ASCLEPIADES

Salve, GPM! Side, Turkey?

Salve, GPM! Yes, it is. Congratulations! Your turn.

Salve, K! THIS LINK goes to a cool article about the standardization of the Monument Mapping Method of Fitzner and Heinrichs, (a damage index) at many archaeological sites over five countries, including first among them Petra, with a specially detailed analysis of the Tomb 676 (figures 4, 5 and 6) Good luck!

Salve, H! And this is (in English) what the Russian historian Vasilief had to said about the foreign policy of the Angel(o)i: Characteristics of the Emperors of the House of the Angeli. The dynasty of the Angeli, elevated to the throne by the revolution of 1185, sprang from a contemporary of Alexius Comnenus, Constantine Angelus, of the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor, a man of low birth, who was married to a daughter of the Emperor Alexius; he was the grandfather of Isaac II Angelus, the first emperor from this house, who was therefore related by the female side to the Comneni. One of the aims of the late Andronicus had been to establish a national government; obviously he had failed in this task and at the close of his reign he had begun to incline to the West. After his death, the need of a national government became thoroughly felt, so that, as a recent Italian historian of the rule of Isaac II Angelus, Cognasso, wrote: The revolution of the twelfth of September (1185) became especially nationalistic and aristocratic in its plans; thus, from the advantages derived from the revolution all classes were excluded except the Byzantine aristocracy. Isaac II (1185-95) who represented, to quote Gelzer, the embodied evil conscience which sat now upon the rotten throne of the Caesars, possessed no administrative talents at all. The excessive luxury and foolish lavishness of the court together with arbitrary and unendurable extortions and violence, lack of will power and of any definite plan in ruling the state in its external relations, especially in the Balkan peninsula where a new danger to the Empire appeared in the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and in Asia Minor, where the Turks continued their successful advance unchecked by the fruitless Third Crusade, all this created an atmosphere of discontent and agitation in the country. From time to time revolts broke out in favor of one or another claimant to the throne. But perhaps the chief cause of general discontent was the fatigue of the population at enduring the two evils well recognized by Andronicus: the insatiability of the fiscal administration and the arrogance of the rich. Finally, in 1195, a plot against Isaac was formed by his brother Alexius, who, with the help of a certain part of the nobility and troops, dethroned the Emperor. Isaac was blinded and imprisoned, and his brother Alexius became Emperor. He is known as Alexius III Angelus (1195-1203), or Angelus Comnenus, sometimes surnamed Bambacoratius (Βαμβακοραβδής). In his qualities and capacities the new Emperor scarcely differed from his brother. The same foolish lavishness, the same lack of any political talent or interest in government, the same military incapacity brought the Empire by rapid steps far on the way towards disintegration and humiliation. Not without malicious irony Nicetas Choniates remarked concerning Alexius III: Whatever paper might be presented to the Emperor for his signature, he signed it immediately; it did not matter that in this paper there was a senseless agglomeration of words, or that the supplicant demanded that one might sail by land or till the sea, or that mountains should be transferred into the middle of the seas or, as a tale says, that Athos should be put upon Olympus. The Emperor's conduct found imitators among the nobility of the capital, who exerted themselves to the utmost to compete with each other in expense and luxury. Riots took place in both the capital and the provinces. The foreigners who resided in Constantinople, the Venetians and Pisans, often met in bloody conflicts on the streets of the capital. External relations were also unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the son of the deposed Isaac II, the young prince Alexius, had succeeded in escaping on a Pisan vessel from Byzantium to Italy; he went then to Germany, to the court of Philip of Swabia, king of Germany, who was married to his sister Irene, daughter of Isaac Angelus. It was the time of the beginning of the Fourth Crusade. The prince begged the pope and the king of Germany, his brother-in-law, to help him to restore the throne to his blind father Isaac. After many complications Alexius succeeded in inducing the crusaders in the Venetian vessels to sail to Constantinople instead of Egypt. In 1203 the crusaders seized the capital of Byzantium and, deposing Alexius III, re-established upon the throne the old and blind Isaac (1203-1204); then they seated his son Alexius by the side of his father, as his co-emperor (Alexius IV). The crusaders encamped close to Constantinople expecting the accomplishment of the terms for which they had stipulated. But it was impossible for the Emperors to fulfill those terms, and their complete obedience to the crusaders roused a riot in the capital which resulted in the proclamation as Emperor of a certain Alexius V Ducas Mourtzouphlos (1204), related to the family of the Angeli and married to a daughter of Alexius III. Isaac II and Alexius IV perished during the revolt. The crusaders, seeing that they had lost their chief support in the capital in the persons of the two dead Emperors, and realizing that Mourtzouphlos, who had raised the banner of the anti-Latin movement, was their enemy, decided to take Constantinople for themselves. After a stubborn attack by the Latins and desperate resistance by the inhabitants of the capital, on April 13, 1204, Constantinople passed over into the hands of the western knights and was given up to terrific devastation. Emperor Mourtzouphlos had time to flee from the capital. The Byzantine Empire fell. In its place there were formed the feudal Latin Empire with Constantinople as its capital and a certain number of vassal states in various regions of the Eastern Empire. The dynasty of the Angeli or Angeli-Comneni, Greek in its origin, gave the Empire not one talented emperor; it only accelerated the ruin of the Empire, already weakened without and disunited within. Relations with the Normans and Turks and the Second Bulgarian kingdom. In the year of the revolution of 1185, which dethroned Andronicus I and elevated Isaac Angelus to the throne, the condition of the Empire was very dangerous. After the taking of Thessalonica, the Norman land army started to advance towards the capital, where the Norman fleet had already arrived. But, drunk with their successes, the Normans began to pillage the captured regions; overconfident and having too little respect for the Byzantine army, they were defeated and forced to evacuate Thessalonica and Dyrrachium. This failure of the Normans to land obliged their vessels to leave Constantinople. A treaty of peace concluded between Isaac Angelus and William II put an end to the Norman war. As for the Seljuq danger in Asia Minor, Isaac Angelus succeeded in reducing it temporarily by rich presents and an annual tribute to the Turkish sultan. For Isaac Angelus even a temporary interruption of hostilities against the Normans was of very great advantage, for in the first years of his reign events of great importance to the Empire had taken place in the Balkan peninsula. Bulgaria, which had been conquered by Basil II Bulgaroctonus in 1018, after several unsuccessful attempts to regain her independence finally threw off the Byzantine yoke and in 1186 established the so-called Second Bulgarian Kingdom. At the head of this movement stood two brothers, Peter or Kalopeter and Asen (Asan). The question of their origin and of the participation of the Wallachian element in the insurrection of 1186 has been several times discussed, and formerly historians believed that the brothers had grown up among the Wallachs and had adopted their tongue. In the persons of the leaders, said V. Vasilievsky, there was embodied exactly that fusion into one unit of the two nationalities, Bulgarian and Wallachian, that has been obvious in all narratives of the struggle for freedom and has been emphasized by modern historians. More recently, Bulgarian historians have traced the origin of Peter and Asen to the Cuman-Bulgarian racial elements in northern Bulgaria, denied the strength of the Wallachian-Roumanian element in the insurrection of 1186, and considered the foundation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom of Trnovo a national Bulgarian achievement. Modern Roumanian historians, however, vigorously emphasize again the importance of the part played by the Wallachians in the formation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom and say that the dynasty of the new kingdom was of Wallachian, i.e. Roumanian, origin. Some elements of Bulgarian and Roumanian nationalism have become involved in this question, so that it is necessary to reconsider it with all possible scholarly detachment and disinterestedness. On the basis of reliable evidence, the conclusion is that the liberating movement of the second half of the twelfth century in the Balkans was originated and vigorously prosecuted by the Wallachians, ancestors of the Roumanians of today; it was joined by the Bulgarians, and to some extent by the Cumans from beyond the Danube. The Wallachian participation in this important event cannot be disregarded. The best contemporary Greek source, Nicetas Choniates, clearly stated that the insurrection was begun by the Vlachs (Blachi); that their leaders, Peter and Asen (Asan), belonged to the same race; that the second campaign of the Byzantine Empire during this period was waged against the Vlachs; and that after the death of Peter and Asen the Empire of the Vlachs passed to their younger brother John. Whenever Nicetas mentioned the Bulgarians, he gave their name jointly with that of the Vlachs: Bulgarians and Vlachs. The western cleric Ansbert, who followed the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in his crusade (1189-1190), narrated that in the Balkans the Emperor had to fight against Greeks and Vlachs, and calls Peter or Kalopeter Emperor of the Vlachs and of the most part of the Bulgarians (Blacorum et maxime partis Bulgarorum dominus) or imperator of the Vlachs and Cumans, or simply Emperor of the Vlachs who was called by them the Emperor of Greece (Kalopetrus Bachorum (Blachorum) dominus itemque a suis dictus imperator Grecie). Finally, Pope Innocent III in his letters to the Bulgarian King John (Calojoannes) in 1204 addressed him as King of Bulgarians and Vlachs (Bulgarorum et Blacorum rex); in answering the pope, John calls himself imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blacorum, but signs himself imperator Bulgariae Calojoannes; the archbishop of Trnovo calls himself totius Bulgariae et Blaciae Primas. Although the Wallachians initiated the movement of liberation, the Bulgarians without doubt took an active part in it with them, and probably contributed largely to the internal organization of the new kingdom. The Cumans also shared in the movement. The new Bulgarian kingdom was ethnologically a Wallachian-Bulgarian-Cuman state, its dynasty, if the assertion of Nicetas Choniates is accepted, being Wallachian. The cause of the revolt was the discontent with the Byzantine sway felt by both Wallachians and Bulgarians, and their desire for independence. The time seemed particularly auspicious to them, since the Empire, which was still enduring the consequences of the troubles of Andronicus' time and the revolution of 1185, was unable to take adequate measures to put down the revolt. Nicetas Choniates naively said that the revolt was caused by the driving away of the Wallachs cattle for the festivities held on the occasion of the marriage of Isaac Angelus to a daughter of the king of Hungary. Peter, this renegade and evil slave, as he was called by the metropolitan of Athens, Michael Acominatus, and Asen at first received some defeats from the Byzantine troops; but they were able to enlist the aid of the Cumans, who lived beyond the Danube. The struggle grew more difficult for the Empire, and Peter and Asen succeeded in concluding a sort of treaty. Peter had already assumed the title of tsar at the outset of the revolt and had begun to wear the imperial robes. Now the new Bulgarian state was recognized as politically independent of Byzantium, with a capital at Trnovo and an independent national church. The new kingdom was known as the Bulgarian Kingdom of Trnovo, Simultaneously with the Bulgarian insurrection a similar movement arose in Serbian territory, where the founder of the dynasty of Nemanya, the Great Zupan (Great Ruler) Stephen Nemanja, who laid the foundation for the unification of Serbia, made an alliance with Peter of Bulgaria for the common fight against the Empire. In 1189, as a participant in the Third Crusade, Frederick Barbarossa of Germany was passing across the Balkan peninsula towards Constantinople on his way to the Holy Land. The Serbs and Bulgarians intended to use that favorable opportunity and to obtain their aim with Frederick's help. During his stay at Nish Frederick received Serbian envoys and the Great Zupan Stephen Nemanya himself, and at the same time opened negotiations with the Bulgarians. The Serbs and Bulgarians proposed to Frederick an alliance against the Byzantine Emperor, but on condition that Frederick should allow Serbia to annex Dalmatia and retain the regions which had been taken away from Byzantium, as well as that he should leave the Asens in permanent possession of Bulgaria and secure the imperial title to Peter. Frederick gave them no decisive reply and continued his march. In this connection a historian of the nineteenth century, V. Vasilievsky, remarked: There was a moment when the solution of the Slavonic problem in the Balkan peninsula was in the hands of the western Emperor; there was a moment when Barbarossa was about to accept the help of the Serbian and Bulgarian leaders against Byzantium, which undoubtedly would have led to the ruin of the Greek Empire. Soon after the crossing of the crusaders into Asia Minor the Byzantine army was severely defeated by the Bulgarians. The Emperor himself narrowly escaped capture. A contemporary source reported, The many slain filled the cities with weeping and made villages sing mournful songs. In 1195 a revolution occurred in Byzantium which deprived Isaac of the throne and of his sight and made his brother Alexius Emperor. First of all, Alexius had to confirm himself on the throne and therefore he opened peace negotiations with the Bulgarians. But they presented unacceptable terms. Some time later, in 1196, by means of Greek intrigues, both the brothers, Asen and later Peter, were murdered. Thereupon John, their younger brother, who had formerly lived for some time in Constantinople as hostage and had become very well acquainted with Byzantine customs, reigned in Bulgaria. He was the famous Tsar Kalojan, from 1196 a threat to the Greeks and later to the Latins. Byzantium could not cope alone with the new Bulgarian tsar who, entering into negotiations with Pope Innocent III, received a royal crown through his legate. The Bulgarians recognized the pope as their head, and the archbishop of Trnovo was raised to the rank of primate. Thus, during the dynasty of the Angeli a powerful rival to Byzantium arose in the Balkan peninsula in the person of the Bulgarian king. The Second Bulgarian Kingdom, which had increased in power towards the end of the reign of the Angeli, became a real menace to the Latin Empire which was founded in the place of the Byzantine Empire

Gratiam habeo, GPM! IOU another one. Good luck.

Salve, guys! All I can say of this kind of "what if" scenarios is that they always end in a really wild ride of fantasy.

Salve, guys! Time for a graohical hint, I guess. You can see the rear view of these structures HERE. BTW, I still have the same old problem with the uploading of pictures. Good luck!

Salve, M! Only for the record: after 549 days, it will be ... January 19, 2009 AD.

Salve, GPM! Nope, guess again. Good luck!

Gratiam habeo, U! I'm impressed. You've been really busy. But reading carefully the article, I don't find evidence that Cyrus II the great disagreed at all with this statement: Certainly the title ("The World's First Charter of the Human Rights") suggests it; but in the article itself I found no clue of which was Cyrus conception: religious freedom/tolerance as an individual right (like nowadays) or as a collective right ("cuius regio, eius religio", like the Peace of Westfalia in 1648). Now, judging from what I know about the History after Cyrus, the religious freedom of the Jews (and presumably other Persian citizens too) was of the Westfalia way; the Jewish state has total freedom to select the religious ideas and rules that it was going to impose to each individual; vg, Chapter 10 of the Book of Ezra, where the Jews were compelled to send away their foreign wives. I will be really glad if you let me know your opinion about all this stuff. Good luck!

Gratiam habeo, Lady M! IOU one more time. Bad news, then? I'm sorry and a little disappointed. I have to say I think you were on the right trail. Be back soon!

Salve, K! The problem with such a list is that there was much more guerrilla warfare than formal battles. You should check Josephus; THIS MAP is a nice graphic description of that campaign.

Strictly speaking, the risk with ephedra is not embolism but brain hemorrhage (bleeding because of a huge increase of the blood pressure); the opposite in the organ, but almost the same for the patient (a stroke).

Salve, BH! Nope, sorry. That name is only a joke. Keep searching. BTW, thank you for trying to upload the image. If SOMEBODY is able to upload this picture, I will be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

Salve guys! I found the following quotation in a Blog, without bibliography: "Thanks to Rome's eventual victory over Carthage, Carthage's form of government is not fully understood. But, as best as we can tell, it was a republican form of government not entirely dissimilar to Rome's. There was a Carthaginian senate, and just as the Romans elected two consuls every year, the Carthaginians elected a sofet (judge), or two sofet

Gratiam habeo, P! IOU another one. BTW, what an outstanding herbal gallery and slide show do you have! I haven't seen it before, it was a pleasure.

Salve, PP! This may be useful for Flavia Gemina's next novel.

Actually, MPC originally left him off the list of "Republican Statesman" for what should be rather obvious reasons. However since Octavian was a major player in the final era of the Republican system (though he never truly operated in that system in a traditional sense) I added him in to present a sort of transitional context and ultimate closure. Salve, PP. My point exactly.

Salve, BH! Hmmm..., that sounds great! I'm happy for you and a little envious. Well, then... Let's go to business! One more time, I will need the help of SOMEBODY for the uploading of the picture set following the link in this post. Guys, what do you think of THIS BABY? Good luck!

Salve, K.! I think you have a valid point; we must distinguish between these two very different kind of military manoeuvres. Certainly, I would consider that Trebia was a "strategic trap". As such, it would not pertain to this thread.

Salve, BH. Excuse me ..., was I right? Is this city Bosra?

Salve, guys! After the shameful farce of the "HIV trial", do you agree there should be a boycott against tourism in Libya? What do you think? I can't imagine someone may not know about this issue, but anyway, HERE'S A LINK.

Salve, GPM! Touch

Any more guesses?

Salve, guys and Ladies! I think the real question would be where did humanity begin; what could the first human do and his predecessors couldn't that made him so utterly different?