Emperor Goblinus

Theodosius actively had temples smashed, while I think Constantine just turned a blind eye to the vandalizing of certain temples. Constantine didn't move too terribly strongly against paganism, simply because it was still dominant, and a backlash could have cost him his throne. Also, the army was mostly pagan, and an emperor that lost favor with the army in the late imperial period was doomed.

From what I've heard about it, it's quite a humanizing story. Both the Christians and Muslims are depicted as just regular people, with neither side being demonized.

In the infamous "Year of the Four Emperors," the empire was torn asunder with usurpers and Gallic attempts at seccession. Could the empire have indeed been split apart due to the fighting?

Did any remnant pagans continue to practice through the Byzantine medieval period up to 1453?

There is alot of truth to that. Diolcetian may have been born a slave, and many of the founders of the great imperial houses were military men of modest background. Diocletian did not want his system to be based on blood but on merit, and that is probably why Constantine originally did not succeed his father as the western Caesar. However, the Dominate saw some of the first dynasties that looked like royal dynasties. Up until that time, with the exception of Claudius II, you never saw seconds, thirds or fourths in a dynasty. The idea of setting up a fixed dynasty, though accepted long before, now seemed to be the rule, with houses like the Constantines and the Theodosians setting up ruling families that could only be matched in previous generations with the Julio-Claudians. Thus in a way, though the old senatorial class was definitely pushed aside, it just seemed to be replacing one elite with another. Was it for the better? I think so. Though it did destroy whatever was left of the republican system (though the Valentinians repeatedly used the propaganda of "restoring the republic"), in the harsh military times, it was better for a hard Pannonian soldier to be in charge than a spoiled senator. The major pitfall of the Dominate was the fact that children could now become emperor, which led to things like the disaster that was Honorius. In the times of the Principate, the Senate would never have stood for giving the imperial powers to a five-year old.

Good points. The dominate was much more honest about the monarchy, rather than the principate which was hampered by republican illusions. I for one do think that the dominate or something like it was necessary in the wake of the third century. In the happy sunshine days of the Pax Romana, the Romans could have the luxury of leaving their emperor's powers vague and pretend that it was still a republic. But this vagueness probably prolonged the third century crisis. Everyone knew that the emperor was the real authority, yet there was not set method of choosing him. Thus, this led to troops proclaiming their officers left and right, numerous civil wars, and an inability to keep the borders. Diocletian and the emperors that came after him solidified the position and power of the emperor (though the issue of succession was never definitively solved). It is sad to see the last vestiges of republicanism go out the window, but the changed empire could not indulge in them any longer.

I've heard that before. Although I don't think that the Byzantines shared that idea. At times, they seemed to have been almost racist, and banned marriages with any other groups, other than the Franks.

Interesting. I always thought that it was used to allow the Byzantines to be able to recruit barbarians into the army.

It did indeed give them added protection against assassination. As for their influence, it all depended on the emperor. Soldier emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius II, Julian, the Valentinian brothers, and Theodosius I all fought on the front lines and earned the respect of their troops and were very active in shaping the policy of the state. It was only when emperors, especially in the West, did little more than sit on their throne, did their power slip into the hands of others.

Happy Birthday!

Starting in the late thrid century, the emperors furthered distanced themselves from the notion of the "first citizen," and developed all of the trappings of the Persian royal court. Do you think that such a change helped the beleagured later empire, or hastened its decline?

I believe it was Zeno, but I'm not too sure. Also, Majorian failed to take back North Africa, but he was pretty effective for a western emperor of that time.

Almost any book about the reign of Justinian will most likely give substantial information about Belisarius. Justinian: The Last Roman Emperor goes into great detail about both his personal life and military career.

Yes, this can include the Byzantines. Another bad one might be Romaus Diogenes for building up the biggest army that money could buy, then having it wiped out at Manzikert.

At the apogee of Byzantine power, the empire controlled a small part of southern Spain, which was finally lost in the 620's. Did this far west piece of territory offer anything to the empire, or was it just dead weight?

We have a thread on the best Roman, now who do you think was the worst? For me, it would be a toss between Honorius and Nero. Honorius because of his disastrous policies that ultimately doomed the western empire, and Nero is pretty obvious.

The Emperor Maurice and His Historian by Michael Whitby The History of Byzantium by Timothy E. Gregory

It is believe that Maurice planned to divide up the empire, with his son taking the eastern half and ruling in Constantinople, with Maurice ruling the West, not from Ravenna, but from Rome. Unfortunately, his overthrow by Phocas ruined whatever plans he had. But if Maurice had been able to establish a strong imperial thrown in the West, that worked with Constantinople, that the West could have eventually been reconquered?

I think that they were fascinating. Especially the one where the you saw the surface from the perspective of someone standing and looking across. Reminded of the shots of the Mars surface from the rovers. Though I don't think that the methane seas are able to have life due to the extreme cold, the hot water geysers indicate that there might be water reserves below the surface that may have life.

Although I'm glad that he did not resume outright paganism (in fact, I do believe that he invited a number of prominent Christians to his court, but they all refused), but his decision to not allow Christians to teach the classics was quite harmful, and helped to drive a further wedge between classical and Christian culture.

Theodosius is often called "the Great," like Constantine the Great. While I think that Constantine earned his title, what other than being the last emperor to rule both the East and the West, made Theodosius "Great?" Though he won some victories over the Goths, his compromises with them allowed them to have virtual kingdoms within the empire.

Who knows what would have happened if Julian had been emperor for many years? Though I disagree with his religious policy, I do think that he was an excellent emperor.

Salve! Welcome again, to the court of the Emperor. As I mentioned in the last entry briefly, I will probably be minoring in Astronomy, with my area probably being geologically active moons, extrasolar planets, and the possibilities of life beyond Earth. Let me tell of how I became interested in this field in the first place. Space has always fascinated me. I used to love to watch documentaries about the stars, moons, and planets. A particular interst of mine for a while was black holes (see second picture). For anyone who may not be sure of what a black hole is, a black hole is formed in the wake of the supernova of a massive star. Sometimes, the remnants of the star fall in onto themselves form an area with such a powerful gravitational pull, that it sucks in and destroys anything that gets to close, including light (hence, making them 'black'). Due to their near invisibility, it is extremely hard to spot a black hole. The are usually discovered when certain objects, like stars or space dust, seem to be pulled towards a regian of space where there appears to be nothing. Sometimes, we can see a trail of plasma coming off of a star seemingly dissapearing into nothing. In reality, the star is being "eaten" by a nearby black hole. In some instances, we can spot jets of energy being blasted off from the black hole, the remains of the black hole's last meal. An excellent book on this subject is Kimberly Weaver's The Violent Universe. We do know that there is a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, and probably other galaxies, formed from several smaller black holes, that have lumped together, that turns the galaxy. Other mind-boggling discoveries and theories about black holes have come about, that I will talk about in another entry. Anyway, back to my astronomy interest. In addition to my interest in black holes, I was and currently am, greatly interest in the possibilities of life, intelligent or unintelligent, in the universe. Currently I am taking a course on this very subject. What makes it so interesting is that we now know that the current environment that we live in is not the set norm for all life. Organisms have been found in the deepest realms of the ocean, powered not by the sun, but by geothermal vents. This gives some credence to the theory that there might organisms in the oceans of the geologically active Jovian and Saturnian moons of Europa and Enceladus. There could possibly be microbes floating in the chemically-rich atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. There could be life buried deep under the frozen surface of Mars. In this vast, vast universe, the possibilities are almost endless. Though it's unlikely, though not impossible, that we'll find the exotic lifeforms of the science fiction films and books that we all know and love, who knows? This interest in the possibilities for extraterrestrial life has also made me become interested in extrasolar planets in general. So far, we've found over 150 extrasolar planets, including hot "super-Jupiters" (Jupiter-like planets several sizes larger than our Jupiter that are close to their sun), cold Earth-sized planets, Venus-like worlds, and others. This realm is only beginning to be examined in depth, and ins quite fascinating. Currently for my Astronomy class, I am combining two of my interests and I am doing a report on how and why the Byzantine Empire succeeded for some time, and then failed, and how that might be related to other civilizations, terrestrial and extraterrestrial. The reason that I am minoring, and not doing a double major, is that the Astronomy major requires several Math and Physics courses. While I'm not necessarily bad at either of those subjects, they would be an unneccessary drain on my time, energy, and possibly, my GPA. With a minor, I only have to take a few Astronomy courses, nothing else. I get to focus on my area of interest, without forcing myself to get involved in things that I am not interested in. So that's the story of my astronomy interest. Remember to pay your respects to the Senate and the People of Rome on the way out. Vale! Next: Was Theodosius I really "Great?"

An interesting article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5280420

Well technically, the Republic is separate from the Empire, so the Republic would not be a stage. For me, the four periods of the imperial period would be the Pax Romana from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius, the period from Commodus to Alexander Severus, the Third Century Crisis from 235 to the ascendancy of Diocletian in 285, the Late Empire from 285 to the death of Heraclius in 641. The Byzantine period is from there until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.