Viggen Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Our forum members Honorius, Tobias and Neos Dionysos compiled, in addition to our Roman Emperor List a complete list of Byzantine Emperors (or Romanion). The list ranges from Theodosius I (the Great) to the final fall of 'Rome' with Constantine XI Palaeologus Dragatses in 1453. Thanks guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) The correct Roman emperor list (from August to Justinian with all usurpers) with some additions you can find on RAT (now it doesn`t work and I`ll post the direct link lately). As for list of Byzantine Emperors, it`s not good too and I want to propose some corrections. In 590 emperor Maurice proclaimed his son Theodosius as co-august (ChrP. P. 377, ed. Dindorf; Johannis Biclarensis, Chronicon, Col. 868). He was killed in late 602 by Phocas. "Phocas I (602-610)" - why "Phocas the First"? Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Constantine VIII were proclaimed emperors in 960. Alexius III Angelus was caught only in late 1204 when the Franks took his imperial insignia. Pseudo-Ioannes - usurper under Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1262. Matthew (1353-1357) - son of John VI Cantacuzenus. Edited March 6, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeps Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Thanks gents, I'm glad to see the Byzantines have finally got their place at UNRV. I think the cut and pastes should be referenced though, if they weren't written by the authors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 In 590 emperor Maurice proclaimed his son Theodosius as co-august (ChrP. P. 377, ed. Dindorf; Johannis Biclarensis, Chronicon, Col. 868). He was killed in late 602 by Phocas. This may have been included in the original list and accidentally left out when I transferred everything to the table format within dreamweaver. Will be added in shortly. "Phocas I (602-610)" - why "Phocas the First"? Looks like a typo error fixed easily enough. Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Constantine VIII were proclaimed emperors in 960. Yes but in this case it was in theory only. The empire was governed by their father Romanus first, than by military overlords until 976. I will add a note indicating their 'appointment' in 960 but that they were effectively under the rule of regents. Alexius III Angelus was caught only in late 1204 when the Franks took his imperial insignia. Its my understanding that he fled the armies of the 4th crusade in 1203 therefore effectively being deposed in favor of Isaac II and Alexius IV? His survival potentially for several more years does not necessarily equate to extending his rule? Pseudo-Ioannes - usurper under Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1262. Was he actually crowned, or just self-proclaimed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 In 590 emperor Maurice proclaimed his son Theodosius as co-august (ChrP. P. 377, ed. Dindorf; Johannis Biclarensis, Chronicon, Col. 868). He was killed in late 602 by Phocas. This may have been included in the original list and accidentally left out when I transferred everything to the table format within dreamweaver. Will be added in shortly. "Phocas I (602-610)" - why "Phocas the First"? Looks like a typo error fixed easily enough. Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Constantine VIII were proclaimed emperors in 960. Yes but in this case it was in theory only. The empire was governed by their father Romanus first, than by military overlords until 976. I will add a note indicating their 'appointment' in 960 but that they were effectively under the rule of regents. Alexius III Angelus was caught only in late 1204 when the Franks took his imperial insignia. Its my understanding that he fled the armies of the 4th crusade in 1203 therefore effectively being deposed in favor of Isaac II and Alexius IV? His survival potentially for several more years does not necessarily equate to extending his rule? Pseudo-Ioannes - usurper under Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1262. Was he actually crowned, or just self-proclaimed? with the cut and paste issue... i compiled all that info from a number of sources...... so..... btw viggen and PP might be a small delay on the next few emperors we all bogged down in our studies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Was he (Pseudo-Ioannes) actually crowned, or just self-proclaimed? Pseudo-Ioannes was a blinded boy who pretended to be John IV Lascaris, i.e. he didn`t need to be crowned, because John IV Lascaris was already crowned. See about him: Georgius Pahymeres, History of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi, III, 12-13. Yes but in this case it was in theory only. The empire was governed by their father Romanus first, than by military overlords until 976. I will add a note indicating their 'appointment' in 960 but that they were effectively under the rule of regents. OK, but in this case, John IV Lascaris never reigned. And Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus started to reign only after the fall of Romanus I Lecapenus and his sons (I`ll write about them lately). Its my understanding that he fled the armies of the 4th crusade in 1203 therefore effectively being deposed in favor of Isaac II and Alexius IV? His survival potentially for several more years does not necessarily equate to extending his rule? Nevertheless he still controlled some cities and never abdicated the throne. For exemple at the time of war between Murtzuphlus and crusaders, "he was in a city called Messinopolis, with all his people, and still held a great part of the land" (Geoffrey de Villehardouin, The Conquest of Constantinople, 266). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Was he (Pseudo-Ioannes) actually crowned, or just self-proclaimed? Pseudo-Ioannes was a blinded boy who pretended to be John IV Lascaris, i.e. he didn`t need to be crowned, because John IV Lascaris was already crowned. See about him: Georgius Pahymeres, History of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi, III, 12-13. Agreed, but since he wasn't truly John IV he wasn't truly the emperor and only a fake. Semantics perhaps, but I suppose its much like the false Nero that showed up during the reign of Titus. Because he claimed to be Nero didn't make him the emperor. Yes but in this case it was in theory only. The empire was governed by their father Romanus first, than by military overlords until 976. I will add a note indicating their 'appointment' in 960 but that they were effectively under the rule of regents. OK, but in this case, John IV Lascaris never reigned. And Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus started to reign only after the fall of Romanus I Lecapenus and his sons (I`ll write about them lately). Yes I agree here, so I added the note in their respective line items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Its my understanding that [Alexios III] fled the armies of the 4th crusade in 1203 therefore effectively being deposed in favor of Isaac II and Alexius IV? His survival potentially for several more years does not necessarily equate to extending his rule? Nevertheless he still controlled some cities and never abdicated the throne. For exemple at the time of war between Murtzuphlus and crusaders, "he was in a city called Messinopolis, with all his people, and still held a great part of the land" (Geoffrey de Villehardouin, The Conquest of Constantinople, 266). This is true. I would knock him out of the list in November 1204, when, having traipsed around the ruins of the Empire with his serially polygamous daughter Evdokia, he was captured at Corinth by Bonifacio of Monferrato and sent off to captivity in Monferrato. He never ruled anything after that, but lived at least till 1211, the date when he was captured again by his son-in-law Theodoros Laskaris, emperor of Nikaia, and consigned to a monastery. I expect he had some praying to do. Monferrato (south of Turin) is a new DOC wine, well worth tasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Nevertheless he still controlled some cities and never abdicated the throne. For exemple at the time of war between Murtzuphlus and crusaders, "he was in a city called Messinopolis, with all his people, and still held a great part of the land" (Geoffrey de Villehardouin, The Conquest of Constantinople, 266). This is true. I would knock him out of the list in November 1204, when, having traipsed around the ruins of the Empire with his serially polygamous daughter Evdokia, he was captured at Corinth by Bonifacio of Monferrato and sent off to captivity in Monferrato. He never ruled anything after that, but lived at least till 1211, the date when he was captured again by his son-in-law Theodoros Laskaris, emperor of Nikaia, and consigned to a monastery. I expect he had some praying to do. Indeed, I'm going to make a notation to his line item. Thanks Phil and AD! PS. My Romanion history (especially the 'medieval' period) is admittedly weak so all comments are most welcome) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 (edited) Agreed, but since he wasn't truly John IV he wasn't truly the emperor and only a fake. Semantics perhaps, but I suppose its much like the false Nero that showed up during the reign of Titus. Because he claimed to be Nero didn't make him the emperor. Unlike false Neros, he really ruled. Further additions to your list Leo VI was proclaimed emperor in 870 as well as his elder brother Constantine. Constantine died in 879. Alexander, third son of Basil I the Macedonian, was proclaimed emperor in 871. Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus, was proclaimed emperor in 908. In 921 Romanus I Lecapenus proclaimed his elder son Christopher as emperor. Christopher died in 931. Constantine and Stephen, sons of Romanus, were proclaimed emperors in 924. They were overthrown by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus in 946. The correct Roman emperor list (with some additions) Do not scare "—", that`s just a sign " - " (hyphen)! Now RAT has troubles with its domain. Edited March 7, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Agreed, but since he wasn't truly John IV he wasn't truly the emperor and only a fake. Semantics perhaps, but I suppose its much like the false Nero that showed up during the reign of Titus. Because he claimed to be Nero didn't make him the emperor. Unlike false Neros, he really ruled. Further additions to your list Leo VI was proclaimed emperor in 870 as well as his elder brother Constantine. Constantine died in 879. Alexander, third son of Basil I the Macedonian, was proclaimed emperor in 871. Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus, was proclaimed emperor in 908. In 921 Romanus I Lecapenus proclaimed his elder son Christopher as emperor. Christopher died in 931. Constantine and Stephen, sons of Romanus, were proclaimed emperors in 924. They were overthrown by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus in 946. The correct Roman emperor list (with some additions) Do not scare "—", that`s just a sign " - " (hyphen)! Now RAT has troubles with its domain. uh in relation to the list we made... we only included those who made an 'impression' also if u hadnt notcied phil hellene it is incomplete as we were gonna add info after every emperor we did such as who ruled as co emperor and such...we just didnt have the time to do it all at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) I mean such "simple" lists you can find everywhere, but noone did the lists with all usurpers and all co-augusti, except me and roman-emperors.org. My list was in Russian (http://www.ancientrome.ru/imp/index.htm) and not available for many people, so I translated it and posted on RAT, when one of its members presented his timeline tables. So I think it`s not perfect but more reliable then other lists. Edited March 8, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I mean such "simple" lists you can find everywhere, but noone did the lists with all usurpers and all co-augusti, except me and roman-emperors.org. My list was in Russian (http://www.ancientrome.ru/imp/index.htm) and not available for many people, so I translated it and posted on RAT, when one of its members presented his timeline tables. So I think it`s not perfect but more reliable then other lists. Just relax guys. There is a difference of opinion when it comes to the presentation of lists. Some people aren't worried about every usurper because while they may have been a temporary emperor in theory, in practice many of them were not a truly confirmed Augustus or Princeps. Some people aren't worried about co-Augusti because they are looking for who was the primary ruler of the time. A list of Western Augusti is not the same as a list of Caesars. As an example, we know that Commodus was named co-Augustus with Marcus Aurelius in 177, but conventional wisdom dictates that his father was still the primary ruler of the day. Most lists (my own included) indicate that Commodus came to power in 180 with the death of his father in order to illustrate his accession as sole ruler. It really depends on the presentation one is trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 So in a gladiator match of Honorius vs Philhellene, with Honorius being Thracian and Philhellene being Samnite, who would win and why? Seriously, I'd recommend you guys take it to private messages, unless of course you can stay cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) ...Commodus was named co-Augustus with Marcus Aurelius in 177... Very interesting, I didn`t know that. ...unless of course you can stay cool. Well, I think I`m cool. Edited March 8, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.