit, onder telkens andere omstandigheden, via een variëteit aan intermediairs, dan wel rechtstreeks. Het proces is dusdanig gecompliceerd dat het woord 'beïnvloeding' daar überhaupt geen recht aan doet. Rome is geen leeg vat dat naar behoeven met Grieks cultuurgoed gevuld kan worden, Rome speelt zelf een actieve rol. Het kiest, weigert, past aan en combineert. Het is waarschijnlijk onmogelijk om ook maar iets aan te wijzen dat zonder meer, 'met huid en haar' door Rome uit de Griekse wereld is 'overgenomen'.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing Roman Rule in Egypt: the Trilingual Stela of C
    Originalveröffentlichung in: Katja Lembke, Martina Minas-Nerpel, Stefan Pfeiffer (Hg.), Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule; proceedings of the International Conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and Plizaeus-Museum, 3–6 July 2008, Leiden ; Boston 2010, S. 265-298 ESTABLISHING ROMAN RULE IN EGYPT: THE TRILINGUAL STELA OF C. CORNELIUS GALLUS FROM PHILAE Martina Minas-Nerpel Stefan Pfeiffer Introduction When Octavian departed Egypt in 30 BC, he placed C. Cornelius Gallus, an eques by rank, in charge of the new Roman province Aegyptus. Gallus, who was responsible to Octavian himself, received the newly created title of praefectus Alexandreae et Aegypti, Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt. Soon enough, not even three years after his appointment, Gallus incurred the emperor ’s utter displeasure. The prefect was dismissed by Augustus, returned to Rome, was convicted by the Senate and fore­ stalled the impending banishment by committing suicide in 26 BC, as we are informed by Cassius Dio. 1 Gallus ’ alleged hubris and his assumed damnatio memoriae have much been discussed among ancient historians, papyrologists, and Egyptologists. In this respect, the most important and crucial Egyptian document is a trilingual inscription —hieroglyphic Egyptian, Latin, and Greek—dated to 16 April 29 BC (Fig. 1-5). It was carved on a stela re-discovered in 1896 in front of Augustus ’ temple at Philae (Fig. 6),2 which the prefect Rubius Barbarus had dedicated in Augustus ’ year 18 (13/12 BC).3 Cut into two parts, the stela had been reused in the foun ­ dations, presumably of the temple ’s altar. The victory stela of pink Aswan granite, originally about 165 cm high, now 152 cm by 108 cm, is housed in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (CG 9295).
    [Show full text]
  • Early Hellenistic Athens: Leadership and Diplomacy
    IOANNA KRALLI EARLY HELLENISTIC ATHENS: LEADERSHIP AND DIPLOMACY PhD THESIS UCL ProQuest Number: 10016711 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10016711 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract In my thesis I examine certain aspects of the political history of Athens in the early Hellenistic period, that is after the battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C. and until the late 260s. For Athens this was a transitional period; she had to face a completely new political reality: she was no longer the great power of the fifth or even the fourth century B.C., Macedonia rose to power, then Alexander created a huge empire and his death triggered endless struggles for power among his Successors, in which Athens found herself involved. Independent foreign policy then on the part of Athens was impossible; on the other hand, diplomacy became more delicate and demanding than ever. I focus on the ways in which the Athenian leadership (the generals and the orators) adjusted to the circumstances. Firstly, I have examined the role of the generals in diplomacy in order to establish that they did assume increased responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • STRATEGIES of UNITY WITHIN the ACHAEAN LEAGUE By
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library STRATEGIES OF UNITY WITHIN THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE by Andrew James Hillen A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History The University of Utah December 2012 Copyright © Andrew James Hillen 2012 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL The thesis of Andrew James Hillen has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: W. Lindsay Adams , Chair June 26, 2012 Date Approved Ronald Smelser , Member June 26, 2012 Date Approved Alexis Christensen , Member June 26, 2012 Date Approved and by Isabel Moreira , Chair of the Department of History and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT The Achaean League successfully extended its membership to poleis who did not traditionally share any affinity with the Achaean ethnos. This occurred, against the current of traditional Greek political development, due to a fundamental restructuring of political power within the poleis of the Peloponnesus. Due to Hellenistic, and particularly Macedonian intervention, most Peloponnesian poleis were directed by tyrants who could make decisions based on their sole judgments. The Achaean League positioned itself to directly influence those tyrants. The League offered to maintain the tyrants within their poleis so long as they joined the League, or these tyrants faced relentless Achaean attacks and assassination attempts. Through the consent of this small tyrannical elite, the Achaean League grew to encompass most of the Peloponnesus.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Names for SCA Personae
    1 A Short (and rough) Guide to Byzantine Names for SCA personae This is a listing of names that may be useful for constructing Byzantine persona. Having said that, please note that the term „Byzantine‟ is one that was not used in the time of the Empire. They referred to themselves as Romans. Please also note that this is compiled by a non-historian and non-linguist. When errors are detected, please let me know so that I can correct them. Additional material is always welcomed. It is a work in progress and will be added to as I have time to research more books. This is the second major revision and the number of errors picked up is legion. If you have an earlier copy throw it away now. Some names of barbarians who became citizens are included. Names from „client states‟ such as Serbia and Bosnia, as well as adversaries, can be found in my other article called Names for other Eastern Cultures. In itself it is not sufficient documentation for heraldic submission, but it will give you ideas and tell you where to start looking. The use of (?) means that either I have nothing that gives me an idea, or that I am not sure of what I have. If there are alternatives given of „c‟, „x‟ and „k‟ modern scholarship prefers the „k‟. „K‟ is closer to the original in both spelling and pronunciation. Baron, OP, Strategos tous notious okeanous, known to the Latins as Hrolf Current update 12/08/2011 Family Names ............................................................. 2 Male First Names .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological Overview
    Chronological Overview 284-305 Diocletian and the tetrarchy 565-591 Wars with Persia 306-337 Constantine I (sole ruler from 324) 566 + Slavs begin to infiltrate across Danube frontier; pressure 311 Edict of toleration issued by Galerius on frontier fortresses from Avars 312 Constantine's victory at the Milvian bridge 568+ Lombards driven westward from Danube, invade Italy 313 Edict of toleration issued by Constantine and Licinius 572 Lombards besiege Ravenna 325 Council of Nicaea and condemnation of Arianism (first 577 Major invasion of Balkans led by Avars ecumenical council) 584, 586 Avaro-Slav attacks on Thessalonica 330 Consecration of Constantinople 591-602 Gradual success in pushing Avars back across Danube 337 Baptism and death of Constantine I 602 Maurice overthrown, Phokas proclaimed emperor 361-363 Julian the Apostate leads pagan reaction and attempts to 603 War with Persia; situation in Balkans deteriorates limit the influence of Christianity 610 Phokas overthrown by Heraclius, son of exarch of Africa 364 Jovian dies: empire divided between Valentinian 1 (West) at Carthage and Valens (East) 611-620s Central and northern Balkans lost 378 Defeat and death of Valens at hands of Visigoths at battle 614-619 Persians occupy Syria, Palestine and Egypt of Adrianople 622 Mohammed leaves Mecca for Medina (the 'Hijra') 381 First Council of Constantinople (second ecumenical 622-627 Heraclius campaigns in east against Persians council): reaffirms rejection of Arianism; asserts right of 626 Combined Avaro-Slav and Persian siege of Constantinople
    [Show full text]
  • Part I the Byzantine Empire
    A TALE OF TWO EMPIRES: PART I THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE LECTURE I FOUNDATION: FROM BYZANTIUM TO CONSTANTINOPLE LECTURE II RECONQUEST: JUSTINIAN AND THE GOLDEN AGE LECTURE III DECLINE AND RESURGENCE: THE MACEDONIANS LECTURE IV THE ARRIVAL AND CONQUESTS OF THE SELJUK TURKS LECTURE V BYZANTINES, TURKS AND CRUSADERS LECTURE VI BYZANTINE ART AND ARCHITECTURE Copyright © 2007 by Dr. William J. Neidinger, Stylus Productions and The Texas Foundation For Archaeological & Historical Research FOUNDATION: FROM BYZANTIUM TO CONSTANTINOPLE I. INTRODUCTION - Byzantine and Ottoman Empires traditionally taught as two separate studies - compartmentalized and specialized nature of humanities today - their stories form a continuum - empires came to rule over the same peoples - empires faced many of the same enemies - empires came to accommodate these defeated enemies within their spheres - empires developed universalist mythologies for their respective religions - both served as mercenaries for the other - both at one time allied to one another - at one time imperial families intermarried - Imaret of Nilüfer Hatun, Nicaea (Iznik, Turkey) - 1346 Theodora marries Orhan; Nilüfer Hatun - remains Christian; regent while Orhan away at war - mother of Sultan Murad I (Moslem) - 1388 Imaret built by Murad I - both occupied the same imperial city: Byzantium, New Rome, Constantinople, Istanbul II. THE IMPERIAL CITY - capital of three empires: Roman / Byzantine, Latin Kingdom of the East, Ottoman Turkish - modern assessment of the city by the land: hills, valleys, buildings & walls - ancient assessment of the city by the waters: Golden Horn, Sea of Marmara, Bosphorus - strategic location: bridge between Europe & Asia and Black Sea & Mediterranean Sea - 667 BC Byzas of Megara consults Delphi re: foundation of a colony - “…opposite the blind…” and Chalcedon - acropolis beneath Tokapi Sarai - mercantile depot, repair center; fish; wine - 512-479 BC Persian occupation - 5th – 4th c.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome and Constantinople, Popes and Patriarchs, 1204-1453
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Empires Reshaped and Reimagined: Rome and Constantinople, Popes and Patriarchs, 1204-1453 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Natalie Sherwan 2016 © Copyright by Natalie Sherwan 2016 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Empires Reshaped and Reimagined: Rome and Constantinople, Popes and Patriarchs, 1204-1453 by Natalie Sherwan Doctor of Philosophy, History University of California, Los Angeles, 2016 Professor Patrick Geary, Co-chair Professor Claudia Rapp, Co-chair This dissertation discusses the politics of conquest and the strategies of legitimization pursued by Latin, Greek and Slav contenders for hegemonic rule in the northeastern Mediterranean after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the wake of the fourth crusade. It reevaluates the relationship between the concepts of empire and Christendom as played out in the process of political realignment, and closely examines the ways in which the key actors claiming to represent these concepts - emperors, popes, patriarchs - fought or cooperated with one another in order to assert regional preeminence. ii The first part of the dissertation focuses on the tension between the Roman/Byzantine ideal of universalism, which entailed a sole holder of imperial power, and the concrete reality of several empires coexisting within the same geographical area. Chapters one and two provide a survey of the main theoretical issues encountered in the study of medieval empires, and an assessment of the relationship between Byzantine basileis, patriarchs, popes and Western emperors prior to 1204. Chapters three and four investigate the competing but interconnected ruling systems which emerged in the Balkans, the Aegean and Asia Minor after 1204, tracing their policies of war and appeasement until the recovery of Constantinople by the Nicene Greeks in 1261.
    [Show full text]
  • Asylia and Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Period Kathleen Ann Kirsch San Jose State University
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2015 Asylia and Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Period Kathleen Ann Kirsch San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Kirsch, Kathleen Ann, "Asylia and Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Period" (2015). Master's Theses. 4548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.csq9-k6vj https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4548 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASYLIA AND PEER POLITY INTERACTION IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Kathleen A. Kirsch May 2015 © 2015 Kathleen A. Kirsch ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled ASYLIA AND PEER POLITY INTERACTION IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD by Kathleen A. Kirsch APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY May 2015 Dr. Jonathan P. Roth Department of History Dr. John W. Bernhardt Department of History Dr. Ronald Marchese Professor Emeritus-University of Minnesota- History/Classics ABSTRACT ASYLIA AND PEER POLITY INTERACTION IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD by Kathleen A. Kirsch This thesis proposes that the Peer Polity Interaction Theory can explain the spread of the civic title of territorial asylia (inviolability) in the Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]