History - Rome and Romania, 27 BC - 1453 Ad

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc.
ROME AND ROMANIA,

27 BC-1453 AD
Emperors of the Roman and the so-called Byzantine Empires;

Princes, Kings, and Tsars of Numidia, Judaea, Bulgaria, Serbia,
Wallachia, & Moldavia; Sultâns of Rûm and Beys of Aydin
Rome casts a long shadow. I am writing in the Latin alphabet. I am using the Roman calendar, with its names
of the months. I use Roman names for the planets in the sky. Sentences I write contain
borrowed Latin words with some frequency [e.g. sententia, continêre, Latinus, frequentia, for
example -- exempli gratia]. Nietzsche said, "The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever
lived." But this is just the problem. What Nietzsche admired was unapologetic power, conquest, and
domination. This no longer seems so admirable, and the Empire founded by Julius Caesar and Augustus, as a
form of government, does not look like an advance in the course of human progress. Even to Machiavelli, the
despotism of Caesar was a grave retrogression in comparison to the Roman Republic. While a thoughtful
Emperor, like Marcus Aurelius, expressed ideals adopted from Stoic cosmopolitanism, the unity and
universality of Rome soon expressed itself as the unity and universality of a state religion, Christianity,
whose intrinsic exclusivism and intolerance became characteristic of the Middle Ages. This is also no longer
to be regarded as admirable. Nevertheless, the very success of Rome makes us, like it or not, her heirs, in
countless matters great and small. Indeed, the Romans were rather more successful than is usually thought.
The corpus of Roman law, let alone Greek literature, was not preserved at Rome, but at Constantinople,
Roma Nova. What most people would probably regard as an obscure footnote to Mediaeval
history, the Byzantine Empire, was in fact still the Roman Empire, known to Western
Europeans, "Latins" or "Franks" at the time, as Romania, already the name of the Empire in Late Antiquity.
The Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, and then refugees from the fall of the City to
the Ottomans in 1453, rather crudely, but effectively, brought the heritage of the Roman
East back into the hitherto poorer Mediaeval civilization of the West.
This is getting to be a large text file, but it may take an especially long time to load because
of all the maps and genealogical charts, which are large graphic files. There is also an audio
file, if anyone wants music. Despite that overall size, the file has not been broken up, so as
to preserve and emphasize the continuity of the history of Rome and Romania from Augustus all the way to
Constantine XI. It is a long story -- Gibbon's version is now published in three large volumes, and he only
began with the Antonines.
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (1 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

Index
● Introduction
● Animated History of Romania
● Consuls of the Roman Republic
● Sources
● I. First Empire, "Rome," 27 BC-284

❍ A. "PRINCIPATE," 27 BC-235, 261 years
■ 1. JULIO-CLAUDIANS
■ Roman Coinage
■ 2. The Bosporan Kingdom
■ 3. Armenia, 401 BC-428 AD
■ The Patriarchs of Armenia
■ 4. Numidia
■ 5. Judaea
■ 6. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES
■ 7. SEVERANS
❍ B. CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284, 49 Years
■ Crisis of the Third Century Chart
● II. Second Empire, Early "Romania," 284-610

❍ A. "DOMINATE," 284-379, 95 years
■ 1. TETRARCHS
■ Chart of the Tetrarchy
■ Late Roman Capitals
■ 2. CONSTANTIANS
■ The Approaches and Environs of Constantinople
■ The Theodosian Walls of Constantinople
■ Cross Section of the Walls
■ The Patriarchs of Jerusalem
■ The Patriarchs of Antioch
■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople
■ 3. VALENTIANS
❍ B. CRISIS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, 379-476, 97 Years
■ 1. THEODOSIANS
■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon
■ Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch
■ King Arthur

Visigoths
■
■ Burgundians
■ Vandals
■ Western Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD
■ Eastern Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD
■ The Roman Army, c. 408 AD
■ 2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS
❍ C. THE EAST ALONE, 476-518, 42 Years

■ 1. LEONINES
■ Ostrogoths
■ Roman Coinage
❍ D. RETURNING TO THE WEST, 518-610, 92 years

■ 1. JUSTINIANS
■ Lombards
■ Provinces at the Death of Justinian, 565 AD
■ 2. Georgia, 588-1505
● III. Third Empire, Middle "Romania," Early "Byzantium," 610-1059

❍ A. THE ADVENT OF ISLAM, 610-802, 192 years
■ 1. HERACLIANS
■ The Organization of the Themes and Exarchates, at the Death of Constans II, 668
AD
■ 2. Armenia, 628-806 AD
■ Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem
■ 3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS)
■ 4. Doges (Dukes) of Venice, 727-1797
❍ B. REVIVAL AND ASCENDENCY, 802-1059, 257 years
■ 1. NICEPHORANS
■ 2. AMORIANS (PHRYGIANS)
■ 3. Bulgaria before Roman Conquest
■ Macedonian Bulgaria
■ 4. MACEDONIANS
■ 5. Armenia, 806-1064
● IV. Fourth Empire, Late "Romania/Byzantium," 1059-1453

❍ A. THE ADVENT OF THE TURKS, 1059-1185, 126 years
■ 1. DUCASES
■ 2. Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm
■ 3. COMNENI
■ 4. Lesser Armenia

5. Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1099-1489

■
■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem
■ County of Edessa
■ Principality of Antioch
■ County of Tripoli
■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem
■ Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon
■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem
❍ B. THE LATIN EMPIRE, 1185-1261, 76 years

■ 1. ANGELI
■ 2. Bulgaria, Asens
■ 3. LATINS
■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople
■ Kings of Thessalonica
■ Dukes of Athens
■ Princes of Achaea
■ 4. Epirus
■ 5. Trebizond
■ 6. LASCARIDS
❍ C. THE LAST DAYS, 1261-1453, 192 years

■ 1. Serbia
■ 2. Bosnia
■ 3. Bulgaria, Terters
■ 4. Begs (Beys) of Aydïn
■ 5. PALAEOLOGI
■ The Flag of ROMANIA
■ 6. Romanians
● V. Fifth Empire, Ottomans, Islamic Byzantium, 1453-1922, 469 years

❍ The Patriarchs of Constantinople
❍ Animated History of Turkiya
❍ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD
❍ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD
● Modern Romania, Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans

■ 1817, Serbian Autonomy
■ 1834, after Greek Independence
■ 1858, after the Crimean War
❍ România, 1611-present
■ 1875

■Congress of Berlin, 1878

❍ Montenegro, 1697-1918
■ 1908
❍ Greece, 1821-present
■ 1912, before the Balkan Wars
❍ Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present

■ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I
❍ Bulgaria, 1879-present
■ 1925, after World War I
❍ Albania, 1914-present
■ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II
■ 1947, after World War II
❍ Macedonia, 1991-present
■ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing
❍ Armenia & Georgia, 1991-present
Philosophy of History
Home Page
Sources
Discussion of the period covered by this page, with sources on Roman and "Byzantine" history, upon which
the actual tables and genealogies are based, may be found in "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors
Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History." One Roman source not mentioned there is the
handy Who Was Who In The Roman World, edited by Diana Bowder [1980, Washington Square Press, Pocket
Books, 1984]. That was the first book I ever saw that organized Roman Emperors into logical dynastic or
event centered groups. Other sources are given here at the points where they are used. This page is continued
and supplemented by the material in "Successors of Rome: Germania", "Successors of Rome: Francia",
"Successors of Rome: The Periphery of Francia", "Successors of Rome: Russia", and "The Ottoman Sultâns".
Some material on earlier history may be found at "Historical Background to Greek Philosophy" and
"Historical Background to Hellenistic Philosophy".
The maps are originally those of Tony Belmonte, edited to eliminate references to "Byzantium" and with
corrections and additions. Tony's historical atlas (with Tony) disappeared from the Web. It was painstakingly
reassembled by Jack Lupic, but then his site has disappeared also. Corrections and additions are based on The
Penguin Atlas of Ancient History (Colin McEvedy, 1967), The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin
McEvedy, 1961), The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin McEvedy, 1992), The Anchor Atlas of
World History, Volume I (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth

Bukor, 1974), and various prose histories. My graphics programs do not seem to be quite as sophisticated as
Tony's, so maps I have modified may not look as professionally done as his originals.
Note that Greek words and names are not phonetically transliterated but are actually Latinized in both
spelling and morphology. Thus, the name that could be transliterated from Greek as "Doukas," is written
"Ducas." The epithet of Basil II, "Bulgaroktonos," "Bulgar Slayer," is rendered "Bulgaroctonus." This is
contrary to increasing usage but is, as Warren Threadgold says [A History of the Byzantine State and Society,
Stanford University Press, 1997, p. xxi], what the Romans would have done themselves when writing in the
Latin alphabet. Since the Latin alphabet is used here, and since the Roman Empire originally used Latin as its
universal language, never forgotten in Greek Romania, that is the practice here. Exceptions would be for
Greek words that simply have Latin translations. Thus, Greek Rhômaioi, "Romans," corresponds to Latin
Romani (not "Rhomaeoe"). A kind of exception to this would be when the Greek word is part of a
compound. For instance Tsar Kalojan of Bulgaria was called the "Roman Killer," Rhômaioktonos. This
would Latinize as Rhomaeoctonus.
Rome and Romania Index
I. FIRST EMPIRE, "ROME," 27 BC-284, 310 years
The "First Empire" is what often would be considered the entire history of the "Roman Empire." It is
definitely the end of the Ancient World. If "Rome" means paganism, bizarre Imperial sex crimes, and the Pax
Romana, then this would indeed be it. A later Empire that is Christian, more somberly moralistic, and more
beset with war, sounds like a different civilization, which it is, and isn't. That the earlier civilization didn't
"fall" but merely became transformed is a truth that both academic and popular opinion still hasn't quite come
to terms with. If the decadence of pagan religion and despotic emperors was going to be the cause of the
"fall" of Rome, then it certainly should have fallen in the Crisis of the Third Century. That it didn't would
seem almost like a disappointment to many. But the greatest of the 3rd century Emperors, like Aurelian, don't
get popular books, movies, and BBC television epics made about them. They begin to pass into a kind of
historical blind spot. The Pax Romana seems real enough in certain places, but there were not many reigns
without some major military action. As long as these were remote from Rome, people would have thought of
it as peace. Once Aurelian rebuilt the walls around Rome, things had obviously changed.
A. "PRINCIPATE," 27 BC-235, 261 years
This is the period that fits everybody's main idea of the "Roman Empire."
1. JULIO-CLAUDIANS
Caligula and Nero, and Robert Graves's version of Claudius, are objects of

endless fascination, moralizing, guilty pleasure, and not-so-guilty pleasure.

Augustus 27 BC-14 AD
Whatever these emperors were actually like, this approach
Tiberius I 14-37 began with the Romans themselves, with Suetonius's list of
Tiberius's sexual perversions, lovingly reproduced in Bob Guccione's movie
Caligula 37-41 Caligula (1979, 1991). Whether Tiberius was really guilty of anything of the
sort is anyone's guess, but we don't hear much in the way of such accusations
Claudius I 41-54 about subsequent Emperors, except for a select few, like Caracalla and
Elagabalus. Meanwhile, Augustus had secured the Rhine-Danube frontier, and
Invasion of Britain, 43 Claudius conquered most of Britain. Augustus originally wanted an Elbe-
Danube frontier, but his forces were caught in a catastrophic ambush and
Nero 54-68 destroyed. The Romans gave up on the Elbe permanently. Only Charlemagne,
non-dynastic by the conquest of Saxony, would secure what Augustus had wanted. The
shadow of the Republic persisted during this period, as Augustus adapted
Galba 68-69 Republican forms to his own concentration of absolute power, and someone
like Claudius could still dream of restoring the Republic. The year 69 pretty
Otho 69 much ended these dreams, since the first free-for-all scramble for the throne
revealed that the army, and only the army, would determine who would be
Vitellius 69 Emperor. Strangely enough, despite the occasional anarchy, this would be a
source of strength for the Empire, since it always did the best with successful
soldiers at its head. Unsuccessful soldiers faced the most merciless reality check (whether killed by the
enemy or by their own troops); but purely civilian Emperors, like Honorius, could endure one disaster after
another without their rule necessarily being endangered.
The family of the Julio-Claudians seems like one of the most complicated in history. This chart eliminates

many people in the

family to focus on the
descent and relation of
the Emperors. Caligula
and Nero are
descendants of
Augustus, through his
daughter Julia (from his
first marriage); but
Claudius and Nero are
also descendants of
Mark Antony, who of
course committed
suicide, shortly before
Cleopatra, rather than
be captured after his
defeat by Augustus.
The use of crowns to

indicate the emperors is
at this point
anachronistic, but it is
convenient. The crown
for Christian Roman
Emperors, which of
course will not occur
until Constantine, is
shown with a nimbus,
like deified earlier
Emperors, because they are always portrayed with halos, like Saints, and are said to be the "Equal of the
Apostles."
4. KINGS OF NUMIDIA
No less that four foreign cultures have been planted into North Africa
over the centuries. The Kingdom of Numidia was originally promoted by Masinissa c.215-149
Rome as an ally against the Carthaginians. In the Second Punic War (218-
201), Masinissa went from fighting effectively for Carthage to an alliance Gulussa &
with Rome. His cavalry is largely what enabled Scipio Africanus to defeat 149-c.145
Mastanabal
Hannibal at Zama in 202. He was then supported by the Romans in
eliminating his Numidian rivals. However, when he wanted to marry the Micipsa 149-118
wife of the great Numidian king Syphax, the Cathaginian princess
Sophonisba, the Romans demanded that she be handed over to them. Adherbal &
118-116
Masinissa enabled her to poison herself instead. Rome supported Hiempsal I
Masinissa the rest of his life. He died shortly before Carthage itself was
exterminated in 146. Numidian allies thus enabled Rome to overthrow the Jugurtha 118-105

first foreign culture in North Africa, the Phoenician (or "Punic" to the
War with Romans,
Romans). The Numidians then, of course, discovered what being an "ally"
112-106
of Rome really meant, and war resulted as later Kings tried to preserve
their independence -- especially the War of Jugurtha (112-105). Like the Gauda 105-?
native kingdoms of Anatolia, Numidia was soon converted into a Roman
province, opening the way for the introduction of a Latinate culture. If no Hiempsal II c.88-c.50
other events had intervened, North Africa today would probably boast its
own Romance language, like Spanish or French. This, however, was not Juba I c.50-46
to be. The Vandals interrupted Roman rule, but not long enough to make
any lasting difference, if Islam had not soon arrived. When it did, this Juba II c.30 BC-c.22 AD
became the most durably planted foreign culture, with a large colonial
Ptolemy c.22 AD-40
element, as the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt later directed an invasion of
ethnic Arab tribes -- in revenge for North African defection from the Roman Province
Fatimids, and from the Shi'ite cause. The last culture planted was that of
France, beginning with the occupation of Algeria in 1830. Eventually, something like 30% of the population
of Algeria was French colonials, who began to fight as the era of de-colonization threatened their position.
This brought about the fall of the French Fourth Republic in 1958. Interestingly, the two greatest French
Existentialist writers and philosophers were on opposite sides of the issue. Jean Paul Sartre had become a
dogmatic Marxist who demanded Algerian independence at any cost, while Albert Camus, whose most
famous book, The Stranger, is set in Algeria, could not so easily dismiss the poor French farmers who had
lived in Algeria for nearly a century -- Camus also suspected that Sartre's doctrinaire leftism concealed a bit
of collaboration with the Germans in World War II. The return of Charles de Gaulle to power in 1958
ushered in harsh medicine about Algeria. De Gaulle decided that France should cut her losses, and the colony
was abruptly granted independence in 1962. This began a bitter exodus of the French colonials and the
nauseating torture and massacre of all those Algerians who were associated with the colonial regime. The
cycle of terrorism continues even today, as leftist ideology has collapsed into an unhappy civil conflict
between military rule and Islamic fundamentalism, and frightened Algerians have increasingly fled....to
France.
5. LEADERS & KINGS OF JUDAEA

The success of the great struggle of the Maccabees to free the
Hasmoneans Jews from the Seleucid Kings is still commemorated in the
holiday of Hanukkah, based on an incident when the Temple was
Judas Maccabaeus 167-161 reconsecrated after the liberation of Jerusalem. Little oil was
available for the Temple lamps, but what there was burned
Jerusalem Occupied, 164 miraculously for eight days. The burning of candals for
Hanukkah coincides, however, with similar fire rituals of many
Jonathan 161-143 people at the darkest time of the year, in December, and
Hanukkah has also taken on the gift-giving attributes of
Simon 142-135 Christmas -- exemplifying the adapation of religious rituals to
several purposes. Explanations of Hanukkah often awkwardly
John Hyrcanus I 135-105
refer to the "Syrians" instead of to the Seleucid Greeks -- but it
Aristobulus 104-103 would certainly seem more politic today to risk offending the
Greeks than to have the modern Syrians, who had nothing to do

with the Seleucids, feel accused of ancient tyranny. Modern

Alexander Jannaeus 103-76
Israel and Syria have enough recent issues to deal with.
Salome Alexandra 76-67
The hard won independence of Judaea fell within a century to
Aristobulus II 67-63 Rome, which for a time, as elsewhere, tolerated a fiction of local
rule -- the Herodian dynasty owed its power entirely to Roman
Pompey captures Jerusalem, 63 favor. This did not mollify the Messianic hotheads, who
inevitably sparked a rebellion that led to the final destruction of
Hyrcanus II 63-40 the Temple, the end, in a sense, of ancient Judaism, massacres
and mass suicides, as at Masada, and the increasing Diaspora of
Antigonus 40-37
Jews into the Roman world. Out of this also came the story of a
Herodians peaceful Messiah, who had been executed and resurrected,
whose cult eventually overwhelmed Rome itself, transforming
King, Hellenistic Romanism into a culture of both Athens and
Herod I the Great Jerusalem. Jews themselves derived little enough benefit from
37-4 BC
this transformation, since Pauline Christianity had repudiated the
Ethnarch, ritual requirements of the Law and the new religion became
Archelaus
4 BC-6 AD increasingly estranged from the old. Once the new religion
became the State Religion of Rome, the rigor with which
Tetrarch, Judaism had rejected the old gods now became public policy, to
Herod II Antipas
4 BC-39 AD their own disability. Christianity never had the provision found
in Islam, however grudging, for the toleration, within limits, of
Tetrarch, kindred religionists. The fate of Jews in Christendom thus
Philip
4 BC-37 AD became a matter of local preference, though no less an authority
than St. Augustine said that Jews should be tolerated so that the
King,
Herod Agrippa I Biblical prophecies of the Coming of Christ would be preserved
37-44
by a disinterested, or even hostile, source. Augustine,
King, interestingly, did not doubt that Jews could be trusted to
Agrippa II faithfully preserve the Hebrew text of the Bible -- as they did.
50/53-100?
Jewish Revolt & War, 66-73:

Destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD;
Fall of Masada, 73;
Revolt of Bar Kokhba, 132-135
The genealogy of the
Hasmonaeans is from The
Complete World of The Dead Sea
Scrolls (Philip R. Davies, George
J. Brooke, & Phillip R. Callaway,
Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2002,
p.42). The incestuous marriages of
the children and grandchildren of
Herod the Great, perhaps typical
of a Hellenistic dynasty, like the

Ptolemies, were very hard to

understand. The chart in my
edition of Josephus (The Jewish
War, Penguin Classics, 1960,
p.410) did not make things very
clear, but then my colleague Don
Smith helped straighten things out
for me. There seems to be some
question about the parentage of
Herodias and Agrippa I -- with
Davies, Brooke, & Callaway
going for Aristobulus. Aristobulus
and his brother Alexander,
descendants of the Hasmonaeans
through their mother, were both
excecuted by Herod.
Since Mediaeval Jews shared in

the continuing trade and
commercial culture of the Middle
East, and were often its only
representatives in impoverished
and ruralized Latin Europe, they
became fatefully associated in
European eyes with the
commercial and financial
practices that Europeans at once
needed, wanted, misunderstood,
and resented. A similar problem
later occurred all
over again in
Eastern Europe,
where the Kings of Poland were
eager to bring in a more
sophisticated population,
unwelcome in Western Europe, to
develop the country and
strengthen the throne. Such
resentments in time found
theoretical expression in Marx's
view that the Jews embodied the
archetype of grasping and
exploitive capitalism. This made
them class enemies, but that was
soon enough converted into race

enemies when Marxism mutated into Fascism and Naziism. Jews who thought they had escaped the class and
race animus in the Soviet Union soon came to be suspected, purged, and, increasingly, murdered by Stalin,
while Hitler, of course, decided to kill them all. This helped promote the idea, not surprisingly, that all Jews
should return to Palestine and found a Jewish State, which is what happened. After 2000 years, however, the
Zionists found that they didn't have a lot in common with the modern Arabic speaking population of the place
they returned to -- rather than learn Arabic, they even decided to revive Hebrew, which was already dying out
as a spoken language in the days of the Hasmoneans, and which some Jews refused to speak as being a sacred
language (they still speak Yiddish). After fifty years, this conflict between Israel and Arab Palestinians has
still not been resolved.
By some estimates, e.g. Paul Johnson in his A History of the Jews [HarperPerennial, 1988], Jews constituted
as much as 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. I am not familiar with the basis of this estimate, but
I am familiar with the difficulty of estimating Roman population at all. I find so high a figure inherently
improbable. Judaea, although the "land of milk and honey" in the Bible, is a pretty barren place. This is not
going to support a large population, especially on the basis of ancient agriculture. That there should be as
many Jews there as, for instance, Egyptians is impossible. Of course, a large part of the estimate is based on
the Diaspora population. Even in the time of the Ptolemies, Alexandria already had a very large Jewish
population. But that is a key point: the Diaspora population is mostly going to be urban; but the urban
population of the Roman Empire is unlikely to have been more than 20% of the whole. Even today, 85% of
the population of Tanzania, whose growth was ruined by the socialism of its post-independence government,
is still in agriculture. If the population of the Empire was as much as 20% urban, and Jews were 10% of the
population, then Jews would have to constitute nearly half of the population of every city, especially
including Rome itself (which may have had a population of over a million people at one point -- it could only
be fed by surplus grain from North Africa and Egypt). That is nothing like the impression we get from the
records, where so large a group in Rome would be felt on a constant basis. So this "10%" seems like a
gravely inflated figure, though we may never have a really accurate one.
When Jerusalem fell to Titus, the Temple and most of the city were demolished. The furniture and sacred
vessels of the Temple, including, Josephus says, the red curtains of the Inner Sanctuary, were carried off to
Rome -- portrayed on the Arch of Titus (through which mediaeval Jews refused to walk). They remained
there until 455, when the Vandals sacked the city and removed their loot to Carthage. When Belisarius
overthrew the Vandals for Justinian in 533 and found the items from the Temple in Carthage, they were sent
back to Constantinople. There they disappear from history. There is no reason not to think that they were
safely kept, along with all the rest of the Classical heritage, at Constantinople, at least until the looting of the
city by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. At that point many treasures were carried off, largely to Venice. There is
no mention, however, except for the fabulous stories about the Templars, of anything, generally or
specifically, from the Temple in Jerusalem being found by the Crusaders, and nothing of the sort has ever
subsequently been noticed kept at Venice or elsewhere. The great Menôrâh of the Temple, described in detail
by Josephus and shown on the Arch, is certainly not something to be easily overlooked. We are thus left with
a considerable mystery, and it is a little surprising that there are not, at least, legends about the fate of the
Temple items.
Since it has previously been noted that the Ark of the Covenant, despite Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), was
not carried off to Tanis, one might wonder what subsequently happened to it. Although Josephus speaks of

Titus taking away "the Law," he describes nothing like the Ark. Later, Mediaeval sources (e.g. Mirabilia
Urbis Romae, c.1143, The Marvels of Rome, Italica Press, New York, 1986, p.29) speak of the Ark having
been in Rome, but this was long, long after the fact. It must not be forgotten, however, that the Temple had
once before been destroyed, by Nebuchadnezzar, in 587 BC. It is not clear that anything of the Temple
survived, and so the Ark could well have been destroyed then -- or concealed on the Temple Mount, where
the Templars supposedly found it.
The maps here begin with Rome at its height under Trajan. The traditional notion that Trajan marched all the
way down to the Persian Gulf now seems open to question, but he certainly annexed a good part of
Mesopotamia, as well as Armenia and Dacia. These, as it happened, were all the most organized states on the
borders of Rome, exceptingly only Kush. The Pax Romana thus was often a matter of war on the frontiers in
order to preserve the peace within. But when Hadrian withdrew from some of Trajan's conquests, he was then
troubled by the revolt of Bar Kochba in Judaea.
6. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES

The Flavians Vespasian and Titus were both great soldiers and, to the
Vespasian 69-79 Roman historians, virtuous and admirable men. Unfortunately, Titus's
brother Domitian was not quite of the same stamp, and then went on to
reign longer than his father and brother. He was succeeded by a

fraternity of soldiers who

Jewish Revolt & War, 66-73:
adopted each other to
Destruction of Jerusalem,
secure competent and
70 AD; Fall of Masada, 73
peaceful succession. The
Titus 79-81 "Five Good Emperors" (in
boldface) became the ideal
Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, 79; of generations, all the way
Colosseum dedicated, 80 to Gibbon, for peaceful and
benevolent government.
Domitian 81-96 Trajan was the first
Emperor born in the
Nerva 96-98 provinces (Spain) and
briefly, with his
Trajan 97-117 Mesopotamian campaign,
expanded the Empire to its
Dacia conquered, 101-106;
greatest extent. In the
Nabataean Petra annexed,
Middle Ages, Trajan had
106; Armenia & Mesopotamia
such a powerful reputation
annexed, 114; Jewish
for goodness that the story
Revolt, 115-117
began to circulate that God
Hadrian 117-138 had brought him back to
life just so he could
Bar Kochba's Revolt convert to Christianity.
in Judaea, 132-135 Dante even includes that in
the Divine Comedy.
Antoninus Pius 138-161 Antoninus Pius became the
only Roman Emperor in
Lucius Verus 161-169 1500 years to be called
"the Pious," but we really
Parthian War, 162-168 know precious little about
his reign, which is only
Marcus Aurelius 161-180
covered by the poor
German War, 168-175 Historia Augusta. This
may simply illustrate the principle that goodness and peace (the height
Commodus 177-192 of the "Pax Romana") is boring. The peace ended under Marcus
Aurelius, the closest thing to a "philosopher king" until Thomas
non-dynastic Jefferson, but also a very competent general, who smashed a major
German invasion across the Danube, while consoling himself with
Pertinax 193 Stoicism for the miseries of war, plague, and personal loss. Marcus's
only real failure was to leave the Empire to his worthless son,
Didius Julianus 193 Commodus. Hereditary succession, although eventually stabilized in
Constantinople, would prove a dangerous principle at many moments in
buys throne from
Roman history. The incompetence and viciousness of Commodus then
Praetorian Guard for 25,000
set off his assassination and the second great free-for-all fight for the
sesterces per man
throne, in 193. This was not without its comic aspect, when the

Praetorian Guard killed the disciplinarian Pertinax and literally put the
Niger, in Syria 193-194
throne up for sale. The wealthy Didius Julianus made the best bid but
Clodius Albinus, had no other ability to secure his rule. He was killed by Septimius
193-197 Severus, a notably humorless man, who arrived in Rome promptly --
in Britain & Gaul
and then also abolished the Guard.
Although Hollywood, and Italian cinema, used to turn out one Roman themed movie after another, frequently
with religious overtones (called "sword-and-sandals" epics), the genre all but died with a 1964 movie about
Commodus, The Fall of the Roman Empire (a tad premature there on the "Fall"). Except for Fellini's strange
Satyricon (1970), the pornographic Caligula (1979), and the comic Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), the
next Roman movie would not be released until 2000, with Ridley Scott's big budget and successful Gladiator.
This is also, as it happens, about Commodus. The closing implication of Gladiator is diametrically the
opposite of the 1964 movie, with the good guys apparently having won and a hopeful future in the offing.
Neither movie, of course, gets it quite right. The competition for the throne in 193 was not very edifying, and
absolutely none of the players appear in Gladiator, not even Pertinax, the prefect of the city of Rome. On the
other hand, the story does not pretend to historical accuracy about the events. Commodus did like to fight
gladiators, but he was not killed that way, and certainly not by a wronged general. There is no evidence that
Commodus killed his father, or any hint that Marcus considered a non-hereditary succession. Even in the
movie it is clear that his provision for such a thing came far too late to be effective. Gladiator is a good
movie and a good story, but it is not a serious attempt to present real Roman history. Because of its success,
however, one can hope that other events in Roman history, however fictionalized, will have a chance to make
it onto the screen.
7. SEVERANS
It took a little time for Septimius to put down all the would-be Emperors in
Septimius Severus 193-211 the provinces, but he did so with determination and ferocity. The virtues of
nobility reputed to Trajan, of culture to Hadrian, of piety to Antoninus, and
prohibition of of philosophy to Marcus Aurelius were all missing in Septimius Severus.
conversions to Judaism He also doesn't seem to have considered anything other than hereditary
or Christianity, 202 succession, despite having a particularly nasty son, Caracalla, as the
candidate. His attempt to ballance Carcalla with his brother Geta simply got
Caracalla 198-217 Geta murdered. Another factor, however, was the loyalty inspired in the
troops to the family, and Caracalla himself maintained that popularity
Geta 209-211 reasonably well, until his inevitable murder. This set off another brief free-
Roman Citizenship
to all free persons, 212
Macrinus 217-218
Diadumenian 218
Elagabalus 218-222
Alexander Severus 222-235

for-all, until loyalty to the Severan family prevailed.

The "family," however, turned out to be the entirely
matrilineal creation of Severus' sister-in-law, Julia
Maesa, who brought her two grandsons, entirely
unrelated to Severus, to the throne. The bizarre
Elagabalus (sometimes "Heliogabalus"), styling
himself the god of his grandmother's Syrian solar
cult, and then the amiable and reasonably effective
Alexander thus wrapped up the dynasty. Alexander
was killed after the overdue reality check of battle,
against the newly aggressive Persians. He was not
that bad, but evidently not good enough for his own
troops, who killed him and his mother. Septimius
Severus himself was one of the two Roman
Emperors (Constantius Chlorus was the other) to
die (a natural death) at York (Eboracum) in Britain.
A bit of an intellectual revival took place at the court of Septimius Severus. This has been called the "Second
Sophistic" and was largely due to the interests of Julia Domna. In a history of the sophists written at the time,
by Philostratus, he says that Julia attracted a circle of mathematicians and philosophers. However, this
actually meant something more like "astrologers and sophists," and the revival was more of a retrospective on
ancient philosophy than a movement that contributed much original or of interest to it. Nevertheless, such an
inspiration and preoccupation has been compared to similar concerns in the Renaissance.
B. CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284, 49 Years

This
map
looks
like it
should
be from
the Fifth
Century.
The
Goths,
not yet
divided,
are here,
but they
come in
part by
boat,
which
we will
not see
with
them
later.
The
Franks here duplicate the later course of the Vandals, through Gaul, Spain, and North Africa, but without the
same effects. Later, the Franks will not be a principal invader but will be the ultimate beneficiary of the
invasions. The Alemanni also will be less active later, remaining in Germany and leaving their name as the
word for "German" in Romance languages. Rome is weakened by revolt in the West and a Palyrmene
takeover in the East. But in this era Roman institutions prove resilient enough to restore the status quo ante
(with troubling strategic withdrawls). But the Germans remain across the Rhine and Danube, growing in
numbers and sophistication. One might even say that all this was a dress rehearsal for the later invasions. In
the theater, if the dress rehearsal goes poorly, the opening will go well. This is what happened.
The chaos that had threatened in some earlier successions
(in 69 and 193) now arrived in 238, when

Maximinus I Thrax 235-238 SONS, BROTHERS, etc.
we can say that there were five Emperors
Gordian I Africanus 238 Gordian II 238 in one year. The complexity of the
following period can only be appreciated,
Balbinus & Pupiens 238 or even understood, by reviewing the
"Crisis of the Third Century" chart. Few
Gordian III 238-244 Emperors reigned long or died natural
deaths. Gordian III's six years would count

as lengthy for the period, but his murder

Philip I the Arab 244-249 Philip II 247-249
would prove all too typical. The musical
Herennius 251 chairs of murders did not help prepare the
Decius 249-251 Empire for increased activity by the
Hostilianus 251 Germans and Persians. Decius and
Herennius were killed in battle by the
Trebonianus Gallus 251-253 Volusianus 253 Goths in 251 -- the only Roman Emperors
to die in battle (against external enemies)
Aemilianus 253 besides Julian (against the Persians, 363),
Valens (against the Goths again, 378),
Valerian II 253-255
Valerian I 253-260 Nicephorus I (against the Bulgars, 811),
Saloninus 255-259 and Constantine XI (with the fall of
Constantinople to the Turks, 1453).
260, defeated and captured Valerian's relatively long reign ended with
by the Sassanid Shâh Shapur I the unparalleled ignominy of being
Gallienus 253-268
captured by Shapur I -- the only Roman
Postumus, in Gaul 259-268 Emperor captured by an enemy until
Romanus IV in 1071. His son Gallienus
Claudius II Gothicus 268-270 Quintillus 270 then endured one invasion and disaster
after another, with the Empire actually
Defeat of Goths, 269
beginning to break up. Despite a short
Victorianus, in Gaul 268-270 reign (and a natural death), Claudius II
began to turn things around by defeating
Tetricus I, in Gaul 270-273 Tetricus II 270-273 the Goths, commemorated with a column
that still stands in Istanbul. His colleague
Zenobia, of Palmyra 267-272 Vabalanthus 270-273 Aurelian then substantially restores the
Empire, only to suffer assassination,
Aurelian 270-275 initiating a new round of revolving
Emperors. This finally ended with
Withdrawl from Dacia, 271 Diocletian, who picked up reforming the
Empire, militarily, politically, and
Tacitus 275-276 Florianus 276
religiously, where Aurelian had left off.
Probus 276-282
Numerian 283-284
Carus 282-283
Carinus 283-285

Not much in the way of

dynasties in this period.
Many Emperors, of
course, wanted to
associate their sons
with them to arrange
for their succession; but
in the violent ends of
most Emperors, the
sons usually died with
them. Gordian III,
Gallienus, and Carinus
are the principal
exceptions, ruling in
their own right after the
death of fathers or, with
Gordian, uncle and
grandfather.
The invasions and

political troubles of the
Third Century shook
the religious and
philosophical
certainties upon which
Rome had previously
thrived. Exotic
religious cults, like
Mithraism and
Christianity, now began
to exert wide appeal; and a profound shift occurred in philosophy. We no longer hear much of Stoics or
Epicureans, but whole new perspectives and concerns are ushered in by the mystical Egyptian Plotinus
(d.270), who even enjoyed some Imperial patronage under Gordian III and Philip the Arab. He makes the
Second Sophistic look superficial indeed. With his return to the epistemology and metaphysics of Plato and
Aristotle, Plotinus, as such the founder of Neoplatonism, picks up the mainstream of development of the
Western philosophical tradition, which had somewhat detoured in the Hellenistic Period through revivals of
Presocratic doctrine (Heraclitus for the Stoics, Atomism for the Epicureans). Plotinus's student, disciple, and
Boswell Porphyry (d.>300), who enjoyed patronage from Aurelian, promoted Neoplatonic principles, wrote
an introduction to Aristotle's logical works, the Isagoge, which became an indispensable text in the Middle
Ages, and even began organizing the defense of traditional religion in his Against the Christians -- though the
Neoplatonic version of traditional religion now looks much more of a piece with Christian sensibilities than
with things like the peculiar and archaic practices examined by Frazer in The Golden Bough. The cultural and
intellectual sea change of the period, soon followed by Diocletian's reforms, usher in the world of Late
Antiquity. Classicists start to become nervous and irritable.

275 AD
II. SECOND EMPIRE, EARLY "ROMANIA," 284-610, Era of

Diocletian 1-327, 326 years
The "Second Empire" is a period of transformation whose beginning and end seem worlds apart. Even at the
beginning, however, Classicists find themselves becoming uncomfortable, in large part because they are now
rubbing shoulders with Byzantinists, Mediaevalists, and, worse, historians of religion and, gasp, even of the
Church. In the Middle Ages, this was regarded as a triumphant period, when the Roman Empire was
redeemed and ennobled with its conversion to and transformation by Christianity -- becoming a "Romania"
whose name is now not even familiar as the name of the Roman Empire. In Modern thought, this construction
tends to be reversed, with the superstition and dogmatism of Christianity dragging the Classical World down
into the Dark Ages. At the same time, however, there is still a strong attraction to the idea of blaming the
collapse of the Empire on the characteristics of pagan Roman society -- slavery, the Games, sexual license,

corruption, etc. Since this is more or less the Christian critique of pagan society, we have the curious case of
critics maintaining the perspective of Christian moralism even while rejecting Christianity as the appropriate
response. This not entirely coherent approach also results in the doublethink of moral satisfaction with the
"fall" of the (Western) Empire in 476 while carefully ignoring the survival and resurgence of the Empire in
the East. The truth, as it happens, is one of continuity. The very same institutions, both Roman and Christian
in sum and detail, that failed in the West in the face of the German threat, did just fine in the East, long
outlasting, and in two dramatic cases defeating, the German successor kingdoms. What neither Trajan nor
Constantine nor Justinian could have anticipated were the blows that would fall next.
A. "DOMINATE," 284-379, 95 years
290 AD
1. TETRARCHS
Intrinsically one of the most
Augustus 284-305, retired 305, interesting and important
Diocletian periods in Roman history, the
286-305 East died 311 or 313
Tetrarchy unfortunately

suffers from the relative

Usurper 306-308,
Maximian Augustus 286-305 West poverty of the sources we
310 West
have for it. Despite the rich
Constantius I Chlorus Caesar 293-305 West Augustus 305-306 West literature of the 4th century,
Diocletian never got a Tacitus
Galerius Caesar 293-305 East Augustus 305-311 East or Suetonius, and what
Ammianus Marcellinus may
Maximinus II Daia Caesar 305-309 East Augustus 309-313 East have said about him is now
lost. Part of this may be
Severus Caesar 305-306 West Augustus 306-307 West because history moved so
quickly after Diocletian. He
Augustus 307-308 West, could still have been alive
Constantine I Caesar 306-307 West,
309-337 West, when Constantine legalized
the Great 308-309 West
324-337 East Christianity, and it was, of
course, Constantine whom
[Maxentius] Usurper 306-312, Italy
subsequent Christian writers
Licinius Augustus 308-324 East wanted to glorify. But
Diocletian created a system
[Domitius Alexander] Usurper 308-311, Africa that was the closest to a
constitutional order than
Rome ever had. Its enemy was hereditary succession, which had triumphed in Constantine, if imperfectly, by
the end of the period. So here, not just in religion, we have a turning point. The succession by appointment,
adoption, or marriage of the Antonines is now seen for very nearly the last time. The complexity of this, and
of events, can be seen, not just in the following genealogy, but in the Chart of the Tetrarchy. As the first
Emperor with a very clearly Greek name (Dioclês, before being Latinized to Diocletianus), Diocletian
foreshadows the later Greek character of the Empire. It is also from this point that the status of the Emperor is
elevated far beyond that of a mere official to a being with semi-divine status, altering the form of government
from "Principate" (from princeps, "prince" or "first") to "Dominate" (from dominus, "lord"). The fiction that
the Emperor is actually a kind of Republican official is now gone. This elevation was simply transformed, not
rolled back or abolished, by the Christianization of the office.
In 305 Diocletian actually retired from office, going to live at his retirement villa (more like city) at Split
(Spalatum) near Solin (Salonae) in Dalmatia (now Croatia) -- see J.J. Wilkes, Diocletian's Palace, Split:
Residence of a Retired Roman Emperor [Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1986, 1993]. This may have been at the
urging of Galerius, who was eager for full power, and was taken with ill grace by Maximian, who tried to
return to power twice and was finally killed. By 308, with Severus killed by Maximian's son Maxentius and
Constantine proclaimed Augustus by his troops, Diocletian was called to a conference at Carnuntum on the
Danube in Upper (Superior) Pannonia (just down the river from modern Vienna, Roman Vindobona).
Diocletian was even offered the throne, but declined it -- saying he would rather grow vegetables. The result
of the conference was the demotion of Constantine to Caesar (again), the appointment of Lincinius as
Augustus, the second retirement of Maximian, and the declaration of Maxentius as an outlaw. A noteworthy
act at the conference was the dedication of an altar to the god Mithras, as the fautor imperii, "protector of the
Empire." Mithraism consider Mithras to be a sun god, associated and assimilated with Sol Invictus, the
"Unconquered Sun," whose cult existed independently of Mithras and had been promoted since Aurelian.
Mithraism, although popular in the Army (only men were initiated), was not an Imperial or prestige cult, until

this dedication, Deo Soli Invicto Mithrae, "to the god Mithras the Unconquered Sun." We might see this as
one of the last acts in the development of state paganism, before Constantine becomes a patron of Christianity
and gods like Mithras disappear.
One of the most famous aspects of Diocletian's rule is the famous "Edict on Maximum Prices" of 301 AD.
Since Diocletian himself explains the law as needed to prevent some from profiteering off of the basic needs
of others, this is turns out to be relevant to many modern debates. The "greed" of those who make a profit
while prices rise is still a point of useful political appeal for many politicians and leftist activists. It looks,

however, like prices, especially agricultural prices, were rising under Diocletian because the tax burden had
become so large that many people simply abandoned their farms -- Diocletian also tried forbidding this. Since
Dioceltian himself was not a sympathetic person to Christian writers, the charge of "greed" tends to get
turned around, as the contemporary writer Lactantius, appointed by Diocletian himself as a professor of Latin
literature in Nicomedia, the capital, says, "...Diocletian with his insatiable greed..." Lactantius' account of
bureaucratic excess and behavior could apply in many modern situations:
The number of recipients began to exceed the number of contributors by so much that, with
farmers' resources exhausted by the enormous size of the requisitions, fields became deserted
and cultivated land was turned into forest. To ensure that terror was universal, provinces too
were cut into fragments; many governors and even more officials were imposed on individual
regions, almost on individual cities, and to these were added numerous accountants, controllers
and prefects' deputies. The activities of all these people were very rarely civil... [J.J. Wilkes,
Diocletian's Palace, Split: Residence of a Retired Roman Emperor, op. cit., p.5]
Not only now are there whole countries where the dependent classes exceed the numbers of the productive
classes (e.g. Italy or France), but in the United States the fate of the Social Security system will probably be
sealed when the number of beneficiaries exceeds the number of contributors. These modern systems,
although voted in by popular majorites who like "free lunch" welfare politics, are run by bureaucrats whose
behavior, of course, is "very rarely civil" either to contributors or beneficiaries. And modern bureaucrats are
protected from accountability by "Civil Service" status and their own politically active and powerful public
employee labor unions. Yet politicians rarely characterize or criticize such people for their own self-interest
or greed, although this phenomenon is now well understood and described in Public Choice economics.
While the behavior of the bureaucrats is understandable, the harshest truth is that, with sovereignty no longer
invested in a autocrat like Diocletian, the ultimate "greed" today is derived from the voters.

330 AD
2. CONSTANTIANS
If the Tetrarchy was a major turning point in Roman
Constantius I Chlorus 293-306 W history, with Constantine we are right around the corner and
looking down a very different avenue of time. Here is where
Constantine I the Great 306-337 W+E the die-hard paganophile Romanists check out, and where
the Byzantinists check in. But the changes that take place
Christianity legalized, 312; Ecumenical are mostly, as they had been for some time, gradual. Even
Council I, Nicaea I, Nicene Creed, 325; Constantine's Christianity was a gradual affair. He did not
Constantinople, Roma Nova, founded, actually convert until on his deathbed; and although he
construction begun, 4 November 328; outlawed pagan sacrifice, he did not close the temples or
Constantinople dedicated, 11 May 330 otherwise show disrespect or hostility to the old gods, and
in fact seems to have long still invoked Sol Invictus, the
Constantine II 337-340 W "Unconquered Sun" of Aurelian and Diocletian. He may
have imagined a sort of syncretism such as had been
Constans I 337-350 W common in the old religions but that was not going to be
tolerated in Christianity. When Constantinople was built,
[Magnentius] 350-353 W
the old acropolis was left alone. Indeed, it may have been
Constantius II 337-361 E+W left alone for much of the Middle Ages. A statue of Athena
is supposed to have still been standing when the Fourth

Crusade arrived in 1203. Remarkably, this may have still

Gallus 351-354 E, Caesar
been the bronze statute of Athena Promachos which had
355-360 W, Caesar; stood in the open on the Acropolis at Athens, reportedly
Julian the Apostate
360-363, Augustus visible from out to sea, and was moved to the new city by
Constantine. The statue was only then torn down because
non-dynastic some thought she was beckoning to the Crusaders. It is now
hard to tell what may have been on the acropolis all that
Jovian 363-364 time because the site was finally put to a new use by the
Ottomans, who built the great Topkapï Palace there. It is
certainly the right place for such a building, and so one is a little surprised to learn that no major building, as
far as we know, was put there all the years of Romania. Even the beginning of Constantine's attachment to
Christianity is obscure. The story that he saw a vision of the Cross in the sky with the inscription Hôc Vince
("By this [sign, signô] Conquer") before (or during) the battle of the Milvian Bridge, when he defeated
Maxentius in 312, comes very much later in hagiography. The earliest mention of anything of the sort, by
Lactantius again, is that Constantine had a dream where he was shown the "cypher of Christ," the
Greek letters Chi and Rho, which he caused to be put on the shields of his soldiers. Later versions
thus increase the dramatic and miraculous elements of the event, using what later would become the
most symbolic of Christianity, the Cross. Using a Christian symbol in any form, however, and for
any reason, would have been dramatic enough. Constantine's Empire went to his three sons, who
might have shared it with their cousins, but killed them instead. The sons, however, ended up with no heirs
themselves, and the last family member on the throne, Julian, was one of the cousins who had escaped the
massacre. Julian, whose own writings have been preserved, is one of the better known but stranger figures of
the century. Quixotically trying to restore paganism, he only seemed to demonstrate that the old gods were
spent and nobody's heart was really in it anymore. Although apparently a fine enough military commander
against the Franks, Julian's short reign ended with another Quixotic effort, against Persia. It was not so much
the war itself as the ill conceived scale of the invasion, which left Julian all but stranded with his army, deep
in Mesopotamia, with the Persians avoiding battle but constantly harassing him. Somehow this had not
happened to Alexander, Trajan, Heraclius, or the forces of the Caliph Omar. It cost Julian his life, and his
religious cause, since the Christian Jovian was then chosen by the Army.

378 AD
3. VALENTIANS
With Valentinian and his brother Valens,
Valentinian I 364-375 W Valens 364-378 E the Christian nature of the Empire was
sealed. But the future seemed secure
great earthquake enough. Valentinian was vigorous and
in Crete, 365; competent, even if his brother wasn't so
Gratian 367-383 W defeated and killed by much. Unfortunately, Valentinian
the Visigoths, Battle apparently died of a heart attack (or
of Adrianople, 378 perhaps a cerebral hemorage) in a fit of
anger over the insolence of some
[Magnus Maximus] 383-388 W representatives from the Huns. With
Valens as the senior Emperor, he didn't
Valentinian II 375-392 W wait for assistance before moving to put
Theodosius I,
379-395 E down a revolt by the Visigoths, who had
the Great
[Eugenius] 392-394 W recently been admitted as refugees from
the Huns but were now rising up against
394-395 W mistreatment by their hosts. The resulting
battle was close and hard fought but turned

into a catastrophic rout, with Valens himself falling. Gratian appointed Theodosius as the new Eastern
Emperor to restore the situation (marrying him to his sister), which seems to have about the most useful thing
he accomplished, before his murder. His brother Valentinian, secured on the throne against the usurper
Magnus Maximus by Theodosius, then mostly seems to have been a pawn, until his own death drew
Theodosius west (again) to put down the usurper Eugenius. Things thus went steadily down hill after
Valentinian. Although the Battle of Adrianople need not have fundamentally affected the strength of the
Empire, it acquires great symbolic meaning in retrospect because of the more permanent damage
subsequently done by the Visigoths and the weakening of the Empire that attended it.
A great earthquake on Crete in 365, which thrust up the coast some 20 feet, has recently become a matter of
interest for modern geologists. An account of it by Ammianus Marcellinus includes what may be the first
detailed description in history of the phenomenon of a tsunami:
...the solid frame of the earth shuddered and trembled, and the sea was moved from its bed and
went rolling back. The abyss of the deep was laid open; various types of marine creatures could
be seen stuck in the slime, and huge mountains and valleys which had been hidden since the
creation in the depths of the waves then, one must suppose, saw the light of the sun for the first
time. [Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, (A.D.354-378), Penguin Classics,
1986, p.333]
Not realizing that the sea would come back, people wandered down to the revealed places. As the water
"burst in fury" and surged up onto the land on its return, thousands were killed, towns were levelled, and "the
whole face of the earth was changed" [ibid.]. As far away as Alexandria, the tidal wave tossed ships onto the
tops of buildings; and Ammianus himself later inspected a decaying ship that had been carried inland ad
secundum lapidem, "to the second milestone," near Mothone (or Methone) in the Peloponnesus. Edward
Gibbon, contemptuous of the Late Empire and its historian, and apparently never having heard of such
phenomena, didn't believe Ammianus:
Such is the bad taste of Ammianus (xxvi.10), that it is not easy to distinguish his facts from his
metaphors. Yet he positively affirms that he saw the rotten carcase of a ship, ad secundum
lapidem, at Methone, or Modon, in Peloponnesus. [The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire,
Volume I, Modern Library, p.899].
Tsunamis are not so rare, however, that it is not in the living memory of many to have seen the seafloor bared
or ships thrown about in just the manner described. The modern historian might do well to consider how the
death and destruction of the great earthquake may have weakened the resources of the area on the crucial eve
of the struggle with the Visigoths.
B. CRISIS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, 379-476, 97 Years

410 AD

One of the most

interesting
people in the
diagram is the
Empress Galla
Placidia, the
daughter of
Theodosius I, the
wife of
Constantius III,
and the mother of
Valentinian III.
With Honorius
and Constantius
she was buried in
the chapel of
Saints Nazarius
and Celsus in
Ravenna. J.B.
Bury (History of
the Later Roman
Empire Vol. 1,
Dover 1958, p.
263) says that
"her embalmed
body in Imperial
robes seated on a chair of cypress wood could be seen through a hole in the back till A.D. 1577, when all the
contents of the tomb were accidentally burned thourgh the carelessness of children." Mosaics in Ravenna
from this period already show the books of the Bible bound in codices, i.e. familiar bound books rather than
scrolls.
Theodosius may have

1. THEODOSIANS, WESTERN 1. THEODOSIANS,
been called "Great"
WEST COMMANDERS EAST
mainly for
394-395, 379-395, establishing
Theodosius I, the Great Athanasian
West East
Orthodoxy and for
Council II, Constantinople I, Arianism condemned, 381; Destruction actions against
of the Serapeum, 391; Abolition of the Olympic Games, 394 (?) paganism like closing
and sometimes
Stilicho 395-408 destroying temples
and ending the
Arcadius 395-408 E Olympic Games
(which, however,

Honorius 395-423 W seem to have

Suevi, Vandals,
continued in some
& Alans cross Rhine, form for another
1 January 407 century). Otherwise,
he did get the Goths
410-421
Constantius III under control and left
421 W the Empire, to all
appearances, sound
Gadiatorial combat and prepared for the
ended in Colosseum, future. Unfortunately,
404; Rome sacked by there were two very
Visigoths, 410 serious problems.
Castinus 422-425 One was that the
407-411 Goths remained a
[Constantine Theodosius unified and
in Britain, 408-450 E
(III)] II aggressive tribe
Gaul & Spain
within the Empire,
defeated by Vandals ready to begin
John 423-425 W
in Spain, 422 rampaging again at
any time. Another
Council III, Ephesus, was that Honorius
Nestorianism condemned, 431 and Arcadius, the two
sons between whom
Felix 425-430 Theodosius divided
Valentinian
425-455 W the Empire, were
III Aëtius 430-454 young and
inexperienced.
Attila the Hun halted at Châlons, 451;
Marcian 450-457 E Leaving the Army in
Rome sacked by Vandals, 455
the hands of the
German commander
Council IV, Chalcedon, Monophysitism condemned, 451
Stilicho set the stage
for all the evils of divided authority and palace intrigue. The result of this would be disaster. When the times
called for a strong soldier Emperor, there wasn't one -- and there would not be one for some time, perhaps not
until Heraclius. With the Goths running wild, and an alliance of German tribes crossing the frozen Rhine on
New Year's Eve of 407, the institutions were not prepared to bounce back the way Rome had in the 3rd
Century. A characteristic moment came when the commander Aëtius, sometimes called "the Last Roman,"
who had defeated the Huns at Châlons (with substantial help from the Visigoths, whose King Theodoric I
was killed), was murdered by the incompetent and jealous Emperor Valentinian III. Valentinian's own
murder, as the Vandals symbolically arrived to plunder Rome, then left the throne completely at the mercy of
the next person to get control of the Army, who was the German Ricimer. Ricimer could not himself, as a
German, become Emperor, so he could only retain power by keeping the Emperors as figureheads, or killing
them. This was not a formula for retrieving the situation. The Theodosian dynasty thus ends in the West with
a combination of triumph, betrayal, and chaos.

It is noteworthy that the Venerable Bede (673-735) numbered Theodosius II as the 45th and Marcian as the
46th Emperors since Augustus. This is considerably less than the count we might make now and it
interestingly implies that Bede possessed a sort of "official" list from which many ephemeral Emperors were
excluded [note]. After Roman Britain disappeared from history, when the usurper Constantine "III" took his
troops to Gaul, Bede's History of the English Church and People is just about the first that we then hear of it,
three hundred years later. What events filled that time became strongly mythologized, especially around the
figure of King Arthur. Bede does not mention Arthur, but he does talk about a British leader against the
Angles, Ambrosius Aurelius, who gained a period of peace after defeating the invaders at Badon Hill in
about 493 (or 518). This becomes an element of the Arthur story. I suspect that the vividness of the Arthur
stories, like that of the Greek epics and of the Mahâbhârata in India, is an artifact of a literate society that for
a time lost its literacy but remembered, after a fashion, what it was like. The literature on the problem of
Arthur and Britain in this period is vast. Two of the more interesting recent books might be The Discovery of
King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe [Guild Publishing, London, 1985] and From Scythia to Camelot, A Radical
Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail by C. Scott
Littleton and Linda A. Malcor [Garland Publshing, Inc, New York, 1994]. Littleton and Malcor made the
significant discovery that the scene of Arthur's death in Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, where the sword Excalibur
was thrown into a lake, occurs in almost identical terms in the legends of the Ossetians in the Caucasus.
There is a possible connection, since the Ossetians are descendants of the Alans, and Marcus Aurelius had
settled a tribe of Alans, the Iazyges, whom he had defeated in 175 and taken into Roman service, in the north
of Britain, where many of them settled at Bremetenacum Veteranorum, south of Lancaster. The legion to

which the Iazyges were assigned, the VI Legion Victrix, was commanded by one Lucius Artorius Castus.
"Artorius" looks like the Latin source of the name "Arthur." There is nothing certain about the speculations
and disputes over all this, however, except that they will be endless [note].
2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS

The last twenty years of the Western
[names in brackets
WESTERN Empire are mainly the story of the
not recognized by East] COMMANDERS commander Ricimer. The last Western
[Petronius Maximus] 455 W Emperor really worthy of the name was
probably Majorian, who was a military
Avitus 455-456 W man in his own right and operated in Gaul.
He suffered a defeat and was murdered by
Majorian 457-461 W Ricimer. Henceforth, the Emperors were
mainly puppets and operations were
[Libius Severus] 461-465 W confined to Italy. More than the coup of
Odoacer in 476, this signaled a real
interregnum 465-467 W institutional change in the Western
Ricimer 456-472
Empire. The German Ricimer would now
Anthemius 467-472 W
hold the real power, with little better than
Joint E/W expedition against figurehead Emperors. With Ricimer either
Vandals fails, 468 unconcerned or distracted, the rest of the
Western Empire fell by default to the
[Olybrius] 472 W Vandals, Visigoths, and Burgundians. A
Roman pocket under local commanders
interregnum 472-473 W Gundobad, remained in the north of Gaul until the
King of 472-473 Frankish King Clovis subjugated it in 486.
[Glycerius] 473 W Burgundy Britain had been abandoned to illiterate
mythology. Ricimer was once perusaded to
Julius Nepos 473-480 W accept an Emperor from the East,
Orestes 473-476 Anthemius, and to participate in an assault
[Romulus "Augustulus"] 475-476 W on the Vandals; but this was a disaster, and
he ended his "reign" with another
Odoacer 476-493
figurehead on the throne. After a King of
Burgundy, Gundobad, briefly had his own
figurehead on the throne, a new nominee of the Eastern Emperor, Julius Nepos, and a new commander,
Orestes, were installed. But, rather than work together to get things organized again, Nepos was chased out to
Dalmatia by Orestes, who put his own son, a child, on the throne. In 476, when Orestes and his son were then
deposed by Odoacer, who decided to do without a figurehead Emperor, this was the rather anticlimactic "Fall
of Rome." Odoacer even returned the Western Regalia to Constantinople. Nepos, meanwhile, was still in
Dalamatia. Odoacer got rid of him by 480. Since Odoacer, de jure, was a faithful officer of the Emperor in
Constantinople, one could say that the last institutional existence of the Western Empire surived until
Odoacer was overthrown by the Ostrogoths in 493. The real difference, however, had come in 456, when
Ricimer gained control of the army.

476 AD
C. THE EAST ALONE, 476-518, 42 Years
1. LEONINES
Leo I purged the Eastern Army of Germans and so turned the East
Leo I 457-474 E away from the process of barbarization that had rendered the Western
Army useless. A last
Joint E/W expedition chance to recoup
against Vandals fails, 468 things for the whole
Empire came in 468,
Leo II 473-474 E after Leo had gotten
Ricimer to accept the
Zeno the Isaurian
474-491 E+W Theodosian relative
(Tarasikodissa) Anthemius as
Western Emperor. A
[Basiliscus] 475-476 E joint amphibious
campaign was put
Anastasius I 491-518
together to recover
Africa from the

Vandals. This should have succeeded, but it failed through a

reforms coinage, 498
combination of incompetence, treachery, and bad luck. Ricimer may
not have really wanted it to succeed, and it wasn't long before he got rid
of Anthemius. After Odoacer decided not to bother with a Western Emperor, Leo's Isaurian son-in-law, Zeno,
found himself as the first Emperor of a "united" Empire since Theodosius I, but little was left of the West.
Only Odoacer in Italy vaguely acknowledged the Emperor's suzerainty -- we don't know what allegiance, if
any, remained in the Roman pocket in northern Gaul. Nothing was done about this at the time, and
Anastasius, by temperament or by wisdom, concentrated on allowing the East to rest and build up its strength.
Part of that involved reforming the coinage, which is one of the benchmarks for the beginning of "Byzantine"
history.
Also noteworthy as a benchmark for the beginning of Byzantine history in the time of the Leonines is the
apparent disappearance of the traditional Roman tria nomina, the three names of praenômen, nômen, and
cognômen. For instance, the full name of Marcus Aurelius was M. Aurelius Antoninus, of Diocletian, C.
Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, and of Constantine, Fl. [Flavius] Valerius Constantinus. The last Emperor
with three full names may have been Majorian, Julius Valerius Majorianus. In general, the Valentian and
Theodosian Emperors only had two names, like Valens, Fl. Valens, and Theodosius I & II, both Fl.
Theodosius. From Marcian onward there is no evidence of any traditional Roman nomenclature. Why is this
happening? Well, even though it had been some time since the nômen had lost its connection to the actual
ancestral gens (the clan), and all the names were becoming like titles, the system of the tria nomina still bore

an essential connection to the Roman family cult of ancestor worship. No Confucian venerated ancestors in a
household shrine more devoutly than the pious Roman. But this could not survive with the adoption of
Christianity. A Christian receives a single Christian name. Indeed, it is a while before we get names, like
Michael or John, that look more Christian than Roman and Greek, like Leo or Heraclius (still
commemorating Heracles -- and so Hera); but the trend is obvious. Eventually we get the return of surnames,
at first for nobility. The first Dynasty with a family name will be the Ducases in the 11th century. It took a
few more centuries before surnames became common among European Christians of all classes.
Another momentous transition is in architecture. The lovely temples of Classical antiquity, like jewels in the
landscape, disappear. Christian churches of the period often look like piles of bowls or dark fruitcakes. Or we
simply get the basilica, a Roman courthouse. Churches often are not even visible from a distance, because
they may be packed around with other buildings. Why is this happening? Were Christians just anaesthetic?
No. The aesthetic was certainly changing, but the most important difference was just the difference in
purpose between a temple and a church. A temple was the house of a god, with little space inside but for the
god and a few priests. It was not supposed to contain a body of worshipers. The public side of the temple was
the exterior, the visible sign of the god's presence. With a church, however, the purpose was not to house
God, whose presence was ineffable, but to house the congregation, the ekklêsía, the "assembly" that gave its
name in many modern languages for "church" (which itself seems to be from kyriakos, "of the Lord"). The
public side of a church is thus the interior, not the exterior, and the outwardly ugliest early churches often
contain marvelous inner spaces, with rich decoration. These quickly become awesome spaces, as in Sancta
Sophia, for centuries the greatest church of Christendom. Roman domes could do what most Roman temples
did not try to do.
Eventually, a form of church evolved that transformed the basilica into a building with a monumental
external face and a monumental internal space. These would be the Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, but it
would be centuries before the technology could handle the spidery supports, of walls pierced with windows
and held by buttresses, that both size and relatively lightness required. Then the basilica and the dome would
be combined, to produce in the Renaissance the new largest church in Christendom, St. Peter's in Rome. But
this would happen as culturally Francia surpassed Romania. All this bears interesting comparison with the
practice in Islâm, where the purpose of a mosque was similar to that of a church. This can be seen in the
Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, based on Syrian churches, which is all but invisible from the outside, hidden
in the midst of the city, but contains two marvelous spaces, a courtyard and the lovely interior of the prayer
hall, with mosaics as in churches of the time. On the other hand, a monument of the same era, the Dome of
the Rock in Jerusalem, stands conspicuously like a pagan temple, high on the Temple Mount itself. But the
purpose of the Dome is more like a temple. It was built less for a congregation than for the Rock itself,
commemorating the Temple of Solomon and the site of the Prophet Muh.ammad's "dream journey" to
heaven. Finally, the Ottoman mosques of Sinan (c.1500-1588), based on the model of Sancta Sophia, produce
the monumental Islâmic equivalent of the cathedral.
D. RETURNING TO THE WEST, 518-610, 92 years

565 AD
1. JUSTINIANS
Justinian took the rested strength of the East and threw it, commanded by
Justin I 518-527 his great general Belisarius, against the Vandals and Ostrogoths. The
Vandals, caught off guard, collapsed quickly. In 540 the Ostrogoths
Justinian I 527-565 surrendered to Belisarius, who had to rush East to meet a Persian
invasion. He was too late. Khusro I had already sacked Antioch (540).
Plato's Academy closed, 529; Then in 541 the resistance of the Ostrogoths revived, and the plague hit
North Africa regained, 533; the Empire. The campaign in Italy then took another 11 years, with men
Rome regained, 536; end and money very short. Successful, if exhausted, Justinian was then able to
of dating by Consuls, 537; secure part of southern Spain. Meanwhile he had built the greatest church
Ostrogoths defeated, 552; in Christendom, Sancta Sophia [note], codified Roman Law, and driven
Council V, Constantinople II, the last pagans, at Plato's Academy, out of business. This wore out the
Monophysitism condemned Empire, but it could easily have recovered to new strength if further
again, 553; Andalusia blows had not fallen. The Lombards invaded Italy in 568; and although
regained, 554 they were unable to secure the whole peninsula, or the major cities
(except in the Po valley), they became a source of constant conflict for
Justin II 565-578
most of the next two hundred years. Meanwhile, the Danube frontier had
Lombards Invade Italy, 568 become very insecure. As early as 540 (again) Bulgars and Slavs were
raiding into the Balkans. Maurice not only restored the frontier but
574-578, Caesar; crossed it to apply the "forward defense" of the Early Empire.
Tiberius II
578-582, Augustus Unfortunately, this hard campaigning became unpopular with the troops;
and in 602 they murdered Maurice and his whole family. Under Phocas,

things began to unravel. The Persians began the campaign that would net
Sack of Athens by Slavs, 582
them the Asiatic part of the Empire, recreating the Persia of the
Maurice 582-602 Achaeminids, and the Danube frontier collapsed so completely that it
would not be restored for almost four hundred years.
non-dynastic
Phocas 602-610

III. THIRD EMPIRE, MIDDLE "ROMANIA," EARLY "BYZANTIUM,"

610-1059, Era of Diocletian 327-776, 449 years
To most people thinking of the "Roman Empire," we are well into terra incognita here. Yet in 610 the
character and problems of the Roman Empire would not have been unfamiliar to Theodosius the Great. A
Persian invasion was nothing new. How far it got, all the way to Egypt and the Bosporus, was. Meanwhile,
the collapse of the Danube frontier was not now the doing of Germans but of Slavs and Steppe people -- the
latter beginning with the Altaic Avars, whose kin would dominate Central Asia in the Middle Ages. The
Persians were miraculously defeated; but before the Danube could be regained or the Lombards overcome in
Italy, a Bolt from the Blue changed everything. The Arabs, bringing a new religion, Islâm, created an entirely
new world, which both broke the momentum of Roman recovery and divided the Mediterranean world in a
way whose outlines persist until today. Nevertheless, the Empire, restricted to Greece and Anatolia, rode out
the flood. It must have been a hard nut, since the Arab Empire otherwise flowed easily all the way to China
and the Atlantic. It was hard enough, indeed, that by the end of the "Third Empire" it had been in better health
than any Islamic state. The promise of new ascendency, however, was brief.

A. THE ADVENT OF ISLAM, 610-802, 192 years
1. HERACLIANS
Seldom has fortune and ability so blessed a ruler only to turn so
Heraclius 610-641 completely against him in the end. With the Persians in Egypt,
Syria, and Anatolia, and the Avars at the walls of Constantinople,
invasion and conquest of Syria, the Roman Empire seemed doomed to complete collapse. Things
Egypt, & Anatolia by Shâh even got worse after Heraclius arrived from Africa and seized the
Khusro II, 607-616; his defeat, throne. But then in one of the most brilliant, but far more
desperate, campaigns since Alexander, Heraclius audaciously
623-628; Salona destroyed by
invaded Persia itself. Confident that Constantinople was
Avars, residents move to
impregnable, he even wintered with the army in the field, until the
Spalatum, 620; Cartagena falls
Shâh Khusro II's own nobility rose up and overthrew him. The
to Visigoths, 624; Avar Siege
peace restored the status quo ante bellum; and Heraclius began to
of Constantinople, 626;
use the title of the defeated monarch, the
occupation of Armenia, 633;
traditional Persian "Great King." Thus Basileus,
Palestine lost to the Caliph
the Greek word for "King," became the mediaeval Greek word for
'Umar, 636; Syria lost, 640;
"Emperor" -- as Greek now (or hereabouts) replaces Latin as the
Egypt invaded, 640 Court language. But then, barely eight years after this exhausting
victory, the Arabs, united by Islâm, appeared out of the desert and
Constantine III
641 quickly conquered Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. Jerusalem
& Heracleon
would never be recovered, except temporarily by the Crusaders.
641-668, Old and ill, Heraclius had to watch his life's work largely melt
last Emperor away, while people said it was the Judgment of God because he
Constans II Pogonatus to visit had married his niece. But a core for the Empire had been saved.
Rome as a
possession
Egypt lost, 642; Genoa (Liguria)

lost to Lombards, 642; campaign
against the Lombards, 663
Constantine IV 668-685
Siege of Constantinople by
the Caliph Mu'âwiya, 674-677;
Council VI, Constantinople III,
Monotheletism condemned,
680-681
685-695,
Justinian II Rhinotmetus
705-711

Loss of Armenia, 693
non-dynastic
Leontius 695-698
Carthage falls, 698
Tiberius III 698-705
Philippicus Bardanes
711-713
(Vardan)
Anastasius II 713-715
Theodosius III 715-717
Constans II was the last Emperor to campagin in northern Italy and visit Rome as an Imperial possession
(later the Palaeologi went to beg for help). He was also the last to exert real control over the Popes, arresting
Martin I (649-653, d.655) and exiling him to the Crimea. Under either Heraclius or Constans II the Roman
Army was basically restrucured. As the traditional units, largely familiar from the 5th Century, fell back from
the collapsing frontiers, they were settled on the land in Anatolia, to be paid directly from local revenues
instead of from the Treasury, whose tax base from Syria and Egypt had disappeared. The areas set aside for
particular units became the themes, which remained the bedrock of Romania until the end of the 11th
century. After Constantine IV withstood the first Arab siege of Constantinople, burning the Arab fleet with
the famous and mysterious "Greek Fire" (which sounds like nothing so much as napalm), it looked like the
Empire would survive. With the last member of the dynasty, Justinian II, we have a curious experiment in
humanity. When the Emperor was deposed in 695, instead of being killed, his nose was cut off. Hence his
epithet, Rhinotmetus, "Cut Nose." It was expected that this would disqualify him from attempts at restoration.
It didn't, and Justinian returned to power in 705. Henceforth, deposed Emperors, or other politically
threatening persons, would be blinded. This was effective, though now it may not seem particularly more
humane than execution.

The maps of Romania now

become much smaller. Egypt,
Palestine, Spain, and North
Africa are gone forever.
Footholds in Italy and the
Balkans remain. Greece and the
Balkans would be recovered in
time, but everything in Italy
would eventually be lost also.
For the time being, the heartland
of the Empire will be Asia
Minor. Although this would
provide the resources for revival,
even for colonization back into Greece, it was still open to Arab raids. They could not be precluded for a
couple of centuries.
3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS)
While Leo III held off another Arab siege of Constantinople, the position
Leo III 717-741 of Romania in the West deteriorated. With Africa gone, it became harder to
project authority into Italy and harder to resist the Lombards. John Julius
Siege of Constantinople Norwich (A History of Venice, Vintage, 1989) links the election of the first
by the Caliphs Sulaymân & Doge of Venice with Leo's prohibition of images; but the election was in
'Umar II, 717-718 727, during a tax revolt, not in 730, when Leo did prohibit images,
alienating the Western Church.
Tax Revolt in Italy, end of
Imperial authority in
Exarchate, Exarch Paulicius The prohibition of religious images began the Iconoclasm controversy.
assassinated, 727; Edict One way to understand it is to realize that the conflict between Islâm and
establishing Iconoclasm, 730 Christendom was not just a contest of arms but, mutatis mutandis, an
ideological struggle. Christians were not being accused, to be sure, of
Constantine V oppressing the workers, but they were being accused of being polytheists
741-775 (because of the Trinity) and idolaters (for making and venerating images).
Copronymus
Indeed, some Islâmic attitudes are familiar from later religious ideological
Ravenna Falls to Lombards, conflict, since disgust and condemnation of a priesthood and celibacy, not
751; Iconoclast Council, to mention the use of images, could later draw sympathy from
754 Protestantism. The Thousand and One Nights derives great humor from the
notion that the incense burned by Christians (but not, of course, by later
Leo IV the Khazar 775-780 Protestants) was made from the dung of bishops.
Constantine VI 780-797
780-790,
Irene Regent
792-802

Council VII, Nicaea II,

Iconoclasm condemned, 787
Since Leo III is considered to have come from
either Syria or the nearby Isauria, his concern
about this issue is supposed to have resulted
from his sensitivity to the effect of Islâmic
charges on the previously Christian populations
of the areas, like Syria, conquered by Islâm.
Conversions did not have to be effected by
force, which was prohibited by the Qur'ân
anyway, but by powerful persuasion (and,
easily understood in modern terms, tax
incentives). So Leo, a sort of proto-Protestant,
decided to clean up Christianity's act. This did
not find any traction in the West, however. The
Latin Church felt no sting from Islâmic
ideology. Leo's successes against the Arabs,
obvious evidence of the favor of God, became
associated with Iconoclasm. After images were
restored by Irene, and military reverses seemed
to follow, the favor of God was apparently
withdrawn. The final Iconoclast period (815-
843) was of such mixed military fortunes that worries about the favor of God faded, as Papal support for
images had never faltered.
The final fall of Ravenna to the Lombards in 751 led to the intervention of the Franks in Italy, at the urging of
the Pope. Romania would never return to Central or Northern Italy. This was on the watch of Constantine V,
who came to be called "Copronymus," "Name of Dung" -- certainly one the harshest, crudest epithets in the
history of royalty. As Frankish power waxed, the Pope took the step of crowning the Frankish King Charles
as Emperor in 800. This was during the reign of Irene, who had taken the throne exclusively for herself, the
only Empress ever to do so, by having her son Constantine VI blinded (he died, too). Although Irene restored
the images and reconciled the Eastern and Western Churches, the Pope decided to arrogate the authority of
crowning a proper, male Emperor to himself (later justified with the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine"
document, by which Constantine I had supposedly given the entire Western Empire to the Pope). While
Charlemagne even offered to marry Irene, who could have regarded him as only the rudest of barbarians, this
all signaled a fundamental parting of the ways between the Latin Europe of Pope and Franks (Francia) and
the Greek Europe of Romania. Note the parallels between the reign of Irene and that of the Empress Wu (685-
705) of T'ang Dynasty China.
4. DOGES (DUKES) OF VENICE,

727-1797

Orso
Venice was the "Most Serene
727-738
(Ursus) Ipato
Republic," or the "Queen of the
Teodato Adriatic." The title of Doge derives
742, 744-736 from that of a late Roman commander
(Deusdedit) Ipato
of a military frontier, Dux ("leader").
Galla Gaulo 756 This is cognate to
English "Duke." The
Domenico Monegaurio 756-765 Doges were always elected, from a
variety of families, as their names
Maurizio I Galbaio 765-787 indicate. Over time their powers were
increasingly limited, as Venice
Giovanni and
787-802 evolved into an oligarchic Republic.
Maurizio II Galbaio
The Duke of Venetia at first would
Obelerio Antenorio 802-811 have been like many other Romanian
officials in Italy, but Constantinople
Venetia & Dalmatia submit rarely had occasion or ability to exert
to Franks, 806; Roman fleet direct rule over Venice, so over time
reestablishes authority, 807 the city drifted into independence,
competition, and eventually
Beato 808-811 belligerence.
Angello Partecipazio 811-827 The list of Doges is taken from

Byzantium and Venice, A Study in
Giustiniano Partecipazio 827-829 Diplomatic and Cultural Relations, by
Donald M. Nicol [Cambridge
Giovanni (I) Partecipazio 829-836
University Press, 1988, 1999], and
Pietro Tradonico 836-864 Storia di Venezia Volume II, by
Eugenio Musatti [4th edition, Fratelli
Orso I Badoer Treves Editori, Milano, 1937]. A
864-881 complete list can also be found in A
(I Partecipazio)
History of Venice, by John Julius Norwich [Vintage Books,
Giovanni Badoer 1989].
881-888
(II Partecipazio)
After the Schism of the Eastern and Western Churches (1054),
Venice effectively there came to be growing religious hostility between Venice and
independent, 886 her metropolis. However, Venice never quite fit in to the
political system of Francia. For a while the Republic paid tribute
Pietro I Candiano 887
to the Carolingians but quickly enough shook off any obligation.
Pietro Tribuno 888-912 Playing Constantinople and the West against each other, Venice
never really acknowledged the authority of the Frankish or
Orso II Badoer German Emperors and in time was relatively safe in its lagoon
912-932
(II Partecipazio) from attempts to impose imperial authority, whether from East
or West. With the decline of Romania, Venice largely pursued
its affairs at the expense of Contantinople and only came to be

Pietro II Candiano 932-939 pushed out of the area altogether by the Ottomans.
Pietro Badoer When Alexius Comnenus signed a pact with Venice in 1082, the
939-942
(Partecipazio) Republic became a partner with the now beleaguered
Constantinople. During the honeymoon period we get the
Pietro III Candiano 942-959 completion of St. Mark's Cathedral -- a mature Romania seeding
its culture into the maturing Venice.
Pietro IV Candiano 959-976
Pietro I Orseolo 976-978 The honeymoon didn't last. The pact gave Venice a choke hold
on the trade of Romania and on naval power in Romanian waters
Vitale Candiano 978-979 -- on at least once occasion Venetians burned Roman warships
on the stocks before they could be completed. Although Alexius
Tribuno Menio didn't have much choice at the time, this led to retaliation later.
979-991
(Memmo) Manuel I arrested all Venetians in 1171 and little but hostile
relations followed -- even peaceful exchanges revealed tragic
Pietro II Orseolo 991-1008 inequality, as when the Imperial Crown Jewels were pawned
with Venice in 1343.
1008-1026,
Ottone Orseolo
1030-1032
The fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 was
Pietro Centranico largely engineered by the Doge Enrico Dandolo, who was
1026-1030 actually buried in Sancta Sophia. By the settlement with the
(Barbolano)
Crusaders, Venice was ceded 3/8 of the Empire, and the Doge
Domenico Flabianico 1032-1043 henceforth styled himself quartae partis et dimidiae totius
imperii Romaniae Dominator ("Lord of a quarter and a half [of a
Domenico Contarini 1043-1070 quarter] of the whole Empire of Romania"). Norwich
interestingly translates this as "Lord of ... the Roman
Domenico Silvio (Selvo) 1070-1084 Empire" (p.147), but the phrase was imperium Romaniae,
"Empire of Romania," not imperium Romanum, "Roman
Trade concession with Romania,
Empire." Venice was obviously not claiming 3/8 of the Empire
1082; construction of of Trajan, but of the much reduced mediaeval Romania. This
St. Mark's begun
fragmentation of Romania helped Venice maintain her
Vitale Falier 1084-1096 advantages, but it weakened the whole in the face of the
eventual Ottoman threat. Venice could neither hold off the Turks
relics of St. Mark deposited nor support a local state strong enough to do so.
in completed St. Mark's
cathedral, 1094 When the Michael VIII Palaeologus took Constantinople back
from the Crusaders, he conferred commercial advantages, not on
Vitale I Michiel (Michel) 1096-1101 Venice, but on her hated rival, Genoa, which, of course, had
been Roman until lost to the Lombards in 642. This confirmed
Ordelafo Falier 1101-1118
that Italy rather than Romania would be the center of trade and
Domenico Michiel 1118-1129 naval power in the Christian Mediterranean. Genoa was even
granted the city of Galata, just across the Golden Horn from
Pietro Polani 1129-1148 Constantinople itself, in 1267. As the Turks fatally invested
Constantinople in 1453, it was Genoa rather than Venice that

contributed to its defense -- though Galata itself remained

Domenico Morosini 1148-1155
neutral.
Vitale II Michiel 1155-1172
The most famous Venetian of the 13th century, and possibly of
all Venetians arrested all history, was Marco Polo (c.1254-c.1324). Polo's business
in Romania, 1171 travels with his father and uncle to the China of Qubilai Khan
might have gone unrecorded, like the stories of many other such
Sebastiano Ziani 1172-1178 travelers, if he had not been taken prisoner by the Genoese in
1298. Languishing in prison in Genoa, Polo began telling his
Orio Mastropiero story to a fellow prisoner. This happened to be the Pisan writer
1178-1192
(Malipiero) Rustichello (or Rusticiano), who thought that Polo's tales might
make a good book and wrote it up, in French. This Divisament
Enrico Dandolo 1192-1205
dou Monde, "Description of the World," soon to be called Il
Fourth Crusade, 1202-1204; milione, "The Millions," was more a catalogue of places than a
Constantinople falls narrative of travels. Nevertheless, it was a sensation -- though
to Crusaders & Venetians, 1204; people had trouble believing the numbers and scale of the places
Venice ceded 3/8 of Romania and domains described. One story about Polo himself is that he
was questioned about just this on his deathbed. He replied, "I
Pietro Ziani 1205-1229 haven't told the half of it." Now that we know independently
about the Mongol Empire, even this anecdote has the ring of
Giacomo Tiepolo 1229-1249 truth. China alone was vast beyond the reckoning of 13th
century Europe. Although serious questions have been raised
Marino Morosini 1249-1253 about some of Polo's claims, details of his story, like the custom
of the Chinese to send things to the dead by burning paper
Reniero Zeno 1253-1268
copies of them, are still familiar and unique features of Chinese
Restoration of Greek rule culture. The legend that Marco introduced noodles from China is
now commonly discounted, but there is little doubt that someone
in Constantinople, 1261
did that in this era. The Romans were not eating pasta, but at
Lorenzo Tiepolo 1268-1275 some point we realize that the Italians are. If we we ask where
such a preparation existed previously, the answer is China --
Jacopo Contarini 1275-1280 something probably as old as Chinese history and still the
traditional alternative to rice in any Chinese (or Japanese, etc.)
Giovanni Dandolo 1280-1289 restaurant.
Venetians mint Ducats after Roman What seems extraordinary about Venice now is how a mere city
debasement, 1284 had become a Great Power, contending on terms of equality, if
not superiority, with all of Romania. The tail wagging the dog
Pietro Gradenigo 1289-1311
indeed. And while Venice was never the equal of Turkey, it was
Venetian fleet destroyed by for long one of the major belligerents contesting Ottoman
Genoa at Curzola, Marco Polo advances. What this reveals is the stark difference in wealth
captured, 1298 between the cash economy of a commercial republic (Venice
began minting gold Ducats in 1284) and, on the one hand, the
Marino Zorzi 1311-1312 poverty of subsistent kingdoms, like other Western European
states and, on the other hand, the fractured economy of
Romania, which had peviously perpetuated commercial

traditions. Venice was soon joined by other Italian cities, like

Giovanni Soranzo 1312-1328
Pisa and then Genoa, in excerising the power made possible by
Francesco Dandolo 1328-1339 their wealth.
Bartolomeo Gradenigo 1339-1342 As commercial life began to grow in the North, the Italians
began to lose their advantage. After Flanders and the
Andrea Dandolo 1343-1354 Netherlands became centers of trade and manufacture, the Dukes
Crown Jewels of Romania pawned, of Burgundy first benefited from this wealth, then the
1343; War with Genoa, Hapsburgs, and finally the Netherlands as an independent
1350-1355 power. The latter eventuality is especially revealing. The
Netherlands was a commercial republic again as Burgundy and
Marino Falier 1354-1355 the Hapsburg domains had not been. What's more, Amsterdam
became the center of European banking, with that preeminence
Giovanni Gradenigo 1355-1356 passing from, as it happened, the cities of Northern Italy
(remembered in "Lombard Street" in the City of London). The
Giovanni Dolfin 1356-1361 next financial centers, of Europe and the World, would be
London and then New York. In the course of all that history, the
Lorenzo Celsi 1361-1365 apparent power of the Italian cities was punctured like a balloon
in 1494, when King Charles VIII of France invaded Italy. This is
Marco Corner 1365-1368
one of the events regarded as marking the end of the Middle
Corfu acquired, 1368 Ages. It certainty revealed the comparative disadvantage into
which the Italian powers had fallen. A nice recent movie about
Andrea Contarini 1368-1382 this period was Dangerous Beauty (1998), about a popular
courtesan who ends up in a tug-of-war between Venetian
Michele Morosini 1382 nobility and the (rather unwelcome in Venice) Holy Inquisition.
We happen to notice in the course of the movie that Venice has
Antonio Venier 1382-1400 been expelled from Cyprus by the Turks (1571).
Michele Steno 1400-1413
Just as bad or worse for Venice's position was the Age of
Tommaso Mocenigo 1414-1423 Discovery. The Italian cities had grown strong on the trade of
the Levant, and the new Atlantic powers wanted very much to
Francesco Foscari 1423-1457 have a way to avoid their mediation, let alone that of Turkey and
Mamlûk Egypt, in the transfer of goods from India and further
Thessalonica ceded by Romania, East to Europe. Columbus, therefore, was out to make an end
1423, captured by Turks, 1430; run. Since he ran into the Americas instead of Asia, this diverted
Constantinople falls to Turks, Spanish energies, but for Portugal Vasco da Gama did the job of
Venetian baillie executed, others getting to India around Africa in 1498. This eliminated Italy or
executed, enslaved, ransomed, 1453 the Turks from any central position in world trade. They could
only fade, in the most literal sense, into back-waters.
Pasquale Malipiero 1457-1462
Cristoforo Moro 1462-1471

Euboia (Negroponte) falls

to Turks, 1470
Nicolò Tron 1471-1473
Nicolò Marcello 1473-1474
Pietro Mocenigo 1474-1476
Andrea Vendramin 1476-1478
Giovanni Mocenigo 1478-1485
Marco Barbarigo 1485-1486

The decline of the Turks in the 17th century allowed a brief
Agostino Barbarigo 1486-1501 Venetian resurgence, whose most striking event, however, was
probably the destruction of the Parthenon in 1687, when a
Cyprus passes to Venice, Venetian cannonball detonated an Ottoman powder magazine --
1489; Modon & Coron in Morea the ruin of the Acropolis was not produced by the Goths, the
fall to Turks, 1500 Huns, or any event of the Middle Ages, but by modern warfare.
By that time a city state was going to be no match for the
Leonardo Loredan 1501-1521
colonial and maritime powers that were rapidly becoming
Antonio Grimani 1521-1523 modern nation states. Venice lapsed into a kind of 18th century
version of Las Vegas, a curiosity and a diversion -- and Las
Andrea Gritti 1523-1538 Vegas has now reciprocated with the Venetian Hotel. It was
such a Venice that produced the memorable career of Giovanni
Pietro Lando 1539-1545 Casanova (1725-1798), who saw the best and the worse of the
City.
Monembasia falls to Turks, 1540
After invading Italy and defeating the Austrians, Napoleon had
Francesco Donato 1545-1553
to exert little enough power to eliminate what had become an
Marcantonio Trevisan 1553-1554 anchronism. The French were a little puzzled by the hostility of
the Venetians to their occupation, since the rousing Republican
Francesco Venier 1554-1556 rhetoric of the French didn't have the effect they expected -- but
it was in a place that was, well, already a Republic. Napoleon,
Lorenzo Priuli 1556-1559 indeed, might have taken some lessons from the venerable and
terrifying Venetian system of secret police and secret
Girolamo Priuli 1559-1567 inquisitorial courts. One of the sights of Venice, the "Bridge of
Sighs," is a covered way that secretly transported prisoners back
Pietro Loredan 1567-1570
and forth from their secret trials to their hopeless cells. However
Alvise I Mocenigo 1570-1577 hostile to the French, the spirit of Venetian independence was
soon forgotten, and it was the Sardinian Kingdom of Italy that
detached Venice from Austria in 1866. The Venice of the
subsequent period appears in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice
(Der Tod in Venedig, 1912), which has been described as, "a

symbol-laden story of aestheticism and decadence..." Venice

Turkish Conquest of Cyprus, 1571;
was just the place for that.
Battle of Lepanto,
naval defeat of Turkey by Spain,
Venice, & Malta, 1571
Sebastiano Venier 1577-1578
Nicolò da Ponte 1578-1585
Pasquale Cicogna 1585-1595
Marino Grimani 1595-1605
Leonardo Donato 1606-1612
Marcantonio Memmo 1612-1615
Giovanni Bembo 1615-1618
Nicolò Donato 1618
Antonio Priuli 1618-1623
Francesco Contarini 1623-1624
Giovanni Corner 1625-1629
Nicolò Contarini 1630-1631
Francesco Erizzo 1631-1646 On the other hand, the art of Venice, in music -- as with Antonio
Vivaldi (1680-1743) -- painting -- as with Titian, Tiziano
Francesco Molin 1646-1655
Vecilli (1477-1576) -- and architecture, is an enduring and vivid
Carlo Contarini 1655-1656 monument. Part of this is a hint of the lost beauty of
Constantinople, since St. Mark's Cathedral, crowned with four
Francesco Corner 1656 great horses from the Hippodrome and countless other treasures
looted from Constantinople in 1204, is a copy of the vanished
Bertucci Church of the Holy Apostles, the burial place of Constantine and
1656-1658
(Albertuccio) Valier his successors (whose site is now occupied by the Fatih Jamii,
the mosque, institute, and burial place of Meh.med II, the
Giovanni Pesaro 1658-1659 Conqueror [Fâtih.] of Constantinople). Although decorated with
loot, the present church was completed earlier, in 1094 (or
Domenico Contarini 1659-1675
1071), with the help of artisans from the still friendly Emperors.
Conquest of Crete by Turkey, 1669 The Rialto Bridge across the Grand Canal, the Campanile bell
tower (campana, "bell"), the Lido barrier island, and other
Nicolò Sagredo 1675-1676 structures and sites have now contributed their names, if not
their images or functions, in countless modern landscapes.

Cambridge University even has its own Bridge of Sighs, though

Luigi Contarini 1676-1684
it apparently was never used for the same purpose as the
Marcantonio Giustinian 1684-1688 Venetian (mercifully). The Campanile on the Berkeley campus
of the University of California (the Sather Tower), on the other
Parthenon destroyed in explosion hand, almost identical in appearance to the one in Venice,
under Venetian bombardment, 1687 houses a fine carillon, a sort of organ with bells instead of pipes.
Francesco Morosini 1688-1694 Poised between Francia and Romania, Venice thus preserves
much of the beauty and atmosphere that was lost and forgotten
Silvestro Valier 1694-1700
after successive catastrophies to Constantinople. The City ended
Alvise II Mocenigo 1700-1709 up itself as something out of its time, a Mediaeval Republic in a
age of nation states, even as now it is rather like a living
Giovanni II Corner 1709-1722 museum, slowly sinking into the lagoon that originally gave it
refuge.
Alvise III Mocenigo 1722-1732
Indeed, the low muddy islands in the lagoon, once a redoubt,
Carlo Ruzzini 1732-1735 now are Venice's greatest peril. With zero elevation, the City is
vulnerable to high seas, high tides, and any significant changes
Alvise Pisani 1735-1741 in sea level. Pumping out ground water under the City, long the
simplest source of fresh water, threatened to leave it
Pietro Grimani 1741-1752
permanently awash. That danger was soon recognized and
Francesco Loredan 1752-1762 attempts have even been made to restore the water, though that
is more difficult. Barriers may soon seal off the lagoon from the
Marco Foscarini 1762-1763 Adriatic, but this raises the problem of discharging the waste
water brought down from inland cities. Any durable solution
Alvise IV Mocenigo 1763-1778 promises to be difficult, expensive, and perilous to the
traditional character of the City.
Paolo Renier 1779-1789
1789-1797,
Lodovico Manin
d. 1802
Venice Falls to
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1797
B. REVIVAL AND ASCENDENCY, 802-1059, 257 years

400 years after the

opportunity might have
originally presented
itself, a German finally
claimed the title of
Roman Emperor. This
was the Frank
Charlemagne, in a move
legitimized by the Pope
and by the reign of a
woman, Irene, in
Constantinople.
1. NICEPHORANS
The reigns of Irene and Nicephorus I begin what Warren Threadgold calls
Nicephorus I 802-811 The Byzantine Revival, 780-842 [Stanford U. Press, 1988]. Despite the
loss of most of Europe and continuing Arab raids into Anatolia, the
Nicephorus killed in battle population and the
by Bulgar Khan Krum, 811 economy of the
empire were actually
Stauracius 811 growing, and
Nicephorus was able
Michael I Rhangabé 811-813 to start transplanting
colonies of people
Leo V the Armenian 813-820 from the east back
into Greece. This
Iconoclasm restored, 815 soon led to the
recovery of most of the Greek peninsula. Unfortunately for him, the
"revival" was not without its setbacks. Nicephorus ended up killed in battle against the Bulgars, and his son
Stauracius, proclaimed Emperor, turned out to be paralyzed from a spinal wound. Michael Rhangabe then
turned out to be inactive and indecisive and was overthrown by Leo the Armenian, an in-law of the
subsequent Amorian dynasty. It would be some time before the Bulgars could be seriously defeated, much
less subdued. Until then, it would be impossible to restore the Danube border.
2. AMORIANS
In this period, aptly called the "Second Dark Age," the Arabs took to the sea.
(PHRYGIANS)
With the simultaneous advent of the Vikings, this made both Franks and
Michael II Romans vulnerable in North and South. Crete was lost for over a century, and
820-829 fighting began on Sicily that would last for 50 years and result in the permanent
the Stammerer
loss of the island.
Crete lost, 823
Sicily invaded by
Aghlabids, 827

Theophilus I 829-842
Varangians
(Vikings) arrive at
Constantinople, 839
Michael III 842-867
Final repudiation
of Iconoclasm, 843
(Theophilus II) 867
The arrival of the Varangians, which meant the Vikings who had come down the rivers of Russia, ended up
providing a source of mercenaries for what became the Emperor's "Varangian Guard," whose ranks would
later even fill with Englishmen who fled the Norman conquest in 1066. We also find the last of Iconoclasm
laid to rest, though one will note even today that the Orthodox Churches prefer Icons rather than sculpture for
sacred images. The resolution of this conflict removed a point of friction between the Western and the
Eastern Churches. It did reveal, however, how easily such conflict could arise. The later (1054) Schism of the
Churches would be over apparently much more trival issues -- the real issue, of course, was simply
authority.
We are approaching
the point in
European history
where the
remaining pagan
peoples of Europe
will be assimilated
to Christian
civilization.
Bulgaria will lead
the way, but it will
soon be following
by Hungary,
Poland, Russia, and
Scandinavia. The
Pechenegs (or
Patzinaks), a Turkic
steppe people, will remain pagans until they are swept from history by the Cumans and Mongols. On the east
edge of the map is the Khanate of the Khazars, also Turkic, who actually converted to Judaism. They would
be Roman allies until disappearing in the 11th century.

3. BULGARIA
Although today the Bulgarians are thought of as simply a Slavic
BEFORE ROMAN CONQUEST
people, like the Russians or Serbs, they were originally a nomadic
Qaghan, Turkic steppe people, more like the Huns or Mongols. The first title
Asparukh of their leaders here, qaghan, is recognizably more Mongolian than
c.681-701
the form more familiar from Turkish, khân. The Slavs, who had
Tervel c.701-c.718 breached the Danube
with the Avars, but who
Sevar c.718-750 had little in the way of
indigenous political
Kormesios 750-762 organization, then came
under the control of the
Vinekh Bulgars, the next
762-763 nomadic group to pop off
Teletz
the end of the steppe. A
Umar 763 related people, the
Khazars, who remained
Baian 763-765 on the Lower Volga,
became long term Roman
Tokt 765 allies against the Bulgars.
Other related peoples, the
Telerig c.765-777 Patzinaks and Cumans,
followed the Bulgars off
Kardam c.777-c.803 the steppe and into the
Balkans, though not
Krum c.803-814
permanently south of the
Kills Emperor Nicephorus in Danube. After the
Cumans, the Mongols
battle, 811; uses his skull
were the last steppe
as a drinking cup
people to come into
Dukum 814-815 Europe. Through the
Middle East, of course,
Ditzveg 814-816 the Turks (and the
Mongols) came off the
Omurtag 814-831 steppe and ultimately,
permanently, into
Malamir/Malomir 831-836 Azerbaijan, Anatolia, and
Thrace.
Presijan 836-852
Qaghan, Fans of Robert E.

852-870 Howard's (1906-1936)
Boris I/ classic pulp fiction
Emperor Michael I character Conan the
Barbarian, will find the
name of the Bulgar

Qaghan Krum somewhat

Emperor/Tsar,
familar -- it is rather like
870-889,
Conan's own personal
d.907
god, "Crom." Krum,
Council VIII, Constantinople IV, indeed, seems very
869-870; conversion of Bulgaria Conan-like. Not only was
announced the Emperor Nicephorus killed in battle, but Krum took his skull and
turned it into a drinking cup. This sounds like "barbarism" indeed --
Vladimir 889-893 though Lord Kitchener (1850-1916) may have had something
similar in mind when he removed the body of the Sudanese Mahdi
Simeon I the Great 893-927 from his tomb, after taking Khartoum in 1898.
Peter I 927-969 More recently, readers of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [J.K.
Rowling, Arthur A. Levine Books, Scholastic, Inc., 2000] will
969-972,
Boris II remember that the champion Bulgarian Quidditch player was none
d.986
other than Viktor Krum.
Bulgaria conquered by
John I Tzimisces, 971 What happened to the Bulgars was assimilation. The Patzinaks
pushed them off the steppe, they began to speak the language of
Macedonian Bulgaria; state
organized in western Bulgaria
by the Cometopuli,
"Sons of the Count"
figurehead,
Tsar Romanus 986-997;
captured, 991
Samuel 997-1014
Army annihilated by Basil II, 1014
Gabriel Radomir 1014-1015
John Vladislav 1015-1018
Bulgaria annexed by Basil II, 1018

their Slavic subjects, and they began to aspire to the civilization, if

not the throne, of Constantinople. The conversion of the Bulgars,
indeed, was a complicated political act, with sophisticated
negotiations that played the Popes off the Emperors. Greek influence
ended up predominating, but the Bulgars continued jealous of their
autonomy -- the precedent of an autocephalous Church set the
pattern for other Orthodox Churches, as in Russia, created under
Roman auspices. The Qaghan Boris took the Christian name
Michael (though both names would be used in the future), but
retained a status comparable to the Roman Emperor. The newly
invented Cyrillic alphabet was used for the Slavic language of the
new national Church. This language, Old Church
Slavonic, is the oldest attested Slavic language
and retains features apparently ancestral of most modern Slavic
languages.
Although remaining a formidable foe, the Bulgars were probably

softened by their assimiliation and civilization. As the Empire itself
grew in strength, the day came when Bulgaria was defeated and
subjugated. The first step merely left it leaderless, as John Tzimisces
took Emperor Boris II off to Constantinople. A new state was
organized in the west, however, by the sons of the Bulgar governor
Count Nicholas. These "Sons of the Count," Cometopuli, eventually
got an Emperor back after Boris and his brother Romanus escaped
captivity. Boris was accidentially killed, so Romanus became the,
largely figurehead, ruler. The Emperor Basil II then smashed and
annexed this state, with a ferocity that that might have made Krum
(or Conan) proud. Samuel is supposed to have dropped dead when
he saw that Basil had blinded all the survivors of the Bulgarian army
(leaving every tenth man with one eye to lead the rest). Bulgaria
would not reemerge until the Asen brothers led it to independence in 1186. After the Turkish conquest,
modern Bulgaria did not emerge until 1878.
Lists of Bulgarian rulers can be found in various Byzantine histories, but the genealogy here only comes from
the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche
Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag,
Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.156-159].
4. MACEDONIANS
The greatest dynasty of Middle Romania begins with the Empire still
Basil I 867-886 losing ground. Raids by the Arabs, Vikings, and now Magyars are
giving all of Europe a very bad time. Only the 10th Century would see a
gradual recovery, as Slavs, Norsemen, and Magyars all became settled
and Christianized, though the Normans remained vigorous and

aggressive in both North and South, i.e. conquering England and

Arabs sack suburbs of Rome,
including the Vatican, 846; expelling Romania from Italy. Much of the good work of the Dynasty
Varangians attack was accomplished by in-laws during the minority of the legitimate heirs,
Constantinople, 865; though the culmination came when one heir, Basil II, came of age and
Council VIII, completed the conquests himself. Although traditionally called the
Constantinople IV, 869-870 "Macedonian" dynasty, Basil I was probably Armenian, like several of
-- reconciles Eastern and the other Emperors-by-marriage. But, ironically, the dynasty may
Western Churches but is later actually descend from Michael III rather than from Basil. Basil had been
repudiated by East; conversion induced to marry Michael's mistress; and although the marriage
of Bulgaria announced. continued even after Basil had overthrown Michael, the first children
Syracuse falls to Aghlabids may still have been Michael's.
878; Venice effectively
independent, 886 The climax of Mediaeval Romania came with the Emperor Basil II
Bulgaroctonus ("Bulgar Slayer," Bulgarentöter in German). He also
Leo VI the Wise 886-912 happened to be ruling at the turn of the first Millennium, which is of
some interest as we have now seen the year 2000. Christendom had
Varangians/Russians been having a bad time for several centuries, but things were looking up
attack Constantinople, 907 in 1000. In our day, the movie, End of Days (Universal, 1999), has
Arnold Schwarzenegger personally battling Satan, who is said to be
Alexander 886-913 released every thousand years (a somewhat loose reading of the Book of
Revelation). This would mean that a similar difficulty occurred in 999,
Constantine VII as well as 1999. Arnold wasn't around then, but Basil II was -- not only
913-959
Porphyrogenitus a great warrior but an Emperor who maintained a monk-like celibacy,
and who was seen by most Christians as the principal defendor of
Varangians/Russians
Christendom, as the Emperors had been since Constantine. Somebody
attack Constantinople, 941,
missed a bet for a good movie, or at least a flashback, about that -- End
944; Treaty, 944
of Days itself could have had a flashback explaining how Satan was
Romanus I easily thwarted in 999 by the undiminished wisdom, strength, and
919-944 preparedness of Basil, Pope Sylvester II (this was before the Schism),
Lecapenus
and the Patriarch Sergius II of Constantinople. The monks of the "Holy
Stephen & Mountain," Mt. Athos, could also have been brought into it.
944-945
Constantine
Romanus II 959-963
Crete recovered, 961
Nicephorus II
963-969
Phocas
Cyprus recovered, 964;

Cilicia & Tarsus recovered,
965; Antioch recovered
from H.amdânids, 969
Romania in 1000 AD; the Millennium, with the height of Middle
Romanian power rapidly approaching. The extent of Bulgaria is open to

question. Some sources say it stretched to the Black Sea. Whatever, it

John I Tzimisces 969-976
will soon be erased by Basil II.
Russian Prince Sviatoslav
defeated, Bulgaria Sadly, the great triumph of Romania was shortlived. The last Emperors
conquered, 971 of the Dynasty, all by marriage, squandered the strength of the State,
debased the coinage, and neglected the thematic forces that had been the
Basil II military foundation of Romania for four hundred years. Imperial guards
963-1025 of mercenaries, as Machiavelli could have warned, could not be relied
Bulgaroctonus
upon in all circumstances, especially after the finances of the state were
Varangian Guard, 988; messed up. Most symbolically, the breach between the Eastern and
Conversion of Russia, 989; Western Churches in 1054 was the one that became permanent and
Bulgarian Army annihilated, henceforth separated the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
1014; Macedonian Church into the Pope's Latin Church, usually called "Roman Catholic,"
Bulgaria annexed, 1018 and the Patriarch of Constantinople's Greek Church, ususally called
"Greek Orthodox" -- along with the other autocephalous "Orthodox"
Constantine VIII 976-1028 Churches (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, etc.).
Zoë The estrangement in religion came at a very bad time. When the Turks
1028-1050
Porphyrogenita invaded and the Crusading forces arrived from Francia, the Schism was
a source of constant irritation and mistrust. It provided some
Romanus III
1028-1034 rationalization for the seizure of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade;
Argyrus
and later, when the Churches were apparently reconciled by the
Michael IV the Palaeologi, it left most Greeks so disaffected that their support for their
1034-1041
Paphlagonian own government was compromised. Thus, for centuries, Christian
forces were divided and weakened in the continuing confrontation with
beginning of debasement Islâm.
of the solidus
Michael V
1041-1042
Calaphates
Theodora
1042-1056
Porphyrogenita
Constantine IX
1042-1055
Monomachus
Occupation of Armenia, 1045

Schism between Eastern
and Western Churches, 1054

Here we see the

confusion over the
paternity of Leo VI.
Subsequently, in the
minorities of
Constantine VII, Basil
II, and Constantine
VIII, we see multiple
reigns from Imperial
in-laws. John I and
Nicephorus II were
extremely vigorous
and successful in
retrieving Romanian
fortunes, finally to be
sealed by the adult
Basil. After the death
of Constantine VIII,
only Theodora and
Zoë, both nuns,
remained of the
dynasty. Zoë endured
three marriages to
provide male
sovereigns. These in-
laws were as bad for
the Empire as the
earlier ones had been
good. After the death
of Constantine
Monomachus,
Theodora briefly
reigned alone at the
end of the line.
The genealogy of the Macedonians is supplemented here with an abbreviated tree showing the major foreign
marriages of the Dynasty. The marriage of Constantine VII to the daughter of Hugh of Arles is shown above,
but there are four other marriages noted here. Two of them are not attested by all sources. Leo VI did have a

daughter Anna (by his

second wife), and
marrying her to
Hugh's predecessor in
Burgundy, while his
son married Hugh's
daughter, produces a
reasonable
reciprocity; but
marrying a true
Porphyrogenita, a
"Born in the Purple"
Princess, to a
barbarian king (which
is what Louis III
would have seemed to
most), is something
that some sources say
was inconceivable,
which is why all that
the Emperor Otto II
got was merely the
niece of an Imperial
in-law, John
Tzimisces. Theophano
was no
Prophyrogenita
(though some sources
can be found referring
to her as John's own
daughter, or even as a
daughter of Romanus
II). St. Vladimir,
however, certainty did
marry the
Porphyrogenita sister,
Anna, of Basil II and
Constantine VIII.
Since this attended the
conversion of Russia
to Christianity (989), with the material contribution of Russian (Varangian) troops to the Roman Army, it
could well have been thought worth the price. The final marriage here is the most poorly attested and
problematic. Brian Tompsett's Royal and Noble Genealogy gives a sister "Irene" for the Empresses Zoë and
Theodora, who is said to have married Vsevolod of Kiev, grandson (by an earlier marriage) of St. Vladimir. I
have not seen a single Macedonian genealogy that lists such an "Irene." This would be of great interest

because their son, Vladimir II, was the grandfather of Ingeborg of Novgorod, who married (1118) Knut
Lavard Eriksson, the father of King Valdemar the Great of Denmark (1157-1182). Through the
intermarriages of the subsequent royalty of Denmark, we get connections to many of the rulers of Europe.
Thus, it is sometimes said that Queen Elizabeth II of England is a descendant of the Emperor Basil I. But that
would only be true if Irene really was a Macedonian.
Now, however, I have found a new source with a slightly different claim. The Royal Families of Medieval
Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev, by Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist [Kings River Publications,
Kingsburg, CA, 1997], says that Irene (or Irina) was "a daughter of Constantine IX Monomach" [p.160]. That
is a lot different. Constantine was the Empress Zoë's third husband. She was already 64 when they married,
so there is not much chance that Irene was her child, but Constantine was a widower, and it is not surprising
that he would have previous children. Vladimir II is called "Monomakh," which thus sounds like a tribute to
his Roman grandfather. This gives us a much more reasonable picture, but it does mean that Queen Elizabeth
is not a descendant of Basil I (or Michael III, whatever).
non-dynastic
A very brief non-dynastic interlude. Isaac I was the first of the
Comneni and can be found on the genealogy of the Comneni below. Michael VI Stratioticus 1056-1057
Isaac I Comnenus 1057-1059
IV. FOURTH EMPIRE, LATE "ROMANIA/BYZANTIUM," 1059-1453,

Era of Diocletian 776-1170, 394 years
The "Fourth Empire" begins with a blow, from an Islâm reinvigorated by the Turks, which represents not
only a further diminution of the Empire, but a portent of the actual collapse and end of the Empire altogether.
The catastrophic defeat at Manzikert alienated much of what had for long been the heartland of the Empire,
Anatolia. It was a mortal wound, never to be made good; but the Empire nevertheless twice managed to
struggle back up into at least local ascendency, first under the Comneni and then under the Palaeologi. The
Comneni had help, of a very dangerous sort, in the form of the Crusaders. Defeat by the Turks was not the
cruelest cut of the period. That was when the Crusaders, manipulated by Venice, took Constantinople in
1204. With the Latins, the Empire fragmented into multiple Greek and non-Greek contenders: Nicaea,
Epirus, Trebizond, Bulgaria, and Serbia, not to mention the Turks. While the Palaeologi, building on the
success of Nicaea, reestablished Greek rule, only Epirus of the other successor states came back under
Imperial control. The Empire of Michael VIII did seem to have a chance, but a new Turkish state, of the
Ottomans, soon surged into dominance. It took more than a century for the Ottomans to scoop up all the
spoils, but, like a slow motion car crash, the outcome has a horrible inevitablilty.

A. THE ADVENT OF THE TURKS, 1059-1185, 126 years
1060 AD -- Romanian territory is intact,

but the military and financial foundations
of Roman power have been undermined.
The coinage is debased for the first time
since Constantine. Resources have been
wasted absorbing Armenia, and the forces
of the Armenian themes have been
disbanded. Local Islamic states are no
threat, but the Seljuks are on the way.
1. DUCASES
The Ducases had the misfortune of suffering the most
Constantine X Ducas 1059-1067 catastrophic defeat of Roman arms since the Arabs won
Palestine and Syria at Yarmuk in 636: The defeat by the
Loss of Armenia, 1064 Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071, a battle lost more to
treachery than to military superiority. And Romanus IV
Romanus IV Diogenes 1068-1071 Diogenes became the only Roman Emperor besides Valerian
to be captured in battle by an external enemy. What had
Defeated and Captured by Seljuk Great hitherto been the heartland of Romania in Anatolia, now
Sult.ân Alp Arslan, Battle of Manzikert; became a bleeding wound to Turkish conquest, never to be
Bari captured by Normans, 1071 recovered. Simultaneously, the Normans won, for all time, the
last Roman city in Italy. The Ducas genealogy is given below
Michael VII Parapinakes 1071-1078 with the Comneni. They were the first Roman dynasty with a
surname, which shows some of the social changes that took
Nicephorus III Botaniates 1078-1081 place during the long period of the Macedonians.

Catastrophe. The heartland of the Empire

in Anatolia is completely overrun. Only
European possessions, secured not long
before, enable Romania to endure and
recover, somewhat -- with the dangerous
help of the Crusaders.
2. SELJUK SULT.ÂNS OF RÛM

The first Turkish and Moslem state in Anatolia ironically
Süleyman I ibn Qutalmïsh 1078-1086 began against the wishes, virtually in rebellion against, the
Seljuk Great Sult.ân Malik Shâh (1073-
Kilij (Qïlïch) Arslan I 1092-1107 1092), who was even negotiating with
Alexius Comnenus for the withdrawl of
Malik Shâh 1107-1116 the Turks from the region. However, even the Seljuks were
in no position to force such a withdrawl, and Roman
Mas'ûd I Rukn ad-Dîn 1116-1156 resistance was so weak that Süleyman had no difficulty
establishing his capital at Nicaea. The best that Alexius
Kilij Arlsan II 1156-1192 could do was to keep him back from Nicomedia.
Meanwhile, even western cities like Ephesus were falling.
Myriocephalon, 1176;
The Turkish position was secure until defeat by the First
Konya sacked by
Crusade in 1097. Then Alexius was able to recover the
Frederick Barbarosa
western cities. The Turks fell back on Iconium (Konya),
on the Third Crusade, 1190
which became their capital for the rest of the history of the
1192-1196, Sultanate of Rûm. Although sacked by Frederick Barbarosa
Kay Khusraw (Khosru) I
1205-1210 on the Third Crusade (1190), Konya was lost forever to
Romania. The Sultanate already, however, seemed to have
Süleyman II 1196-1204 lost its edge. The devastating defeat of Manuel Comnenus
at Myriocephalum (1176) was not followed up, and the
Kilij Arlsan III 'Izz ad-Dîn 1204-1205 subsequent decline of Romania was mainly from internal
weakening and fragmentation (readying it for the Fourth
Kay Kâwûs I 1210-1220 Crusade). The Sultanate was then defeated by the Mongols
in 1243 and spent the rest of its history in vassalage. The
Kay Qubâdh I 'Alâ' ad-Dîn 1220-1237 final fall, in 1307, coincided with a very fragmented, but
vigorous, period of new Turkish states. Part of his vigor
1237-1246,
Kay Khusraw II Ghiyâth ad-Dîn may have resulted from an influx of refugees from the
1257-1959
Mongols. The Beys of Aydïn captured Ephesus in 1304,
Defeated by Mongols, Battle of but the most serious portent for the future was the capture
Köse Dagh, become vassals, 1243 of Prusa (Bursa) in 1326 by the Ottomans. This quickly
spelled the end of Romania in Asia, and by 1354 the
Kay Kâwûs II 1246-1257 Ottomans had a foothold in Europe. Only Tamerlane
delayed the ultimate Ottoman conquest.

Kilij Arslan IV 1248-1265 This list is from Clifford Edmund Bosworth's The New
Islamic Dynasties [Edinburgh University Press, 1996].
Kay Qûbâdh II 1249-1257
Kay Khosru III Ghiyâth ad-Dîn 1265-1282
Control by Mongol Governors, 1277
1282-1284,
1284-1293,
Mas'ûd II
1294-1301,
1303-1307
1284,
Kay Qûbâdh III 1293-1294,
1301-1303
Mas'ûd III 1307
Deposed by Mongols, 1307
The Empire has recovered as much as it

is ever going to, and actually seems in
relatively good shape, with deference
all the way from Jerusalem to Hungary.
But the Sultânate of Rûm is a nut that
cannot be cracked -- the true seed of
doom for Romania. And Roman trade
and shipping is now dominated by
Venice.
3. COMNENI
With the Turks at Nicaea, the Normans ready to land in the west, the
Alexius I Comnenus 1081-1118 currency debased, the army dispersed, and the treasury empty,
Alexius Comnenus had his job cut out for him. The results were
Trade concession to Venice, 1082; satisfactory enough, but a couple of the desperate measures that the
First Crusade, 1096-1099 desperate times called for would have unfortunate long term
consequences. The trade privileges given to Venice in 1082
John II 1118-1143 eventually made Romanian trade, and even the Navy, the plaything
of Italian city states. Calling on the West for military aid against the
captures Leon I of Armenia, 1137 Turks had the very unexpected result of Pope Urban II calling in
1095 for a "Crusade" to liberate the Holy Land and Jerusalem from
Manuel I 1143-1180 Islâm. The Crusaders passing through Constantinople gave Alexius

a very bad feeling. The possibility of what actually happened a

Second Crusade, 1147-1149;
century later, when the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople, was
homage of Thoros II of Armenia,
already very real. So Alexius bundled them as quickly as possible
Reynald of Antioch, & Baldwin III into Asia, where they defeated the Turks, making it possible to drive
of Jerusalem, 1158-1159; them out of western Anatolia together. This was of great material
secures Dalmatia, Croatia, help to Romania, but the Turks remained based at Iconium (Konya).
& Bosnia, 1167; The Roman Army (with the thematic apparatus long gone) was
all Venetians arrested never up to the task of dislodging them entirely. That this could
in Romania, 1171; have been done was revealed when Frederick Barbarosa, passing
Myriocephalon, defeat by through on the Third Crusade, broke into Konya and sacked it
Kilij Arlsan II, 1176 (1190). That he died shortly thereafter steals the thunder from this
act, but it is noteworthy. Meanwhile, the greatest military successes
Alexius II 1180-1183
of the Comneni, by Manuel I, when his suzerainty was
Serbia independent, 1180; acknowledged by Lesser Armenia, Antioch, and even Jerusalem,
Bela III takes Dalmatia, were undone by a devastating defeat in 1176 at Myriocephalum
("Ten Thousands Heads"). Shortly thereafter Serbia breaks away,
Bosnia, & Sirmium
beginning a process of disintegration that would never be entirely
Andronicus I 1183-1185 reversed.
Emperor
Curiously, in the days of Alexius I the heart of the Roman Army, the
Isaac Comnenus on Cyprus,
Varangian Guard, had a large element of Saxons, conquerors of
Roman Britain, who now were refugees from the Norman Conquest
1185-1191
of England in 1066. According to Geoffroy de Villehardouin, there
were still "Englishmen and Danes" in the Roman Army when the Fourth Crusade arrived at Constantinople in
1203.

Anna Comnena
(d.1153), daughter
of Alexius I, wrote
a history of her
father's reign, the
Alexiad. Most of it
was written after
she was banished
to a convent by
her brother, John
II, whom she
apparently had
tried to
assassinate. This
particularly
intense form of
sibling rivalry was
in part the result
of Anna's
expectation that
she would be
closer to the seat
of power, i.e. that
the Emperor
would be her
husband. The birth
of John spoiled
this, and Anna,
perhaps a feminist
before her time,
never accepted the
wisdom of his
succession. She blamed him for subsequent disasters but, since the Alexiad doesn't cover his reign, she never
quite says what they were. The real disaster, Myriocephalum, happened after her death to her nephew,
Manuel I. One reference to the Alexiad that I remember from childhood, that Anna says her father didn't trust
the Crusaders because they didn't have beards and smelled of horses, I have been unable to find in the text.

From the few and questionable foreign marriages of the Macedonians, with the Comneni we find a large
number of well attested ones, many with Crusaders but one making connections as distant as Spain. I was
aware of few of these until a correspondent, Ann Ferland, began to point them out. The marriage of Maria of
Montpellier, whose mother was Eudocia Comnena, to King Peter II of Aragon led to all subsequent Kings of
Aragon and of Spain.
B. THE LATIN EMPIRE, 1185-1261, 76 years
1. ANGELI
The worst dynasty in Roman history. Alexius IV brings in the
Isaac II Angelus 1185-1195 Fourth Crusade, with impossible promises, to restore his
incompetent father, and only succeeds in losing Constantinople to

a foreign enemy for the first time ever. This may qualify as the
Bulgaria independent, 1186
true "Fall of Rome." The damage was bad enough, with many
Third Crusade, 1189-1192; Cyprus
treasures and archives destroyed or carted off to Venice. Unlike
seized from Isaac Comnenus
the Goths at Rome in 410, the Crusaders stuck around for 60
by Richard the Lionheart, given
years, with streadily decreasing success.
to Guy of Lusignan, 1191
Alexius III 1195-1203
Kingdom of Lesser Armenia

independent, 1198-1375
Isaac II (restored) 1203-1204
Alexius IV 1203-1204
Alexius V Mourtzouphlos 1204
Fourth Crusade, 1202-1204

Constantinope falls
to Fourth Crusade, 1204
The Angeli continue the foreign marriages of the Comneni. One is particularly noteworthy. Irene Angelina,
daughter of the Isaac II, married a son of Frederick Barbarossa, Philip of Swabia, who contended with Otto of

Brunswick for the German Empire. They had no sons; but the marriages of their four daughters are among the
most interesting in European history. In a reconciliation of Philip's feud, the oldest daughter, Beatrice,
married Otto
himself. But
they had no
children. The
younger
daughters,
Kunigunde,
Marie, and
Elizabeth,
married King
Wenceslas I
of Bohemia,
Duke Henry
III of Lower
Lorraine and
Brabant, and
King & St.
Ferdinand III
of Castile and
Leon,
respectively.
All of these marriages produced children with living modern descendants, especially among the Hapsburgs
and the royal family of Spain, as can be traced at the linked genealogies. Since Isaac himself was a great-
grandson of Alexius I Comnenus, this means that a large part of modern European royalty, through this
connection alone, have been descendants of the Angeli and Comneni. My impression is that Roman Imperial
descent for recent royalty has often been claimed through the Macedonians, but the only certain line, as we
have seen, may be from Macedonian in-laws. On the other hand, descent from the Comneni and Angeli
appears to be well attested and with multiple lines. Another fruitful line will be from Maria Lascarina, who
married Bela IV of Hungary. Since the Lascarids themselves derive from Anna Angelina, Maria's daughter,
that connects up to the whole Comneni-Angeli house. Maria's son, Stephen V of Hungary, had a daughter,
Katalin, who married the Serbian King Stephen Dragutin, who had a daughter the married a Bosnian Ban,
with many descendants. This line all the way to the Hapsburgs can be examined on a popup.
2. BULGARIA, ASENS
In 1204, the Pope recognized Kalojan as "King of the Bulgarians and the
John I Asen 1186-1196 Vlachs" (Geoffroy de Villehardouin, calling him "Johanitza," even says
"King of Wallachia and Bulgaria"). Indeed, the Asen brothers, founders
Peter II Asen 1196-1197 of the dynasty, were themselves Vlachs, i.e. modern
Romanians. This is therefore not a purely ethnic
Kalojan Asen, Bulgarian state. It also came close to succeeding to the throne in
1197-1207
the Roman Killer Constantinople, though later overpowered by the Mongols, Serbia and, of
course, the Ottomans.

captures Baldwin I, 1205;

kills Boniface of
Montferrat, 1207
Boril 1207-1218
John II Asen 1218-1241
Defeated & Captured

Theodore Ducas of
Epirus, 1230;
Mongol invasion, 1242
Kaloman I 1242-1246
Michael II Asen 1246-1257
Kaloman II 1257-1258
The principal setback to the Bulgarian state was the Mongol invasion of
1242, which itself was almost an afterthought as the Mongols abandoned
Constantine Tich 1257-1277 the conquests of Poland and Hungary in 1241 and were returning to
Russia. The Chingnizids needed to go to Mongolia to elect a new Great
Ivan Mytzes 1278-c.1264
Khan. What followed for Bulgaria was a period of internal conflict,
1277-1279, between members of the Asen dynasty and outsiders. Two unrelated
Ivalio usurpers, Constantine Tich and Ivaljo, figure in the table above. Another
d.1280
unrelated figure, however, Ivan Mytzes, becomes an Asen in-law and the
1279-1284?, father of the last Asen Emperor, John III. This is a confused period, with
John III Asen
d.<1302 pretenders contending and dates uncertain. John III fled to the Mongols
and then to Constantinople. He was succeeded in Bulgaria by his
Asens replaced by Terters erstwhile minister, George Terter.

The list of Bulgarian rulers is from various

Byzantine sources, including the only source of the
genealogy here, which is the Erzählende
genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen
Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-,
Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und
Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag,
Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.160-162].
Although John III lost Bulgaria, his descendants

figured in affairs in Constantinople for some time.
Since his granddaughter married the Emperor John
VI Cantacuzenus, whose daughter Helena married
the Emperor John V, all the subsequent Palaeologi
are his descendants.
3. LATIN
EMPERORS AT
CONSTANTINOPLE
Baldwin I
1204-1205
of Flanders
Captured by
Kalojan Asen, 1205

The conquest of
Henry
1206-1216 Constantinople by the
of Flanders
Fourth Crusade did
not result in the
Peter de
1217 establishment of the
Courtenay
authority of the Latin
Yolanda of Emperors over the
1217-1219 whole of the previous
Flanders
Empire. Greek
Robert I de authority was
1221-1228 maintained in three
Courtenay
major locations, at Nicaea, at Trebizond, and in Epirus, and a couple of minor
John of locations, at Rhodes, later to fall to Venice, and at the fortress of Monembasia
1228-1237 in the Peloponnesus (Morea), which fell in 1248. All three major Greek rulers
Brienne
eventually proclaimed themselves emperors, which means that at one point four
1228-1261 rulers were claiming the Imperial dignity within the old Empire -- not to
mention the Bulgarian and Serbian Tsars who also wanted to
Baldwin II titular inherit it. The Emperor at Nicaea was the one to return to
Emperor Constantinople, but the Emperor at Trebizond was the last to fall to the Turks.
1261-1273
Besides the 3/8 of the whole retained by
titular
Venice, including Adrianople and
Philip II Emperor
1273-1285 Gallipoli, the Latin Empire ended up
included three significant feudal
titular dependencies, all subjugated and
Catherine de organized by the leader of the Fourth
Empress
Courtenay
1285-1307 Crusade, Boniface the Margrave of
Montferrat: the Kingdom of
titular Thessalonica (1204-1224), with
Charles
Emperor Boniface himself as king, the Duchy of
of Valois
1301-1313 Athens (1205-1456), and the
Principality of Achaea (1205-1432).
titular
Catherine Boniface was denied the Imperial throne
Empress
of Valois
1313-1346 by the Venetian votes, apparently because it was thought that he might make
too strong an Emperor.
titular
Philip II Boniface himself was killed in 1207 and the
Emperor Kings of Thessalonica
of Tarento
1313-1331 Kingdom of Thessalonica turned out to be the
most shortlived of the Crusader states in Romania, Boniface of
titular falling to Epirus. In 1311 the Duchy of Athens 1204-1207
Montferrat
Robert II Emperor was seized by the Catalan Company, which had
1346-1364 mutinied against the Palaeologi. The Principality 1207-1224,
of Achaea eventually got mixed up with the Demetrius
d.1230/9
Anjevians and finally was inherited, much too

late, by the Palaeologi in 1432; but the Duchy of

titular Thessalonica taken
Philip III Emperor Athens never returned to the control of Greek by Epirus, 1224
1364-1373 Romania. It fell to Meh.med II in 1456.
After the restoration of Greek rule in

Constantinople, a claim to the Roman
throne passed down through the
descendants of Baldwin II. Charles of
Anjou, who had his own designs on
Romania, married a daughter to
Baldwin's son Philip. Later, Charles'
grandson Philip married the heiress,
Catherine of Valois, of the claim.
None of these claimants, however,
ever had much of a chance of
returning to Constantinople. Many of
them, however, were also Princes of
Achaea, where their succession and
genealogy are given in detail.
The nimbus is not used for the Latin

Emperors in the genealogy because,
as Roman Catholics, they would have
acknowledged Papal supremacy to a
degree that the Orthodox Emperors in
Constantinople never would. Latin
Emperors could not be "Equal to the
Apostles."

4. DESPOTS OF EPIRUS
In the scramble for a Greek successor to the Angeli, Epirus was in a good
AND EMPERORS AT
position, from which considerable progress was made. Thessalonica was
THESSALONICA
the second city of the Empire, and its capture reasonably prompted
Michael I Ducas 1204-1215 Theodore Ducas to proclaim himself Emperor. From there, however,
things only went down hill. Theodore was himself defeated and captured
1215-1230 by the Bulgarians, which would add him to the number of Valerian and
Romanus IV if we considered him a proper Emperor of Romania. But the
1227-1230, chance of that dimmed further when Theodore's successors were
Theodore Ducas defeated by Nicaea, reduced to despots, and then Thessalonica itself fell
Emperor in
Thessalonica, to Nicaea.
d.c.1254
takes Thessalonica, 1224;

Defeated & Captured by
John II Asen, 1230
1230-1237,
Regent in
Manuel
Thessalonica,
d.1241
1237-1242,
Emperor in
John Thessalonica
Despot,
1242-1244
Defeated by
John III Ducas Vatatzes,
reduced to Despot, 1242
Demetrius 1244-1246
Thessalonica falls to
John III Ducas Vatatzes,
1246
Michael II 1231-1271

Granted title of Despot of

Epirus by
John III Ducas Vatatzes, 1249
Nicephorus I 1271-1296
Thomas 1296-1318
Nicholas Orsini 1318-1323
John Orsini 1323-1335
1335-1337,
Nicephorus II 1340, &
1355-1359
Epirus itself proved difficult for either Nicaea or the Palaeologi to
Epirus absorbed subdue and rule, so the despots continued there for a while, continuing
by Andronicus III, 1337, 1340 under some rulers unrelated to the Ducases. By the time Andronicus III
was able to annex the territory, the Empire as a whole was too far gone
for it to have helped very much.
5. EMPERORS AT TREBIZOND
Alexius I Comnenus 1204-1222 A very poor excuse for an "empire," Trebizond spent much of its
existence in vassalage to the Mongols and Turks who ruled the
Andronicus I Gidus 1222-1235 plateau behind it. It started, however, with an heir to the Comneni
and a reasonable ambition of moving on to Constantinople. After
John I Axuch 1235-1238 realistic chances of that past, Trebizond ended up with the
dubious honor of being the last of the Greek states to fall to the
Manuel I 1238-1263 Ottomans, in 1461.
Andronicus II 1263-1266
Lists of the Emperors of Trebizond can be found in various
George 1266-1280 Byzantine histories, but the genealogy here only comes from the
Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen
John II 1280-1297 Geschichte, Volume III, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und
Fürstenhäuser, Ergänzungsband [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer
Alexius II 1297-1330 Verlag, Second Edition, 2001, pp.235-236].
Andronicus III 1330-1332
Manuel II 1332
Basil 1332-1340
Irene Palaeologina 1340-1341

Anna Comnena 1341, 1341-1342
Michael 1341, 1344-1349
John III 1342-1344
Alexius III 1349-1390
Manuel III 1390-1416
Alexius IV 1416-1429
John IV 1429-1459
David 1459-1461
Trebizond falls to Meh.med II, 1461

1354 AD
In the genealogy of the

Comneni of Trebizond, there
are noteworthy marriages to
Kings of Georgia. There is
also the interesting episode of
Irene, daughter of
Andronicus III Palaeologus,
briefly succeeding her
husband Basil as ruling
Empress. She was then
succeeded by her sister-in-
law Anna. Most
extraordinary is a marriage at
the end of line. A daughter,

Theodora, of Emperor John

IV married Uzun H.asan, a
Khan of the White Sheep
Turks (1457-1478), the very
Khan who conquered the
Black Sheep Turks in 1469
and created a regional state
that stretched from Eastern
Anatolia, where the White
Sheep Turks originated, into
Eastern Irân. This continued
until the Safavids came to
power in 1508.

6. LASCARIDS,
EMPERORS AT
NICAEA
Constantine
1204
Lascaris
Theodore I
1206-1222
Lascaris
John III Ducas

1222-1254
Vatatzes
Theodore II 1254-1258
John IV 1258-1261
The Greeks at Nicaea were perhaps the
best placed to move on Constantinople,
except that they were on the wrong side
of the Bosporus. This was remedied,
mainly by John Ducas Vatatzes, by
defeating the Greek rivals at
Thessalonica and creating a state that
straddled Europe and Asia. This created the kind of stranglehold on Constantinople that the Turks would
duplicate later. Constantinople was regained on a chance betrayal to the Nicaean general and Regent, Michael
Palaeologus. Once in power in Constantinople, Michael disposed of the actual Nicaean heir, John IV. The
Lascarids, who were actually mostly the family of John Ducas Vatatzes, thus only served to obtain the
restoration of Greek Romania for the Palaeologi.
C. THE LAST DAYS, 1261-1453, 192 years
1. SERBIA
The Golden Age of Serbia. Independence
Great Prince, from Romania and then the passing of the
Tichomir most vigorous days of Bulgaria meant an
1168-1169
opportunity for a Serbian bid for the Imperium.
1169-1196,
Stephan I Nemanja
d.1200 This opportunity was seized by Stephan Dushan, who ended up
with most of the western Balkans and was crowned Tsar of the

Serbs and Romans by the autocephalous Serbian Patriarch whom

Serbia independent, 1180
he had just installed (1346) at Pec. His long reign, however, was
1196-1217 not quite long enough, and his death set off the kind of internal
Stephan II dissentions that had ruined many another state in Romania.
the First-Crowned King of Serbia,
1217-1228
Stephan III Radoslav 1228-1234
Stephan IV Vladislav 1234-1243
Stephan Urosh I 1243-1276
Stephan Dragutin 1276-1282
Stephan Urosh II
1282-1321
Milutin
Stephan Urosh III

1321-1331
Dechanski
1331-1345
Stephen Urosh IV
Tsar of the Serbs
Dushan
and the Romans, Then, all too soon, the Ottomans arrived. Defeats in 1371 and
1345-1355 1389 crushed Serbia. The agony of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389,
the "Field of the Blackbirds," still echoes today in the fierceness
Stephen Urosh V of the attachment of modern Serbs for the area, now largely
1355-1371
the Weak populated by Albanians. As it happened, the Sult.ân Murâd I
died at Kosovo, but his son, Bâyezîd the "Thunderbolt," was, if
defeat by Murâd I anything, even more vigorous than his father. In 1396 Bâyezîd
at Crnomen, 1371; destroyed a Crusade, led by the King of Hungary and future
collapse of dynasty Emperor Sigismund, at Nicopolis (Nikopol). Not even Bâyezîd's
& authority
defeat and capture by Tamerlane (1402) revived Serbian
Prince, prospects.
Stephan Lazar I
1371-1389
battle of Kosovo,
"Field of the Blackbirds,"
defeat by Murâd I, 1389
Lists of Serbian rulers can be found in various Byzantine
Stephan Lazar II Despot, histories, but the genealogy here only comes from the
Lazarevich 1389-1427 Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen
Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und
Turkish vassal, 1396
Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R.
G. Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.143-149].

George Brankovich 1427-1456
Lazar III Brankovich 1456-1458
Regent,
Helene Palaeologina 1458-1459,
d.1473
annexed by Turkey, 1459
The dynasty of Stephan Dushan is

followed by two families of princes.
Stephen Lazar and his son endured
the Turkish defeat and conquest and
were reduced to despots. They were
followed by the Bronkoviches, father
and son. The wife of Lazar III
Brankovich, Helene, was a daughter
of Thomas Palaeologus (d.1465),

Despot of the Morea and brother of

the last Roman Emperor, Constantine
XI. After the death of Lazar, Helene
was Regent of Serbia until the
Turkish annexation.
3. BULGARIA, TERTERS
The second Bulgarian dynasty of the period was always
George I 1280-1292, at a disadvantage, ground between the Mongols, Serbs,
Terter d.c.1304 Hungary, and the Ottomans.
Ottoman conquest and annexation came in the same year (1396) as the
Mongol vassal, 1285
Smilech 1292-1295/8
Caka/Tshaka 1295/8-1298/9
Theodore
1298/9-1322
Svetoslav
George II 1322-1323
SHISHMANS
Michael III
1323-1330
Shishman
John IV
1330-1331
Stephan

Sult.ân Bâyezîd's
John V
1331-1371 defeat of a Crusade,
Alexander
led by the King of
1355-1371, Hungary and future
John Sracimir Emperor Sigismund,
d.1396
at Nicopolis
John VI 1360-1393, (Nikopol), where
Shishman d.1395 John Sracimir was
killed.
disintegration of state, 1385;
Ottoman vassalage, Over time, the Turks
1387, 1388, Conquest, 1396 clearly regarded
Bulgaria as
stategically more important than Serbia or the
Romanian principalities, and no local autonomy was
allowed at all until the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-
1878 and the Congress of Berlin (1878) forced it. Even
then Bulgaria was divided and full independence did not
come until 1908. Meanwhile, a fair number of
Bulgarians had converted to Islâm. Since they were
regarded as traitors by Christian Bulgarians, many of
them migrated to Turkey, where they still live.
The list of Bulgarian rulers is from various Byzantine

sources, including the only source of the genealogy
here, which is the Erzählende genealogische
Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume II,
Part 2, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G.
Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.162-163].
4. BEGS (BEYS) OF AYDÏN

The many successors of the Seljuks in Anatolia are often called
Family of Aydïn Oghlu Muh.ammad Beg the oghullar or "sons." The Aydïn Oghullarï ("Sons of
Aydin") are noteworthy because their seizure of Ephesus and
Captures Ephesus, 1304 Smyrna allowed for the development of a very troublesome
degree of sea power, provoking two leagues of
Muh.ammad Beg, western powers to help Romania suppress it.
1308-1334
Mubâriz ad-Dîn Ghâzî The second league succeeded in recapturing
the harbor and part of the city of Smyrna, though this only
Umur I Beg, temporarily hampered the Begs. A noteworthy complication at
1334-1348
Bahâ' ad-Dîn Ghâzî the time was the civil war in Romania between John V
Palaeologus and John VI Cantacuzenus. Cantacuzenus
cultivated Turkish allies, including the Ottoman Amîr Orkhân
and Umur I of Aydïn. This was a disastrous error, since

Ottoman troops were thus introduced into Europe. They stayed.

Captures Smyrna (I.zmir);
The Beys of Aydïn also illustrate the temporary setback
naval defeat at Adramyttion, 1334;
suffered by the Ottomans. The defeat of Bâyezîd I by
naval defeat by Venice & Romania,
Tamerlane led to the brief reëtablishment (1402-1426) of the
loss of harbor of Smyrna, 1344
Aydïn Oghullarï.
Khid.r 1348-c.1360
This list is from Clifford Edmund Bosworth's The New Islamic
'Îsâ c.1360-1390 Dynasties [Edinburgh University Press, 1996].
Annexation by Bâyezîd I, 1390;

Restoration by Tîmûr, 1402
Mûsa 1402-1403
Umur II 1402-1405
Junayd 1405-1426
Annexation by Murâd II, 1426
5. PALAEOLOGI
Michael VIII
1259-1282
Palaeologus
Prince of Achaea captured, 1259;

Restoration of Greek rule in
Constantinople, 1261; Laconia &
Monembasia (soon Despotate of
Morea) ceded as ransom for the
Prince of Achaea, 1261; Genoese
granted Galata, 1267; Anjevians
defeated, 1281; the Sicilian
Vespers, 30 March 1282 -- Sicily
revolts against & massacres the
French; end of Anjevian threat
Michael Palaeologus restores the Greeks to Constantinople, and for
Andronicus II 1282-1328 a time Romania acted as a Great Power again, fending off Charles
of Anjou. But it was a precarious position. Michael himself sowed
the seeds of disaster by confiscating land from the tax exempt
akritai (sing. akritês), the landed frontier (ákros) fighters of
Bithynia. This weakened defenses that Andronicus II weakened
further with military economies, failing to follow the maxim of
Machiavelli that the first duty of a prince is war. Once the Ottomans

broke the Roman army in Bithynia (1302), they, and other Turks,
reduction of army & navy;
Venetians mint Ducats after quickly reduced Roman possessions in Asia to fragments, never to
Roman debasement, 1284; defeat be recovered. Bithynia (Prusa, Nicaea, and Nicomedia) became the
by Amir 'Osmân at Bapheus near base of Ottoman power, with Prusa, as Bursa, the Ottoman capital.
Nicomedia, Ottoman conquest
begins, 1302; Catalan Company
hired, 1303, revolts, 1305; Ephesus
lost to Beg of Aydïn, 1304; Knights
of the Hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem, the Hospitalers, on
Rhodes, 1308-1523; Prusa [Bursa]
lost, 1326
heir of
Michael IX Andronicus,
1295-1320
Andronicus III 1321-1341
defeat by Orkhân, 1329; Nicaea [I.

znik] lost, 1331; Nicomedia [I.
zmid] lost, 1337; Epirus annexed,
1337, 1340
1341-1376,
John V
1379-1391
Umur I, Beg of Aydïn & ally of

John Cantacuzenus, defeated by
Venice & Romania, looses harbor
of Smyrna, 1344; Grand Duke of
Moscow contributes money to
repair St. Sophia, 1346
regent,
John VI 1341
Cantacuzenus
1341-1354,
abdicated
In this period flags in the modern sense were just beginning to come
into use; and there were 14th century banners that would have

evolved into a proper flag for Romania, given the

Civil War, 1341-1347; Crown
chance. We find a field with a Cross, like many
Jewels pawned to Venice, 1343;
Crusader banners and flags, with the addition of
Bubonic Plague, 1347; revenue of curious devices, which look like images and
Galata seven times that of mirror-images of something between the letter B,
Constantinople, 1348; Genoans the letter E, and broken links of a chain. These are
from Galata burn Roman sometimes said to have already been used by
shipyard, 1348; War between Constantine I and have been variously interpreted. One possibility is
Venice & Genoa, 1350-1355;
that they are stylized forms of Crescent Moons, originally
Kallipolis [Gelibolu] lost, 1354, symbolic of the divine patroness of Byzantium, the goddess
Ottoman foothold in Europe; John Artemis. The stylized forms have been inherited in the arms of
V visits Hungary, first Emperor to Serbia, and crescents are used as a Serb national symbol,
visit a foreign court, 1365; seen at left -- something that has probably become a sign
Adrianople [Edirne] lost, 1369; of terror to non-Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. If
John goes to Rome & Venice, 1369- it was the Crescent that was originally used in
1371; Empire Vassal of Murâd I Constantinople, this may have been directly inherited by Turkey. A
Crescent is now commonly taken as symbolic of
1376-1379;
Islâm, but this may not antedate the Turkish flag.
Andronicus IV heir,
The star on the Turkish flag is sometimes said to
1381-1385
be Romanian also, symbolizing the Virgin Mary,
Thessalonica lost, 1387 but it does not occur on the earliest Turkish flags.
However, Whitney Smith [Flags Through the
Manuel Ages and Across the World,
Cantacuzenus, 1348-1380 McGraw-Hill, 1975] shows a flag identified
Despot of Morea only as "medieval Russian" that shows a cross
with four crescents and four stars also (p. 174).
Matthew 1354-1383 The crescents are oriented differently, but this
Cantacuzenus, design seems too elaborate not to have Roman
Despot of Morea 1380-1383 antecedents. The double headed Eagle is also a Romanian device,
said to have been introduced by Michael VIII
Demetrius Palaeologus, with the two heads looking towards the
Cantacuzenus, 1383
Anatolian and European halves of the Empire, as the
Despot of Morea
Emperor did from Constantinople. Or, Donald M. Nicol [Byzantium
1390, flees to and Venice, a Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations,
Bâyezîd I; Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 249] says, it was adopted by
John VII Andronicus II to symbolize the division of authority with his
regent, 1399-
grandson, Andronicus III -- though it far outlasted that particular
1403
division. Eagles were used by many to imply Roman antecedents,
Philadelphia lost, 1390 but the double headed eagle was adopted in particular by the Holy
Roman Empire, by Imperial Russia, and by the Serbs. It also
Theodore I occurred on the flag used by George Castriota, or Skanderbeg,
Palaeologus, 1383-1407 when he drove the Turks out of Albania, between 1443 and 1463.
Despot of Morea Thus, when Albania became independent from Turkey,
Skanderbeg's flag was revived.

Manuel II 1391-1425
Russian Church stops mention of

Emperor, 1392; Ottoman
vassalage repudiated, 1394; seige
of Constantinople, 1394-1402;
Battle of Nicopolis, Sigismund of
Hungary defeated by Bâyezîd I,
1396; Emperor travels to Italy,
France, England, 1400-1403;
Thessalonica returned, 1403,
ceded to Venice, 1423; Seige of
Constantinople by Murad II, 1422
Theodore II
Palaeologus, 1407-1443
Despot of Morea
John VIII 1425-1448
attends the Church Council at

Ferrara & Florence, 1439-1440; In the last days of Romania, as all else was being lost, one domain
Crusade of Varna, defeated, expanded. That was the Despotate of the Morea, the Mediaeval
Vadislav of Hungary & Poland name of the Peloponnesus. The last part of this, the fortress of
killed, 1444 Monembasia, had fallen to the Latins in 1248. But then
Monembasia and Laconia were returned in 1261 as ransom for
Despot of William, Prince of Achaea, who had been captured in battle in
Constantine XI Morea 1428- 1259. In the western hills above the ancient city of Sparta, Mistra
Dragases 1449
grew into a surprising center of art and learning. Indeed, one could
1449-1453 even say that the Renaissance began there, since many of its
scholars, with their books, fled the Turkish Conquest to Italy, which
Constantinople [I.stanbul] falls to was ready for them. The Morea became a kind of Viceroyalty under
Meh.med II, 1453 the Cantacuzeni Despots. Under the Palaeologi, starting in 1383, the
Despot (sometimes more than one) was usually a son or brother of
Thomas, Despot the Emperor. The last Emperor, Constantine XI, began as a Despot
1428-1460
of Morea of Morea. He very nearly acquired Athens in 1435. His brother, the
last Despot, Thomas, married the Heiress of Achaea and came into
possession of the Principality and all the Peloponnesus in 1432. By
then there was little time left for further successes. The last thing
left to Thomas by the Ottomans was, again, the fortress of
Monembasia, which he turned over to the Pope in 1461. The Pope
thus became, as Popes had long desired, the ruler of all Romania.

Principality of Achaea inherited,

1432; Mistra, Morea, falls to Meh.
med II, 1460; last piece of
Romania, the fortress of
Monembasia, ceded to the Pope,
1461; daughter Zoë marries Ivan
III of Russia
The Fall of Constantinople, on May 29, 1453, is one of the most formative, epochal, colorful, and dramatic
episodes in world history. Because of all that it is a little puzzling that there has never been, to my
knowledge, a Hollywood movie about the event. This may have been in great measure because of the scale of
the location. The Theodosian Land Walls of Constantinople are 6.5 kilometers long, almost 4 miles. Since the
ruins of the walls
could not be used, and
the whole length
could not be built (as
the whole Alamo was
build by John Wayne
for The Alamo), it
would have been
necessary to use
models, which, with
the older technology,
would have looked
very cheesy. Models
now, however, can
look much, much
better -- the models
for Lord of the Rings
(2001) even came to
be called "big-atures"
instead of "miniatures" they were so large; and even better than that, shots can be done digitally. This would
also work for the other problem, which would be showing the general situation of the city between the Sea of
Marmara, the Bosporus, and the Golden Horn. A live shot of the modern buildings would not help. Now,
however, the whole thing could be done digitally, or live shots could be digitalized and edited, to remove
modern buildings and render mediaeval ones. This would also help with scenes in Sancta Sophia. The movie
would have to show church services there, but my understanding is that these are not allowed in the modern
building, even though it is now a secularized museum rather than the mosque it became at the Conquest
(there is a small Islamic chapel, but not a Christian one). No problem. All we need is a photograph, and
Industrial Light and Magic can put Constantine XI and the whole gang right into it with all the paraphernalia
of the Greek Orthodox Church. Even so, it is questionable how interested Hollywood will ever be, even after
Gladiator, and even when the legendary material, like the Virgin Mary retrieving her Icon, or the various
versions of the death of Constantine, simply cry out for cinematic representation. With the present conflicts

involving Islâm, some might consider the whole topic inflammatory; and it is very possible that Turkey
would not allow location filming for such a movie.
The surname
Palaeologus survives
today, but it is not
clear that any modern
Palaeologi are
descendants of the
Imperial family. In the
genealogy, we see
considerable
intermarriage outside
the Empire, even to
Tsars of Bulgaria. The
marriage of Zoë-
Sophia to Ivan III of
Moscow is the one
most filled with
portent, but the last
Russian Tsar to be
their descendant was
Theodore I (1584-
1598).
John Julius Norwich

(Byzantium, The
Decline and Fall,
Knopf, 1996, pp.447-
448) notes that there is
buried in St. Leonard's
church in Landulph,
Cornwall, England a
"Theodore
Paleologus" (d.1636)
from Italy, who is said
to have been a direct
descendant of John,
son of Thomas,
Despot of the Morea.
However, Thomas is
not known to have had
a son John, and so the
claim of descent,
regardless of any other

merits, is questionable.
Theodore had a son
Ferdinand, who died
in Barbados in 1678.
Ferdinand had a son
"Theodorious," who
returned to England
and died in 1693,
leaving a daughter,
"Godscall," whose fate
is unknown.
What John Norwich seems to have missed

is that there were undoubted lines of
Palaeologi (Paleologhi) in Italy,
descended from the Emperor Andronicus
II, whose second wife was Yolanda, the
Heiress of the Margraves of Montferrat.
While Andronicus's eldest son succeeded
in Constantinople, his son by Yolanda,
Theodore, succeeded to Montferrat. The
main line of the Palaeologi of Montferrat
continued until the death of the
Marchioness Margaret in 1556. But
branch lines continued much longer,
perhaps even to the 20th century. This is
covered in the Erzählende genealogische
Stammtafeln zur europäischen
Geschichte, Volume II, Part 2,
Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser II Nord-, Ost- und Südeuropa [Andreas Thiele, R. G.
Fischer Verlag, Part 2, Second Edition, 1997, pp.260-261], which, however, only indicates that the lines
continue after the 16th century. The Theodore buried in Cornwall could very well have simply gotten
confused about his genealogy. He might have been a genuine Paleologo from Italy.
While there may or may not be surviving Imperial Palaeologi, Constantine XI lives on in legend. When the
Turks had manifestly broken through and the Fall of the City imminent, the Emperor reportedly threw off the
Imperial Regalia and disappeared into the thick of the fight. There is no doubt that he died. A body was later
identified and a head displayed, but some doubt remains about the identification. A story arose that
Constantine sleeps under the Golden Gate (like Barbarossa under the Kyffhäuser), or that he would reenter
the City through that Gate. Generations of Turkish government took these stories with sufficient seriousness
that the Golden Gate remains bricked up to this very day.
6. ROMANIANS
"Wallach," as in "Wallachia," is a

cognate of the English words

WALLACHIA
"Welsh" and "Wales." This seems
Tihomir c.1290-1310 to have been a German word for
MOLDAVIA "Romans," left by the Goths in
Voivode, the Balkans. It also turns up as
Ioan Basarab I Prince the word "Vlach," a Slavic name
1317-1352 for the Romance language, and its
speakers, used in the Balkans.
Voivode, The Latin form "Blachus" and the
Dragosh Prince Greek "Vlakhos" also occur. In
1352-1353 modern parlance, the convention
for some time was that Romance
Nicholas Alexander 1352-1364 Sas 1354-1358 speakers south of the Danube
spoke "Vlach" and those north of
Balc 1359 the Danube spoke "Romanian."
"Romanian" is now also coming
Bogdan I Prince
to be used for the languages
the Founder 1359-1365
(Arumanian, etc.) south of the
Latcu 1365-1373 Danube also, with "Daco-
Vladislav I Vlaicu 1364-1377 Romanian" used to specific the
Costea 1373-1375 north of the Danuabe language.
Radu I 1377-1383 Petru I The Principalities of Wallachia

1375-1391 and Moldavia are the first Vlach/
al Mushatei
Dan I 1383-1386 Romanian states that we see north
of the Danube. They appear in the
Roman I 1391-1394
period after incursions from
Mircea the Old 1386-1418
Stephen I 1394-1399 nomadic Steppe empires ceased.
They were never subject to the
part, Roman Emperors in
Vlad I Ologul (Iuga) 1399-1400 Constantinople, and they
1394-1397
occupied territories that had been
Alexander abandoned by the Roman Empire
Michael I 1418-1420 1400-1432
the Good in the Third Century, or never
occupied by it in the first place.
Dan II 1420-1431 The arrival of the Turks subjected
them to Ottoman suzerainty, but
1421, 1423, 1432-1433,
Radu II the Poor Ilias, Elias this was of varying rigor. The
& 1447 1435-1442
lines of Princes continued, but by
Alexander I 1431-1436 1711 the Sult.ân began to sell the
seats to Greek tax farmers, a
1436-1442, destructive practice that
Vlad II Dracul Stephen II 1433-1447 continued until 1821.
1443, 1447

1444-1445,
Mircea 1442 Petru II 1447,
1448-1449
Basarab II 1442-1443 Roman II 1447-1448
Prince of
Transylvania,
1441-1456
Iancu de The most famous person in these
Hunedoara Regent of Ciubar 1448-1449 lines is certainly Prince Vlad the
(János Hunyadi) Hungary, Impaler of Wallachia. In legend
1446-1456 and horror, one might almost say
romance, this cruel man has
1447 grown into the paradigmatic
vampire, Count Dracula, though
1449,
his home has been slightly
Alexandrel 1452-1454,
1447-1448, relocated, from Wallachia to
Vladslav II 1455
1448-1456 Transylvania and the Carpathian
Bogdan II 1449-1451 Mountains (between Transylvania
and Moldavia). Until recently, I
1451-1452, was under the impression that
1448,
Vlad III Tepesh, 1454-1455, Prince Vlad Dracul (1436-1442,
1456-1462, Petru Aron
the Impaler 1455-1457, 1443, 1447) was Vlad the
1476
d.1469 Impaler. However, a Romanian
correspondent has pointed out
Radu I cel Frumos 1462-1475 that Prince Vlad the Impaler was
not Vlad Dracul but instead
1473, Prince Vlad T,epesh (1448, 1456-
Basarab Laiota 1474-1475, 1462, 1476, also "Vlad
1476-1477 Draculea"), his son. This seems to
Stephen III
1457-1504 be the case, and I have corrected
1477-1481, the Great
Basarab Tepelush the table accordingly. This
1481-1482
correspondent also pointed out
1481, the interesting career of Iancu de
Vlad Calugarul Hunedoara (János Hunyadi) as
1482-1495
Prince of Transylvania and
Radu II cel Mare, Regent of Hungary, for which
1495-1508 links have been installed.
the Great
1508-1509, Bodgan III The title of these rulers was

Mihnea cel Rau 1504-1517
d.1510 the Blind Voivode, a word that we even
find in Bram Stoker (Dracula,
Mircea 1509-1510 Penguin Books, 1897, 1993,
p.309). This term no longer

Vlad cel Tinar 1510-1512 appears in convenient Romanian

or Hungarian dictionaries, for any
Neagoe Basarab 1512-1521 of its meanings (c.f. NTC's
Romanian and English
Teodosie 1521 Dictonary, Andreí Bantas, NTC
Publishing Group, 1995;
Vlad (Dragomir 1521, Hippocrene Concise Dictionary,
Calugarul) d.1522 Hungarian, Hungarian-English,
1522-1523, Shtefanita 1517-1527 English-Hungarian, Géza Takács,
Hippocrene Books, 1996; or
Radu III de la 1524, Hippocrene Standard Dictionary,
Afumati 1524-1525, English-Hungarian Dictionary,
1525-1529 T. Magay & L. Kiss, Hippocrene
Books, 1995). Those meanings
1523, 1524,
Valdislav III began with "duke" or "prince"
1525
and ultimately declined to merely
1527-1538, "governor," which would have
Radu IV Badica 1523-1524 Petru Raresh
1541-1546 been appropriate to Wallachia or
Moldavia under the Turks. This
Moise 1529-1530 Ottoman Conquest, 1538 word is actually of Slavic origin,
and is thus discussed under
1546-1551, Eastern Europe.
Vlad Înecatul 1530-1532 Ilias, Elias
1562
The Vlach language of the
Vlad Vintila 1532-1535 Stephen IV 1551-1552 Principalities, not a written
language in the Middle Ages,
Radu Paisie 1535-1545 Ioan Joldea 1552
came to be written in the Cyrillic
1545-1552, 1552-1561, alphabet. The unified country
Alexandru
Mircea Ciobanul 1553-1554, 1564-1568, itself became
Lapushneanu first
1558-1559 1568
"Roumania," later further
Despot Voda Latinized into "România," and
Radu Ilie 1552-1553 (Iacob Basilikos 1561-1563 soon the Cyrillic alphabet was
Heraklides/Eraclid) traded in for the Latin alphabet,
as the Roman roots of the people
Patrascu cel Bun were increasingly emphacized. In
1554-1557 Sephen Tomsha 1563-1564
(the Kind) contrast to the original Romania,
i.e. the Roman Empire, the north-
1559-1568, Bogdan
Petru cel Tinar 1568-1572 of-the-Danube state might
d.1569 Laprushneanu usefully be characterized as
"Lesser Romania," on analogy to
1568-1574, Ion Voda (John
Alexander II 1572-1574 "Lesser Armenia" in the Taurus;
1574-1577 the Terrible)
but this would probably be
considered insulting by modern
Romanians. Perhaps "Later

Romania" would be better, like

1574-1577,
the Later Han Dynasty -- making
Petru Schiopul 1578-1579,
Vintila 1574
(the Lame) 1582-1591, the Empire into the "Former
1594 Romania," like the Former Han
Dynasty. The issue of România
1577-1583, and the Vlach language and
Mihnea Turcitul 1585-1591, Ioan Potcoava 1577 people is discussed further in
d.1601 "The Vlach Connection and
Further Reflections on Roman
1583-1585,
Petru Cercel Iancu Sasul 1579-1582 History."
d.1590
1592-1595, The list of Princes here was

Stephen Surdul 1591-1592 Aron the Terrible
originally taken from Kingdoms
d.1597
of Europe, by Gene Gurney
Stefan Razvan 1595 [Crown Publishers, New York,
Alexander cel Rau 1592-1593 1982]. Gurney left many gaps,
Ieremia Moghila 1595-1600 but it was a long time before I
could do better. Now I have
1600, updated the list from the
1593-1601 Michael II the Brave
d.1601 Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln
zur Geschichte Europas, by
Radu VII (IV)
1601-1611 Ottoman Control, 1600 Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp
Serban
Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp.142-
Ottoman Control, 1611; 144 & 259-261]. Feldkamp gives
very detailed information but
Lines of Princes Continued
unfortunately only until 1601.
Subsequent Princes are thus only
from Gurney.
Rome and Romania is continued in The Ottoman Sultans, 1290-1924 AD, Successors of Rome: Germania,
395-774, Successors of Rome: Francia, 447-present, Successors of Rome: The Periphery of Francia, and
Successors of Rome: Russia, 862-present.
Home Page

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights
Reserved
Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD, Note 1
Bede identifies several Emperors by number. This includes Claudius, #4, Marcus Aurelius, #14, Diocletian,
#33, Gratian, #40, Arcadius, #43, Honorius, #44, Theodosius II, #45, Marcian, #46, and Maurice, #54. This
numbering works if we eliminate three of the four Emperors of 69 AD, the ephemeral Emperors of 193 and
218, a couple of them from the Third Century, most of the Tetrarchy and Constantian coregents, and, most
importantly, all of the Western Emperors after Honorius. The latter is especially striking because Bede
mentions Valentinian III: "In the year of our Lord 449, Marcian became Emperor with Valentinian and
fourty-sixth successor to Augustus" [Bede, A History of the English Church and People, Penguin Classics,
translated by Leo Sherley-Price, 1955, 1964, p.55]. Since Theodosius II was already identified as the 45th
Emperor, there is no number left for Valentinian (Emperor since 425), let alone Constantius III or John, who
had been legitimate Emperors of the West. From Marcian to Maurice, the numbers only work if we then
ignore all the rest of the Western Emperors, out of nine of which four were even recognized by the East. So
Bede doesn't recognize any.
Although writing in the 7th and 8th centuries (673-735), in the days of multiple Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in
Britain, Bede nevertheless had a strong sense of the continued existence of the Roman Empire. He knows that
the Empire is now centered in Christian Constantinople, and his awareness of this is strong enough that it
actually erases the existence of the last Western Emperors. The idea common now that the Roman Empire
fell in 476, wouldn't have made sense to Bede. He didn't even recognize the Emperor who "fell," Romulus
Augustulus, as an successor of Augustus (neither did the East, for that matter). Ephemeral and puppet
Emperors (whether in the 2nd or 5th centuries) don't make the cut in his reckoning. This is of a piece with
most of the rest of Mediaeval opinion and perception, East and West. Since the Schism of 1054 between the
Latin and the Greek Churches had not occurred yet, Bede would have seen the contemporary Emperor (a late
Heraclian, mostly) invested with all the aura and authority of Contantine the Great.
Return to Text
The 2004 movie King Arthur uses some of Littleton and Malcor's information to rework the Arthur legend
into something like real history. However, its use of it, and of other history, although meriting an A for effort,

involves some confusions and anachronisms. In the movie, the Iazyges are called "Sarmatians," which they
were, but the more general name obscures the unique experience of the Iazyges in being settled and
assimilated as Roman soldiers. Indeed, that circumstance is ignored, as the movie shows the Sarmatians
apparently still living out on the steppe (in yurts) and somehow still obliged in the 5th century to furnish
draftees to the Roman army. The Romans, however, were never in any position to send press gangs out onto
the steppe, and such a foray in the 5th century, through Germans and Huns, is unbelievable. Nor is there any
reason why Sarmatians well beyond Roman borders should pay any attention to obligations assumed three
centuries previously. But the plot of the movie requires that the Saramatians feel exiled during their service in
Britain. Instead, the Iazyges, men, women, and children, would have all been settled in Britain; and by the
fourth century they would have felt as Roman and/or British as anyone. The yearning of Arthur's men to go
home is thus a purely fictional device. That Arthur himself still bears the name of Artorius Castus, his
ancestor, is a fictional device also, but actually a rather clever and not impossible one.
The background offered in the movie about Sarmatian service in the Roman army leaves out that this
involved the war fought by Marcus Aurelius featured in the movie Gladiator. A tribute to Gladiator might
have been made but isn't. Instead, we get a gross anachronism, as the shields of what would have been
Marcus's army in 175 AD aleady bear the Chi-Rho symbol of Constantine's Christianity. This may have just
been a matter of economy in the prop department, where all the shields were prepared for the 5th century
army. However, even this was a mistake, since we know from the Notitia Dignitatum that there were a great
many designs used on Roman shields in the Christian Empire, including, remarkably, the first attested
instance of the Chinese swirling Yin-Yang symbol. Shields were unique and distinctive to the units.
Beyond this, almost all the history in the movie is confused. The Western Emperor is not even mentioned,
and the Pope is portrayed as directing political and military events. This is what Mediaeval Popes wanted to
do, but it has nothing to do with the 5th or 6th centuries, when the Popes had no such power and would not
have imagined that they did. Actual Italian Romans are portrayed unpleasantly, which creates a distinction
(and a conflict) that wouldn't have existed in Late Antiquity. In general, Romans were Romans -- the movie
perpetuates the idea that "Rome" meant the City, when this limitation was long gone. More importantly, the
Romans never deliberately withdrew from Britain, and certainly not as late or as callously as shown in the
movie. The usurper Constantine (407-411) stripped Britain of legions in order to invade Gaul and seize the
Throne. When he was defeated, Honorius had to inform the British that, with the Suevi, Vandals, and Alans
raging across Gaul and Spain, the forces simply did not exist to re-garrison Britain. Since the battle of Badon
Hill is supposed to have happened eighty to a hundred years later, there is a fair bit of history that the movie
reduces, in effect, to a couple of days. Finally, we have Saxons so confused or foolish as to land in Britain
north of Hadrian's Wall. This would not have done them much good (as is obvious in the movie) and was
way, way out of their way. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes all crossed the North Sea and landed well south of
the Wall. Only Vikings from Norway would later show any interest in the future Scotland. Finally, an early
sequence in the movie has Arthur venturing north of the Wall to retrieve a Roman settler. What is this guy
doing there? And how could his estate survive, surrounded by hostile Picts, especially when he treats the
locals with appalling cruelty? This doesn't pass minimal standards of credibility.
The peculiar or anachronistic devices in the movie all serve to create dramatic tension and conflict, which is
well within understandable poet license. In this it is perhaps moderately successful, but some distortions seem
gratuitous, especially the negative impession left of Christianity. Pagans were generally tolerated at the time
(not tortured or starved to death), but the Army and probably the Britons were overwhelming Christian. That

Arthur found himself on the wrong side of one of the obscure contemporary theological disputes is a cute
touch (based on the British monk Pelagius, whose teaching was condemned in 418) but is obviously
introduced merely as a device to alienate him from the Church and from Rome. This fits the plot of the movie
but cannot have had much to do with the substantive problems facing 5th century Britons. The matter in
dispute, free will versus predestination, was never wholly settled to the complete denial of one or the other.
Indeed, Catholic orthdoxy was more favorable to free will than Protestants like John Calvin would be later.
Return to Text
Sancta Sophia is Latin for "Saint Sophia" or, since sophía is Greek for "wisdom," "Sacred Wisdom." This is
not the form of the name usually seen. Justinian spoke Latin, but in time Greek became the
Court language at Constantinople. In Greek the Church was Hágia Sophía,
which locally would have been the name used from the beginning. As Mediaeval Greek
developed, however, the "h" ceased to be pronounced and the "g" softened into a "y." This later pronunciation
is even preserved in the Turkish name of the Church, Aya Sofya. For many years, the version I seem to
remember seeing was Santa Sophia, which would have to be Italian. Because of the later Italian influence in
Romania, this version of the name certainly would have been used. Or, I may have just been seeing "St.
Sophia" and thought of it as Santa because of living amid all the Spanish place names in California, where
sancta has also become santa (e.g. Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Santa Cruz, etc.).
Return to Text

The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania
THE OTTOMAN SULT.ÂNS

AND CALIPHS, 1290-1924 AD
V. FIFTH
EMPIRE, OTTOMANS, ISLAMIC BYZANTIUM, 1453-

1922, Era of Diocletian 1170-1639, 469 years
The Sultânate of Rûm had

Osmanli Oghullarï
been dormant for some years,
1290- failing even to capitalize on the
'Osman I victory of Myriocephalum
1326
(1176). After vassalage to the
defeats Romans near Mongols (1243), the domain
Nicomedia, Ottoman finally disintegrated (1307).
conquest begins, 1302; Meanwhile, however, the
Seljuks overthrown, 1307; Turkish presence in Anatolia
Bursa [Prusa] taken, 1326 was actually invigorated with
refugees from the Mongol
1326- advance. The new domains
Orkhân
1359 that resulted were the oghullar
or "sons" of Rûm. These
defeats Andronicus III, 1329; included many ghuzâh (sing.
I.znik [Nicaea] taken, 1331; I. ghâzin), or fighters for Islâm
zmid [Nicomedia] taken, (otherwise mujâhidûn),
1337; Gelibolu [Kallipolis] particularly frontier fighters.
taken, 1354; Ankara 'Osman Ghâzî (now just
[Angora] taken, 1354 Osman Gazi) found himself
on the frontier of Roman
1359- Bithynia, across from his
Murâd I
1389 Christian military counterparts,
the akritai (sing. akritês). He
defeated the Roman army at Bapheus in 1302 but is best remembered for
breaking through into Bithynia and captured Prusa (1326), which became
Bursa, the first capital of the Ottoman Emirate.
http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm (1 of 45)8/25/2006 5:32:46 AM

Edirne [Adrianople] taken,

1369; Konya [Iconium] The historical and international image of the Turks does not seem to be
taken, 1387; Thessalonica the most lovable or romantic. Most Americans probably are going to be
taken, 1387; battle of Kosovo, more sympathetic to people with historic grievances against Turkey --
"Field of the Blackbirds," Greeks, Armenians, Romanians, Serbs, even Arabs. The disappearance of
Sult.ân killed defeating all the ancient peoples of Anatolia, from the Phrygians
Serbs, 1389 and Galatians to the Isaurians, and the sad Fall of
Constantinople, now combines with lingering outrage
Bâyezîd I Yïldïrïm, 1389- over the genocide of the Armenians during World War
the "Thunderbolt" 1402 I -- an event that Turkey still officially and stoutly
denies, despite thorough historical documentation, not
seige of Constantinople, 1394- to mention many surviving eyewitnesses -- and more
1402; Battle of Nicopolis, recent actions against the Kurds: Not long ago it was a crime in Turkey
Sigismund of Hungary to assert, even on the floor of the parliament, that there even were Kurds
defeated, 1396; Battle of in the country -- and in 1994 four members of parliament were sentenced
Ankara, Sult.ân defeated, to 15 years in prison for giving speeches in Kurdish. Although
captured & imprisoned by responding in some ways to European demands for human rights
Tamerlane, 1402 improvements before being considered for admission to the European
Union, since December 2001 the Turkish government has officially
1402- regarded Kurdish given names as "terrorist propaganda" and refused to
Meh.med I
1421 register them for Kurdish children. With all this, one does not even need
to see the very anti-Turkish movie Midnight Express [1978].
Civil War, 1402-1413,
between Meh.med, Süleymân, In historical perspective, however, it is not clear to what extent the
& Mûsâ; Thessalonica ceded ancient peoples even still existed by the time of the Turkish arrival. Greek
to Romania, 1403 assimilation, i.e. Hellenization, of Anatolian peoples had been
progressing steadily for centuries, and Turkish settlement in comparison
1421- doesn't necessarily look all that different. Given the religious cause that
Murâd II
1451 they thought they were vindicating (for which Islâm usually seems more
excused than Christianity), the Fall of Constantinople, far from sad, was
Seige of Constantinople,
one of the supreme moments of achievement in the history of Islâm. A
1422; Thessalonica captured
from Venice, 1430 Western, or a modern liberal, evaluation will not give that much weight,
but it is not hard to imagine that the sensation it created in Islâm was not
Meh.med II Fâtih. 1451- much different from that in Christendom at the capture of Jerusalem by
the "Conqueror" 1481 the First Crusade, or the completion of the Reconquista in Spain. This are
similarly denigrated by modern opinion, but it is hard to imagine how the
I.stanbul [Constantinople] values at the time could have been different -- everyone should guard
taken, 1453; conquest of against an anachronistic indignation.
Bosnia, 1463; Khanate of
Crimea becomes a Vassal, The subsequent Ottoman Empire features the goods and evils
1475; Seige of Rhodes characteristic of most empires, and some peculiar to those of the Middle
repulsed, 1480 East -- e.g. the refuge provided for Spanish Jews in 1492, as against the
slavery and forced conversion of Christian children for the Janissary
corps. Evils specific to nationalism emerged later, like the

aforementioned genocide of Armenians and the continuing suppression of

1481-
Bâyezîd II the Kurds, an Iranian people who happen to be Orthodox Moslems like
1512
the Turks. The Turks are not uniquely at fault for this, and the solution is
Selîm I Yavuz, 1512- a kind of society (liberal and capitalistic) upon which few in the world
"the Grim" 1520 entirely agree, even in the ethnic plurality of societies like the United
States. Turkey now has an especially tough time with its own identity as
Conquest of Syria and Egypt, it is torn between the Islamic fundamentalist revival seen elsewhere and
1516-1517 the secularism that Kemal Atatürk made the foundation of the modern
state in the 1920's. None of this may make Turkey particularly lovable,
Süleymân I, the 1520- but it does make the Turks mostly like anybody else, with a history that
Magnificent 1566 has its horrors but, indeed, also its own bit of magnificience: a desire to
surpass Sancta Sophia (still called Aya Sofya in Turkish, after the Greek
Fall of Rhodes, 1523; Battle version of the name, Hagia Sophia) produced a series of some of the
of Mohács, Conquest of most beautiful mosques in Islâm, which have inspired much of
Hungary, death of Louis II of subsequent Islâmic architecture (the standard doomed mosque, starting
Hungary & Bohemia, 1526; with Muh.ammad 'Alî's Alabaster Mosque in Cairo) [note].
First Siege of Vienna, 1529;
Conquest of Mesopotamia, Today one of the sights of Istanbul is the Fatih Camii (Fâtih. Jâmi-i), the
1534; Siege of Malta, 1565 "Conqueror's Mosque." This contains the tomb of Meh.med II, with a
dedicated mosque, school, hospice, and (formerly) caravansaray. It stands
1566- on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was the burial place
Selîm II
1574 of the Emperor Constantine and subsequent Emperors of Romania.
Peace of Adrianople, tribute Already largely in ruins in 1453, it is not clear what the fate of all the
from Austria, 1568; conquest Imperial burials was -- they may actually have simply been covered over
by the later construction, the way the Imperial mosaics in Sancta Sophia
of Cyprus, 1571; Battle of
were simply whitewashed, preserving them for modern display. What the
Lepanto, naval defeat by Church probably looked like can still be seen in a probable copy, St.
Spain, Venice, & Malta, 1571 Mark's in Venice.
1574-
Murâd III At Meh.med II's
1595
death, the
inconclusive war with Ottoman
Austria, 1593-1606 Empire looked
much the way
1595- Romania had in
Meh.med III the 11th
1603
Century. Selîm
1603- I "the Grim" did
Ah.med I
1617 what the old
Emperors had
1617- never been able to do, restore Syria and Egypt to the empire (from the
Mus.t.afâ I
1618 Mamlûks). Süleimân I then added areas that had never been permanent
parts of the Roman Empire, Iraq and Hungary. Picking up the Roman
1618-
'Osmân II conflict with Irân, the Turks for the first time since Alexander the Great
1622

removed Iraq from Iranian possession (the map shows the pre-Safavid Aq
1622-
Ah.med I (restored) Qoyunlu or White Sheep Turks). The conquest of Hungary was the first
1623
penetration of Islâm into Francia since the conquest of Spain.
1623-
Murâd IV
1640
1640-
Ibrâhîm
1648
1648-
Meh.med IV
1687
Naval defeat by Venice &

Malta at Dardanelles, 1656;
War with Austria, 1663-1664;
Conquest of Crete from
Venice, 1669; Second Siege of
Vienna, 1683; Austrian
conquest of Hungary, 1686-
1697
The Ottoman Empire was at its height
1687-
Süleymân II for about 150 years. It had at that point,
1691
however, reached the limits beyond
Parthenon destroyed in which it could not easily project its
explosion, 1687 power. Conflict continued with Austria
and with Christian powers in the
1691- Mediterranean, but respective holdings
Ah.med II didn't change much. The Sult.ân Ah.
1695
mad Mosque, or the Blue Mosque,
1695- adjacent to the site of the old
Mus.t.afâ II
1703 Hippodrome of Constantinople, is a
fitting symbol of the achievement and
Russia takes Azov, 1696; Loss confidence of this period. The long
of Hungary, 1697; Peace of delayed fall of Crete in 1669 then
Karolwitz, 1699 seemed like the portent of renewed
conquests. The energetic Köprülü vizirs
1703- planned a new assault, after 150 years,
Ah.med III
1730 against Vienna in 1683. But this turned
into a disaster, suddenly revealing the
Recovery of Azov, 1711; War relative weakness that had actually
with Austria, 1716-1718; Loss overcome the Empire. Even a de facto
of Banat, Serbia, & Little alliance with friendly France, the
Wallachia, 1716-1718; Peace greatest power of the day, could not
of Passarowitz, 1718 prevent a series of defeats, the loss of
Hungary, and the temporary loss of southern Greece to Venice.

1730- It is noteworthy at this point that Ottoman Sult.âns ceased to murder their
Mah.mud I
1754 brothers on accession. Henceforth the Throne passes, by Middle Eastern
custom, to brothers and even to cousins before going to the next
War with Austria, Recovery
generation.
of Serbia & Wallachia, 1737-
1739; Peace of Belgrade, 1739
1754-
'Osmân III
1757
1757-
Mus.t.afâ III
1774
1774-
'Abdül-H.amîd I
1789
Russian conquest of Crimea,

1774-1783
1789-
Selîm III
1807
Odessa annexed by Russia,

1791; Revolt of Serbs, 1804-
1813; Russian invasion,
occupation of Moldavia &
Wallachia, 1806-1812; Sult.
ân overthrown by
Janissaries, 1807
The threat of continuous defeat, which the beginning of the 18th century
1807- seemed to display, receded somewhat. Austria would not advance deeper
Mus.t.afâ IV into the Balkans and there was some breathing room. Nevertheless, the
1808
Ottomans were now facing the problem of catching up with the
1808- technological advances of Europe, even of relatively backward Russia,
Mah.mûd II which it was in no way prepared to tackle. The problem was not any
1839
particular hostility to modern commercial culture -- merchants and
markets were perfectly respectable characteristics of Middle Eastern
Islâmic civilization -- but a very profound social conservativism, a
satisfaction with the Mediaeval forms of life, prevented any of this from
developing into modern institutions of banking, industry, and
entrepreneurship. Like the Chinese, the Turks literally did not believe
there was anything new to learn, much less from despised Unbelievers.
The bustle and excitement of the great Istanbul Bazaar thus never led to
the explosion of energy and production that was already characteristic of
the Netherlands and other places in Western Europe. Turkey would
always be playing catch-up but would then never actually catch up.

Institutional reforms, when they were even tried, still could never go deep
Treaty of Bucharest, Russia
enough, could never actually produce a people striving and inquisitive
ceded Bessarabia, 1812;
beyond their previous habits. Peter the Great faced similar problems with
Serbian autonomy, 1813;
Greek Revolt, 1821-1829; another conservative society about the same time.
Sult.ân massacres
Janissaries, 1826; Russian
invasion, occupation of
Moldavia & Wallachia, 1828-
1829; Treaty of Adrianople,
Greek Independence, Danube
Delta to Russia, autonomy of
Moldavia & Wallachia, 1829
1839-
'Abdül-Mejîd I
1861
Crimean War, 1853-1856;

Russian invasion, 1853;
Britain, France, & Austria
enter against Russia, 1854;
Austria occupies Moldavia &
Wallachia, 1854-1857; Siege At the beginning of the 19th century, as Napoleon surged back and forth
of Sebastopol, 1854-1855; across Europe, the subject Christians of the Balkans became more and
Peace of Paris, recovery of more restless, and Russia began to try again and again to retrieve
Danube Delta, Wallachia & Constantinople for Christendom and break through the Straits. The
Moldavia combined as Ottomans, although achieving some successes, were not going to be able
Romania, with part of to resist this. The Empire's status as the "Sick Man of Europe" was now
Bessarabia, 1856 becoming quite established. It was Realpolitik that came to the rescue of
the Sult.ân: Britain did not want Russia to be too successful and so
1861- entered into a long policy of supporting the Turks against the forces, from
'Abdül-'Azîz
1876 Russia or Egypt or wherever, that might result in the collapse of Ottoman
rule. Nevertheless, Britain could not allow too much oppression of
Revolts in Bosnia & Bulgaria,
subject Christians, and as the century wore on, small Christian states,
1875-1876
from Serbia to Greece to Bulgaria, were allowed autonomy and then
Murâd V 1876 independence by the agreement of the Great Powers. This did not get any
of them all they wanted, and it certainly limited Russian gains, but it kept
'Abdül-H.amîd II, 1876- the geo-political dam from bursting and kept the Sult.ân from falling off
"the Damned" 1909 his Throne.
Finally, it was the internal forces of Turkey that began to shake things up
after a pattern that would become all too familiar in "underdeveloped"
countries later: A military coup, the "Young Turks," against the detested
Sult.ân 'Abdül-Hamîd II in 1908. This did not help much when the

Balkan states fell

Russo-Turkish War,
on Turkey in
1877-1878; Congress of
1912. The choice
Berlin, Serbia, Romania, &
of Germany as a
Montenegro Independent,
European ally
Bulgaria autonomous, would then be
Bessarabia to Russia, fatal for the
Dobruja to Romania, Cyprus Ottoman future.
to Britain, Bosnia, Another ill effect
Herzegovina & Novipazar, was the
Austrian Protectorate, 1878; transformation of
British Occupy Egypt, 1882; the Mediaeval
Bulgaria annexes East Cause of Islâm
Rumelia, 1885; Revolt of the into a more
Young Turks, 1908, Sult.ân modern Turkish
overthrown nationalism. This did not work well, and never would, with the Arabs,
Armenians, and Kurds living within Turkish borders. The disaffection of
1909- the first exploded in a pro-Allied revolt in World War I. Suspicion about
Meh.med V
1918 the second led to shameful deportation and massacre about the same time.
And conflict with the third continues, with campaigns of terrorism and
First Balkan War, 1912-1913;
suppression, even today. Woodrow Wilson impotently called for an
Italy occupies Libya & the
Dodecanese, 1912; Second independent Armenia state, in an area where there were by then few
Armenians left, and soon almost none after Turkey pushed the Armenian
Balkan War, recovery of
Republic back east of the Araks (Aras) River in 1920. No Power has
Adrianople, 1913; World called for an independent Kurdish state. Meanwhile, the British and
War I, 1914-1918 French were perfectly happy to detach the Arab lands from the Empire,
not for independence, to be sure, but to further British and French
1918-
Meh.med VI imperial projects. This turned out to be more trouble than it was worth,
1922
especially when the Zionist colonization of Palestine, allowed by the
Armenian Republic British, led to the creation of Israel and to a conflict, including five major
conquered, 1920-1921; Greco- wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982), that continues until today. The
Turkish War, 1920-1922 settlement of World War I has thus been aptly called "the peace to end all
peace."
Caliph
only,
'Abdül-Mejîd II
1922-
1924
The spelling of the

names of the
Ottomans is
intended to indicate

both the Turkish

pronunciation and
how they are
spelled in Arabic
(which no longer
matters, since
Turkish is no
longer written in
the Arabic
alphabet, but is of
historical interest).
Here I have pretty
much followed the
usage of the
Cambridge History
of Islam. A good example is the name of the Conqueror of Constantinople, Meh.med II. This name is Muh.
ammad in Arabic but is actually pronounced Mehmet in Turkish. Obviously, some compromises are made
and the system is not perfect. In general, the consonants look Arabic and the vowels Turkish. Since Turkish
(and Persian) reads the Arabic alphabet with three s's (Arabic s, s., and th) and four z's (Arabic z, z., d., and
dh), some attempt is made to differentiate (e.g. with s for th). Modern Turkish writes c for English j and ç for
English ch, but the English equivalents are used here.
The main reason that Arabic writing did not work well for Turkish was the Turkish vowel system. Where
Classical Arabic had three short and three long vowels, and Persian could match its six vowels with those,
Turkish has eight vowels, as shown at left (in the official
Romanization). The most intriguing thing about Turkish vowels is
the system of vowel harmony. Related Ural-Altaic languages, like Mongolian and
even Hungarian, also have vowel harmony, but this seems to appear in Turkish in
its most complete, logical, and elegant form. The rules are simply, (1) front vowels
are followed by front vowels (e.g. i by e), back vowels by back vowels (e.g. u by
a), (2) unrounded vowels are followed by unrounded vowels (e.g. i by e), and (3)
rounded vowels are followed by high rounded (e.g. o by u) or low unrounded
vowels (e.g. o by a). There are Turkish grammatical inflections in which the vowel
is supposed to be simply either high or low, with its character otherwise determined
by the preceding vowels in the word. This all was impossible to show in the Arabic alphabet without a special
notation that might have been developed but, evidently, never was. There are many words in Turkish that
violate vowel harmony, but by this they can be identified as foreign loan words -- for example islâm (instead
of *islem), from Arabic, and istanbul (instead of *istenbil), from Greek or Arabic.
In the first book I had about Turkish, Teach Yourself Books, Turkish [St. Paul's House, Warwick Lane,
London, 1953, 1975], the author, G.L. Lewis, specifically ridicules Hagopian's Ottoman-Turkish
Conversation-Grammar of 1907 because, out of 215 pages, it devoted 161 to Arabic and Persian [p.vi]. Well,
I have gone to some trouble to get a copy of Hagopian's Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-
Grammar, and it is a very fine book. The section on Arabic and Persian is very much as
though every English grammar book came along with Donald M. Ayers' English words from

Latin and Greek elements [University of Arizona Press, 1986], which I encountered as the textbook for a
popular class at the University of Texas on the Greek and Latin contributions to English. As it happens, of
course, fewer and fewer American students are even taught English grammar, much less enough Greek or
Latin to understand or appreciate its use of them. This not a virtue. Nor is the nationalistic enthusiasm that
seeks to purge languages of "foreign" words, which has happened in Turkish, German, French, Hungarian,
and elsewhere. This kind of thing is simply an attempt to purge history itself -- along with a ugly attempt to
sharpen ethnic identities and differences.
Turkish Republic, 1923;

The job of complete social transformation of Turkey was finally
Presidents
undertaken by Mus.t.afâ Kemal, who adopted the surname Atatürk,
Mustafa Kemal, "Father of the Turks." With no concessions to
1923-1938 Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds, Atatürk
(1934) Atatürk
nevertheless abandoned most imperial aspirations.
Ismet Inönü 1938-1950 Giving up the Arabic alphabet and traditional
costume (indeed, making their use even a capital
France cedes offense), deposing the Ottomans, and otherwise
Alexandretta & Antioch, 1939 trying to make Turkey a European, rather than a
Middle Eastern, state, Atatürk simply hoped to make it the equal of
Celal Bayar 1950-1960 other modern powers. To a considerable extent he succeeded, though
Turkey is still haunted by the shadow of the military dictatorship that
Kemal Gürcel 1961-1966 he himself represented, by the threat of militant Islâm, whose
mediaevalism is fully triumphant in neighboring Irân, and by the
Cevdet Sunay 1966-1973
disaffection of the Kurds, whose very existence was legally denied
Fahri Korutürk 1973-1980 for many years. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the strongest state in
the region, to the chagrin of neighboring Arabs and Christians alike.
Kenan Evren 1980-1989 Long a member of NATO, Turkey looks foward to membership in
the European Community, but still has little embarrassments like the
Turgut Özal 1989-1993 common use of torture by police. Thus, despite Atatürk, we still have
several respects in which Turkey is posed between East and West,
Süleyman Demirel 1993-2000 Mediaeval and Modern, Islâm and secularism, liberalism and
oppression. The application of Turkey to the European Union has
Ahmet Necdet Sezer 2000-present been defered, but will be considered in a couple of years.
A discussion of general sources for this material is given under Francia and Islâm. Some additional sources
include The Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia (John Channon with Rob Hudson, 1995), and various prose
histories, such as The Ottoman Centuries (Lord Kinross, Morrow Quill, 1977).
The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD
The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD
The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD

Islâmic Index
Home Page
Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights
Reserved
The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 1
Not all who deny the existence of the Armenian genocide are Turkish, as I learned from e-mail recently.
Anyone sincerely sceptical or confused about the matter should consult Death by Government (Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1995, pp.209-239), by R.J. Rummel, one of the greatest living
experts on mass murder. Rummel estimates the number of Armenians murdered in the main organized
genocide program (there were others), from 1915-1918, as 1,404,000 persons. Some of the eyewitness
testimony to this included reports by the American Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (whose
son, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., would be Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury), and by other American
consular officials, at a time when the United States was still neutral in World War I. Morgenthau's account
was published in 1919 as Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.
Return to Text
The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 2
Nor should we disparage the endless pornographic fantasies that revolve around the Harîm of the Sult.ân's
Topkapï Palace. Fascination with this is now often disparaged as "Orientalism," i.e. the projection of

unrelated and hostile

imaginings onto
misunderstood institutions;
but there is no doubt of the
extraordinary and bizarre
characteristics of the
Imperial Harîm. If it was
diverting for the Sult.ân, I
don't see why it should not
continue to be so to the
curious modern. An honest
and informed treatment of
this can be found in Harem,
The World Behind the Veil
[Abbeville Press, New York,
London, Paris, 1989], by a
woman who grew up in
Turkey, Alev Lytle Croutier,
many of whose own
relatives had lived in traditional harîms. The books contains photographs from the Ottoman era (including her
relatives) as well as historical drawings and the sort of lush and sensual paintings by Western artists that
infuriate the anti-"Orientalism" crowd. The image above is a 19th century photograph. It is given by Croutier
[p.74], but I also remember it from many years ago in Time magazine, at the time that the Topkapï Harîm was
first opened to the public.
Return to Text
The Shihâbî Amîrs

of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD
The Golden Age of Lebanon is considered by many to have come in

The Shihâbî Amîrs
the reign of the Amîr Bashîr II Shihâbî. The Shihâbîs were originally
of Lebanon
Sunnî Moslems, but they came to rule an area dominated by the
Bashîr I 1697-1707 Druzes, practioners of a religious off-shoot of Islâm and regarded by
many Moslems as apostates from Islâm. When the Amîrs themselves
H.aydar 1707-1732 converted to Maronite Christianity, this effected an alliance,
sometimes uneasy, between the largest communities in Lebanon, the
Mulh.im 1732-1754 Maronites and the Druzes, who stood in some danger of persecution by
the orthodox Moslem Turkish authorites. Still symbolic of the success
of this alliance and the prosperity of the period is the beautiful Bayt

ad-Dîn (or Beit ed-Din, "House of Religion") Palace, begun by Bashîr

Mans.ûr 1754-1770
II in 1788 and not completed for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bashîr II
Yûsuf 1770-1788 moved to consolidate his power through an alliance with Muh.ammad
'Alî of Egypt. This would have been an excellent strategy were it not
first Maronite Amîr, 1770 for the intervention of Britain to drive the Egyptians out of Syria and
restore Ottoman authority. Bashîr II was deposed in the process. The
Bashîr II 1788-1840 influence of France, especially, to protect the Christians in Lebanon,
however, was not exerted successfully to preserve Lebanese
overthrown by Britain autonomy, and tended to alienate the non-Christians anyway; and the
& Turkey, 1840 Turks managed to rid themselves of the Shihâbîs altogether, which at
times resulted in the persucution and even massacre of Christians.
Bashîr III 1840-1842
After Lebanese independence from France itself in 1946, Bayt ad-Dîn
direct Turkish Rule, 1842-1918; became a residence for the President of the Republic. For many years
French Rule, 1920-1943 Lebanon prospered as the "Switzerland of the Middle East," and Beirut
as the "Paris of the Middle East"; but by the 1970's the communal
Republic of Lebanon differences that had been a source of strength when the communities
needed to unite against outside persecution began to be a source of
President, weakness, as sometimes had happened before, when the communities
Bishara al-Khuri
1943-1952 fell out among themselves and the issue came to be the distribution of
political privileges and patronage to each "confessional" community.
Camille Chamoun 1952-1958 Things were particularly destablized by the large number of
Palestinian refugees, who had no political standing in Lebanon at all,
Fuad Chehab 1958-1964 and whose activities against Israel drew Israeli retaliation on Lebanon.
Since the Maronites were politically and economically dominant,
Charles Hélou 1964-1970
everyone united against them and full civil war broke out in 1975. This
Sulayman Franjieh 1970-1976 ended up bringing the Syrians into Lebanon in 1976. The Druzes, and
much of the anti-Maronite cause, were led by the charismatic Kamal
Elias Sarkis 1976-1982 Jumblatt, whose assassination in 1977, widely rumored to have been
ordered by the Syrians, symbolically ended the first phase of the
Amin Gemayel 1982-1988 Lebanese "troubles." The shakeup of the civil war then brought to the
surface something new: The Shi'ite community, always the poor
Selim al-Huss 1988-1989 relation in Lebanese politics, predominant in the South and in the
Beka'a Valley (areas originally peripheral to Mount Lebanon), had not
Elias Hrawi 1989-1998 only quietly grown into the largest community in Lebanon but now
was throughly radicalized and activized, in a natural alliance with the
Émile Lahoud 1998-present
Palestinians, and, ominously, with the more distant Shi'ite
coreligionists, the Iranian Islâmic Revolutionaries.
The Israelis,
who invaded
Lebanon in
1982 to get rid
of the
Palestinians,
more or less
accomplished

that task, with

the PLO leaving
for Tunisia, but
then discovered,
as the Syrians
had already, that
the communal
rivalries of the
Lebanese themselves, especially with the Shi'tes adopting Iranian suicide and terror tactics, made the place a
tar baby for any outsiders who wanted to exert control by force. With the foreign powers chasened, the
Lebanese began to patch things up with some needed political compromises; and as the 1990's progressed,
some peace and prosperity seemed to be returning to the country. It remains to be seen, however, if a modus
vivendi can be found to produce another golden age of communal alliance against the outside.
Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon
The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî

in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD
Egypt was abruptly pulled into modern history with the invasion of Napoleon in 1798. Although Egypt had
been conquered by the Turks in 1517, the strange slave dynasty of the Mamlûks had continued and by
Napoleon's time had reestablished de facto authority in the declining Empire. After the French were driven
from Egypt in 1801, Muh.ammad 'Alî arrived, supposedly to reëstablish Turkish authority.
Brilliant, ruthless, farsighted, and probably the most important Albanian in world history, Muh.ammad 'Alî
very quickly established his own authority instead. The final Mamlûks were massacred in 1811, and Muh.
ammad 'Alî moved to create a modern state, and especially a modern army, for Egypt. In this he was as
successful as any non-European power at the time. By the time the Greeks revolted against Turkey in 1821, it
was Muh.ammad 'Alî who turned out to have the best resources to put down the revolution and was called on
by the Sult.ân in 1824 to do so. He very nearly did, until Britain intervened and sank the Egyptian fleet at the
Battle of Navarino in 1827. Frustrated in that direction, Muh.ammad 'Alî was successful in his conquest of
the Sudan (1820-1822), probably advancing further up the Nile than any power since Ancient Egypt, though
at a terrible cost to the Sudanese in massacre, mutilations, and slaving (of which the American boxer Cassius
Clay was probably unaware when he adoped the name "Muhammad Ali" upon his conversion to Islâm).
Egyptian interventions in Arabia in 1818-1822 and 1838-1843 very nearly exterminated the House of Sa'ûd
and its fundamentalist Wahhâbî movement, which much later would create a united and independent Sa'ûdî
Arabia.

When Muh.ammad 'Alî moved into Syria in 1831, however, this

The House of
was a threat to the authority and perhaps even the existence of the
Muh.ammad 'Alî
Ottoman Empire. When war broke out in 1839, Britain intervened
in Egypt
to support the Empire and to throw Muh.ammad 'Alî out in 1841.
Pasha,
Muh.ammad 'Alî The most formative subsequent event for Egyptian history was
1805-1848
certainly the construction of the Suez Canal. Although Britain had
Ibrâhîm 1848 nothing to do with the project, and it was the French Emperor
Napoleon III who attended the lavish opening ceremonies, the
'Abbâs H.ilmî I 1848-1854 collapse of Egyptian financies led to the purchase by Britain of all
Egypt's shares in the Canal Company. This did not solve Egypt's
Muh.ammad Sa'îd 1854-1863 financial problems, which got worse. The Khedive Ismâ'îl also
wasted resources on disastrous campaigns against Ethiopia in 1875-
Suez Canal Started, 1859
1876. With its interests now in danger, Britain occupied Egypt,
1863-1867 without French support, in 1882. Ironically, the Occupation was
undertaken under Prime Minister William Gladstone, who was
Ismâ'îl Khedive, opposed to British Imperialism. He was not, however, going to
1867-1879, endanger British finances just because the Khedive didn't know
d. 1895 how to handle his.
Suez Canal Opened, 1869 This made Egypt a de facto part of the British Empire, indeed one
Britain buys Khedive's
of the most important parts, with the Suez Canal an essential
share in Canal, 1875
strategic link between Britain and India. Some of the most colorful
Muh.ammad Tawfîq 1879-1892 episodes in British Imperial history occured because of this. In
1881 a revolt had started in the Sudan, led by a man claiming to be
British Occupation, 1882 the Apocalyptic Mahdî of Islâmic tradition. Gladstone was not
going to spend British money, or Egyptian, in trying to suppress the
1892-1914, rebellion. Consequently, Charles Gordon, known as "Chinese
'Abbâs H.ilmî II
d. 1944 Gordon" for his part in putting down the Taiping Rebellion in
China (1860-1864), and who had already been governor-general of
British Protectorate, the Sudan from 1877-1880, was sent back in order to evacuate the
1914-1922 Egyptian garrison. Once there, he decided to stay and resist the
Mahdî. By 1885 this insubordination stirred up public opinion back
Sult.ân, home and forced Gladstone to send a relief expedition; but it
H.usayn Kâmil
1914-1917 missed rescuing Gordon by two days, as the Mahdî's forces overran
Khartoum and killed Gordon. This made Gordon one of the great
1917-1922
heroes of the day, humiliated Britain, and resulted in the fall of
Ah.mad Fu'âd I King, Gladstone's government. However, the Sudan was, for the time
1922-1936 being, abandoned. When the British returned in 1898, in the heyday
of imperial jingoism, Lord Kitchener, with a young Winston
1936-1952, Churchill along, calmly massacred the mediaeval army of the
Fârûq Mahdî's successor at the Battle of Omdurman, avenged Gordon,
d. 1965
and made himself one of the immortal heroes of the British Empire
Ah.mad Fu'âd II 1952-1953 too. Although formally in Egyptian service, Kitchener reconquered

the Sudan as an Anglo-Egyptian "condominium." The theory of

Republic of Egypt, 1953-
British and Egyptian joint rule in the Sudan continued until
President, Sudanese independence in 1956, though between 1924 and 1936
Muhammad Naguib the British didn't even allow Egyptian forces or authorities into the
1953-1954
Sudan.
Gamal Abdel Nasser 1954-1970
All this took
Anwar as-Sadat 1970-1981 place with
Egypt still
Mohammed
1981-present legally part
Hosni Mubarak of the
Ottoman
Empire. Right down until 1914 the Turkish flag was
dutifully flown and Turkish passports issued. When
Turkey repaid a century of British support by
throwing its lot with Germany in World War I,
however, the fiction came to an end, and Egypt de jure
came under British rule as a Protectorate, with the
Sult.ânate, abolished by the Turks in 1517,
reëstablished. This was not popular in Egypt, and after
the war Egypt did become a formally independent
Kingdom. However, the British did retain Treaty rights to garrison and protect the Suez Canal; so, in many
ways, the British Occupation of 1882 simply continued. There was little doubt of that once World War II
started. Egypt, a legally Neutral country, was first invaded by Italy and then by Germany, with British forces
meeting, fighting, and ultimately expelling them. Egypt at the time seemed no less a part of the British
Empire than it had ever been. Egypt did eventually declare war on Germany, but not until February 24, 1945.
The end of Muh.ammad 'Alî's dynasty resulted from the humiliation of continuing British occupation, the
mortification of Egyptian failure in the war against Israeli independence in 1948, and from the failure of King
Fârûq, who was rather more successful as a playboy than as a leader, to deal with any of it. The army, soon
led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, swept away the monarchy, got British forces to leave Egypt, and then won a
great political victory when Britain and France (74 years late) reoccupied the Canal, Israel invaded the Sinai,
and both the United States and the Soviet Union told them all to leave in no uncertain terms, in the Suez
Crisis of 1956 (just as Soviet tanks were rolling into Hungary!). Thus, Egypt became a player in the Cold
War, and the heritage of Muh.ammad 'Alî, the Ottoman Empire, and British imperialism faded rapidly.
Islâmic Index
Home Page
Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings

of Libya, 1837-1969 AD
Libya begins as two domains in the Ottoman Empire,

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings
of Libya Tripolitania in the west and Cyrenaica in the east. Eventually,
lands in the deeper desert, Fezzan, were brought under control.
1837-1859, Most of the desert, however, is uninhabitable. Cyrenaica
Muh.ammad as-Sanûsî entered history originally as a place of Greek colonies. It is
Cyrenaica, 1841
mountainous and, especially in the past, reasonably well
Muh.ammad al-Mahdî 1859-1902 watered. Tripoltania clings to the Mediterranean coast around
the city of Tripoli. Just a few miles down the coast from Tripoli
1902-1916, is Labdah, Roman Leptis Magna, which was the home town of
Ah.mad ash-Sharîf
d.1933 the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (b.145).
Italian occupation, 1911
This was a thinly populated backwater for the Turks,
1916-1949; noteworthy mainly for Roman ruins and piracy (with U.S.
Amir, Marines landing at Tripoli in 1801). It all achieved greater
1949-1951; significance when Italy displaced the Ottomans in 1911 (ceded
Muh.ammad Idrîs in 1912). Indeed, Libya became one of the most important
King,
1951-1969, strategic theaters of World War II. The Italians tried invading
d.1983 Egypt from Libya in September 1940 but by February 1941 had
been thrown completely out of Cyrenaica, with 130,000
Muammar Qaddafi dictatorship, soldiers captured. Alarmed, Hitler sent Erwin Rommel with a
1969-present couple of divisions to prevent the Italian position from
collapsing completely. Rommel, however, went on the
offensive. For more than a year, things surged back and forth, with Cyrenaica recovered, lost, and recovered
again. By July 1942, Rommel was deep into Egypt, barely stopped at El Alamein, 60 miles from Alexandria.
By then, however, the United States was in the War; and the strongly reinforced British began an offensive in
October. They broke through and soon swept the Germans and Italians entirely out of Libya. Retreating into
Tunisia, they were caught against the Americans who had landed in Morocco and Algeria in November.
After the War, Libya formally became independent in 1951, under the Sasûnî Amîr of Cyrenaica. The long
lived King Idrîs was eventually overthrown in 1969. This was under the leadership of the eratic and
megalomanaical Muammar Qaddafi. Along with armed clashes with Egypt and Chad, Libya became a

sponsor of terrorism. Blamed for a bombing in Berlin in 1986, Libya was bombed by
Ronald Reagan in retaliation. Later blamed for a bomb that brought down Pam Am Flight
103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, sanctions were imposed on Libya until accused
operatives were surrendered. This eventually happened, Qaddafi may have thought better
of his ways, and sanctions were lifted in 2003. Meanwhile, Qaddafi had dressed up his
dictatorship with an idiosyncratic political theory. Libya became the "Great Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." Jamahiriya, similar to the Arabic word for "republic,"
jumhûrîya, was a term coined by Qaddafi for his politcal system, which was supposed to
be a kind of direct, mass democracy, but is probably no more democratic that similar arrangements in the
Soviet Union. Like Mao's little red book, Qaddafi produced a little green book. Qaddafi seems secure enough,
like many other dictators (one thinks of Castro), but increasingly anachronistic (Castro, again).
Islâmic Index
Home Page
Copyright (c) 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
MODERN ROMANIA
Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans
Princes, Kings, and Presidents of România, Montenegro, Greece,

Serbia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Armenia, and
Georgia
"Romania" means the area in the Balkans and Middle East with successor states to the Mediaeval Roman
Empire that was neither part of historic "Francia" (the land of the "Franks" to those in Islâm), which means
Western, Central, and Northern Europe originally subject to the Latin, Roman Catholic Church in Rome, nor
part of historic Russia in Eastern Europe, subject to the Russian Orthodox Church.

This will be an unfamiliar use of the name "Romania" for most, and the reason for it is explained in
"Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History,"
"The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History," and the "Guide and Index to Lists of
Rulers." The double headed eagle of the Palaeologi symbolized the European and Asian sides of the Empire.
This now represents a significant historical and cultural divide. The Asian side, and the center of the Empire
at Adrianople and Constantinople, is still largely Turkish. This is a rather different Turkey from the Ottoman
Empire, however, secularized and Westernized by Kemal Atatürk, with things like the Arabic alphabet
actually outlawed, now hoping to join the European Union. On the European side, the successor states to
Rome in the 12th and 13th centuries have reemerged. This is also the case to the east, where Georgia and
Armenia, kept from the Ottomans by Russia, are now independent.

Thus, "Modern Romania" here means the

modern successor states, first to Rome
("Romania" to itself, "Byzantium" to the
historians), second to the Ottoman Empire,
which in the 14th and 15th centuries
established its domination over all former
Roman possessions, and more, in the Eastern
Mediterranean. As the Roman successors
emerged in the 12th century, so do the Ottoman
successors emerge in the 19th century. Familar
states from the earlier period are Serbia,
Bulgaria, Cyprus, and even Bosnia. The
earlier states of the Vlach speaking Romanians,
Wallachia and Moldavia, continue from the
past, subject to special achievements in Ottoman misrule, ultimately to unite as the modern state of România,
the only country in Europe to preserve the proper name of the Roman Empire. Turkey is still the largest and
most powerful state in the region.
Entirely new states are Montenegro and Greece itself. Montenegro, the "Black Mountain" (Qara Dagh in
Turkish and Crna Gora in Serbo-Croatian), like many remote areas of the Ottoman Empire, began to drift
out of central control as Turkish power went into its long decline. "Greece" itself was something that, in a
sense, didn't exist in the Middle Ages. What the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, "Hellenes," came to
be used in Late Roman times to mean Greek pagans. Greek Christians were "Romans," Rhômaioi in Greek.
This distinction was maintained through the Middle Ages, and was remembered well into the 19th, if not the
20th, century (a Greek can still be Rum in Turkish). A modern Greece, Hellas, that was not an heir to Rome,
was an entirely new phenomenon.
The politically, religiously, and culturally dominant language of Mediaeval Romania was Greek, whose
alphabet today, however, is only used in Greece. For the same period the Armenian alphabet
was in use by Armenians both in Romania and in the often separate
kingdoms of Armenia. Under the Ottomans,
Turkish was sometimes even written in the Armenian

(as in the Greek) alphabet; but that era is long gone, and Europa est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum
the Armenian alphabet today is only seen in the former unam Romaniam, aliam Franciam, tertiam
Soviet Republic of Armenia and in Armenian exile Russiam.
communities, as in Syria, Lebanon, and the United
States. The alphabet of the Christian Georgians dates 1. Romania 2. Constantinople
from the same era as the Armenian, and
Europa 2. Francia 1. Rome
now continues to be used in the former
Soviet Republic of Georgia. Both the
3. Russia 3. Moscow
Armenian and the Georgian alphabets,
although based on Greek, have their own striking and

distinctive styles. The conversion of the Slavs resulted in the introduction of a new alphabet, the Cyrillic,
which has remained the alphabet of choice for Slavs who belong to
Orthodox Churches, like the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Russians. When
modern Romanian (Vlach) first began to be written, it also used the Cyrillic alphabet, but eventually both
Romanian and Albanian (also for many centuries unwritten) were rendered in the Latin alphabet, which thus
came to be used for spoken languages in the Balkans for the first time since Latin speaking
Roman colonists, and the Imperial Court in Constantinople, would have used it many
centuries earlier. Since one's alphabet usually went with one's religion in the Middle Ages, the Turks, and
other local converts to Islâm, used the Arabic alphabet; and Jews, especially Jews arriving after Spain
expelled them in 1492, used the Hebrew alphabet. We have already seen some exceptions to
the religion rule, however. Orthodox Christian Churches could be found
using different alphabets, Greek, Armenian, and Cyrillic (as well as, more
distantly, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic), which already had introduced an ethnic or national
dimension to the issue. This is also evident when the Orthodox Romanians and the largely Moslem Albanians
turn to the Latin alphabet, neither with the slightest intention of entering
into religious communion with Papal Roman (i.e. Frankish)
Catholicism. The Turks themselves, directed by Kemal Atatürk, followed suit. The Jews
of Turkey also fell into this, and it became possible to find Ladino, the language of the 15th century Jewish
refugees from Spain, being written in 20th century Istanbul synagogues using the Turkish version of the Latin
alphabet. Thus the ancient prestige of Latin Rome, and the modern dominance of Latinate Francia, has
exerted itself in modern Romania over Orthodox Christianity, Islâm, and Judaism --
even while the old Hebrew alphabet is now used for Hebrew revived as a spoken
language in modern Israel.
A characteristic of imperial states is an easy mixing of

peoples and languages. They all have too much to fear
from the imperial power for too much trouble to develop
between them. When the heavy imperial hand is
withdrawn, however, serious trouble can result. Thus, the
end of the British Empire resulted in the partitions, amid
war and massacre, of India, Palestine, and Cyprus. The
decline of Turkish power similarly uncorked more than a
century of conflict, continuing even in 2000, in the
Balkans. Border areas end up with the most ambiguious
identities and so can provoke the greatest conflict. Bosnia
and Herzegovina, which had been swapped back and
forth between Hungary and Romania and Serbia in the
12th and 13th centuries, and then were long held by the
Turks, ended up with a mixed population of Croats (Latin/
Catholic Christians), Serbs (Orthodox Christians), and
Moslem Bosnians (Bosniacs). All, as it happened, spoke
the same language, Serbo-Croatian, but written in
different alphabets. The disintegration of Yugoslavia, with
the lifting of the heavy imperial hand of Communism in
the 1990's, led to terrible fighting, massacres, and

atrocities, most famously carried out by the Serbs against

the others, but not unheard of from the Croatians,
Bosniacs, and Kosovar Albanians also. A famous bridge
in Mostar in Herzegovina, which had linked, actually and
symbolically, the Christian and Moslem parts of the city,
was destroyed (evidently by Croatians) in the fighting.
With a peace settlement patched up for Bosnia, the Serbs then turned their hand against the restless Albanian
majority of Kosovo, which the Serbs regarded as the Serbian heartland but which had contained few Serbs for
a long time. It is enough to make one yearn for the return of the Palaeologi. The first map above shows the
situation in 1817, after the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, rebellions by Serbia, and a final grant of
autonomy to Serbia. The Ionians Islands had originally belonged to Venice but were seized by Britain in the
Napoleonic Era and ceded to Britain by the Congress of Vienna.
Index
● Introduction
❍ 1817, Serbian Autonomy
❍ 1834, after Greek Independence
❍ 1858, after the Crimean War
● România, 1611-present
❍ 1875
❍ Congress of Berlin, 1878
● Montenegro, 1697-1918
❍ 1908
● Greece, 1821-present
❍ 1912, before the Balkan Wars
● Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present

❍ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I
● Bulgaria, 1879-present
❍ 1925, after World War I
● Albania, 1914-present
❍ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II
❍ 1947, after World War II
● Macedonia, 1991-present
❍ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing

● Armenia & Georgia, 1991-present
My source for the king lists was originally the Kingdoms

of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New
York, 1982]. Gurney has some errors and obscurities, but
I have not found any other work that has put so much
together in one volume. It is a shame that his list of the
Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia is incomplete, but it
also looks like it would be a very long list, since the Turks
changed Princes frequently, and in earlier periods the
succession may be imperfectly known. Recent heads of
state are largely from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln
zur Geschichte Europas by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp
Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002]. Feldkamp has a more complete
treatment of Wallachia and Moldavia, but, unfortunately,
only prior to the era shown here. The maps are based on
The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (Europe since 1815)
(Colin McEvedy, 1982), The Anchor Atlas of World
History, Volume II (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann,
Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978), The
Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia (John Channon with
Rob Hudson, 1995), and various prose histories, such as
The Ottoman Centuries (Lord Kinross, Morrow Quill,
1977).
The two maps, just above and to the right, show the
situation (1) after the War of Greek Independence (1821-
1829) and (2) after the Crimean War (1853-1856). To
save Greece, all the Great Powers were drawn in against
Turkey.
With Greek independence went increased territory for

Serbia, autonomy for Wallachia and Moldavia, and border
concessions to Russia.

In the Crimean War, Britain and France joined Turkey

against Russia, with much of the fighting taking place, as
one might expect from the name, in the Crimea. This
pretty much preserved the status quo for Turkey, though
the borders were extended against Russia along the Black
Sea. One change we see, however, was the unification of
Wallachia and Moldavia into the state of România.
1. ROMÂNIA
The Principalities of Wallachia and
Continued from "Rome and Romania," "Romanians" Moldavia have a continuous institutional
history back to the 14th Century, which
WALLACHIA means that this table simply continues
the table begun on the Rome and
Voivode, Romania page. Turkish rule, however,
Prince, MOLDAVIA led to the practice of
Radu Mihnea Governor, the appointment of
1611-1616, Greek tax farmers, the Phanariots (from
1623-1626 the Phanar section of Istanbul), as
Princes. Their job was simply to get as
Voivode, much money out of the land as possible,
Miron Prince, both for the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman
Leon Tomsa 1629-1632 Barnovschi Governor, government) and for themselves (the
Movila 1626-1629, reason to be a tax farmer). This was not
1633 good, or popular, for the Principalities,
but not much could be done about it until
Matei Basarab 1632-1654 Vasie Lupu 1634-1653
Russian power began to be felt in the
Constantine region. The Russian wars against Turkey
1654-1658 in the 19th Century led several times to
Serban
the occupation of Wallachia and
Grigore Ghica 1660-1664 Moldavia. After the Crimean War
(18453-1856) and, for a change,
Serban Austrian occupation (1854-1857), and a
1678-1688
Cantacuzino bad experience with a local candidate for
rule of the unified country, a European

prince, as in Greece and Bulgaria, was

Constantine Constantine
1688-1714 1685-1693
Brancoveeanu Cantemir
Phanariot Greek Tax Farming
Nicholas Mavrocordat 1711-1714

1716-1717,
1719-1730 Stephen
1714-1716
Cantacuzino brought in, Karl of Hohenzollern. The
Congress of Berlin recognized Karl
1741-1744 Michael Racovita 1717-? (Carol) and Romanian independence
(1878). With the Allies in World War I,
1726-1733,
Gregoy Ghica winning Transylvania from Hungary and
1735-1741, 1774-1777
Moldova from Russia -- Romania was
1744-1748
1741-1743, the biggest long term winner of the War
Constantine Mavrocordat in the Balkans -- Romania, after much
?-1769
internal strife, switched to the Axis in
Russian right of intervention, World War II, losing Moldova to the
Treaty of Kuchuk Karinarji, 1774 Soviet Union (seized in 1940, actually,
before Romania was a belligerent) and
Alexander part of Dobruja to Bulgaria. While
1774-1782
Ypsilanti Moldova is now independent, I have not
Alexander
?-1806 noticed any discussion of reunion with
Constantine Moruzi
1802-1806 Romania.
Ypsilanti
Rejecting the Cyrllic alphabet and the
Russian Occupation, 1806-1812
Turkish influenced "Rumania" (or
"Roumania") for the Latin alphabet and
John Caragea 1812-1818
the pure Latin România,
Scarlat Calimah 1812-1819
Alexander Sutu 1818-1821 Romania can now claim
that name as its own, with few
Russian Occupation, 1828-1834; remembering that it was the proper name
Governor Count Kisselev of the Roman (and the "Byzantine")
Empire. In the Middle Ages, "Romania"
Alexander Ghica 1834-1842 tended to refer to the contemporaneous
Mihai Sturdza 1834-1849 extent of the Empire, i.e. Anatolia and
Georghe Bibescu 1842-1848 the Balkans ("Asia and Europa" or "Rûm
and Rumelia"). The modern state might
Revolution in Wallachia, 1848; be said to be "Lesser Romania" in
Russian Occupation, 1848-1851; contrast to that "Greater Romania"; but
Crimean War, 1853-1856; this might be considered insulting by
Russian Occupation, 1853-1854; Romanians (though intentionally no
Austrian Occupation, 1854-1857 more so than "Lesser Armenia" in
Cilicia) and so is not likely to catch on.

The mysterious history of Romance

Alexander John Cuza of Moldavia 1859-1866
speakers in the Balkans, the Romanians
1866-1881 and Vlachs, whose existence is not
Charles Eitel Frederick noticed until the 12th Century and whose
of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, language is not attested until the 16th, is
King,
Carol I 1881-1914 treated separated in "The Vlach
Connection and Further Reflections on
Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878; Roman History." This is a story now
Russian Invasion, Romania proclaimed charged with the nationalism both of
independent, 1877; Romania and neighbors like Hungary.
Congress of Berlin, Romania Independent, 1878
Ferdinand 1914-1927
1927-1930,
Michael
1940-1947
Carol II 1930-1940
Ion Antonescu, pro-German dictator 1940-1944
Communist takeover, 1947
Constantin Parhon President, 1948-1952
Petru Groza 1952-1958
Ion Georghe Maurer 1958-1961
Georghe Georghiu-Dej 1961-1965
Chivu Stoica 1965-1967
Nicolae Ceauçescu 1967-1989, executed
Ion Iliescu 1989-1996, 2000-present
Emil Constantinescu 1996-2000
The marriages of
the Romanian
Royal Family
quickly connected
it to major
European,
especially British
and Greek, royalty.

Thus King
Ferdinand was the
grandson of a first
cousin of Queen
Victoria and Prince
Albert (Ferdinand
of Portugal, the
brother of
Augustus, Prince of
Coburg, who was
the father of
Ferdinand of
Bulgaria), and he
married one of their
own
granddaughters,
Marie of Saxe-
Coburg-Gotha.
King Carol II then
married Helen of Greece, who was a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, through her mother Sophia, the
sister of Kaiser Wilhlem II of Germany. All these connections, of course, profited the monarchy little in the
conflicts of fascism and communism that had the country under one form of dictatorship or another from
1940 to 1989.
Mediaeval România

The two maps above show the situation before and after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Note that by
then Britain had ceded the Ionians Islands to Greece (1864). In 1875 rebellions started in Bosnia and then
Bulgaria. The brutality with which these were suppressed aroused European opinion, and after some delay
Russia declared war. With some hard fighting, the Russians ended up capturing Adrianople and arriving at the
outskirts of Constantinople. The Treaty of San Stephano which ended the war mostly freed the Balkans, but
the Great Powers didn't like it. The Congress of Berlin rolled things back a bit. Serbia, România, and
Montenegro all became independent, with increases in territory, but Bulgaria was divided and merely allowed
autonomy. Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Novipazar were made protectorates of Austria. The map looked much
the same for many years, with Bulgaria annexing East Rumelia in 1885.
2. MONTENEGRO
The title of the
Prince-Bishop, orignal "Prince-
Danilo I Petrovic Bishops" of
1697-1737
Montenegro, vladika,
means "lord,
sovereign" or

"archbishop."
1737-1756
Sava Possessing one of the
d.1782
oldest traditions of
Coadjutor, local autonomy
Vasili under the Turks, and
1756-1766
a charming Italian
Stephen Coadjutor, version of its name
the Little 1766-1774 (for the "Black
Mountain," Qara
Coadjutor, Dagh in Turkish and
Sava
1774-1782 Crna Gora in Serbo-
Croatian), in the 20th
Peter I 1782-1830 century Montenegro
was nevertheless
Peter II 1830-1851 overshadowed by its
ethnic big brother,
Danilo II 1851-1860
Serbia. After World
1860-1910 War I, King Nicholas
was thrown out so
Nicholas King, that Montenegro could join Yugoslavia. And when Yugoslavia
1910-1918, collapsed, Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic to stick
d.1921 with Serbia. Religiously and lingustically this is understandable, but
the Montenegrans are ambivalent about the present Serbian
Union with Yugoslavia, 1918; government, neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic.
Independent, 3 June 3 2006 Since Montenegro represents Serbia's only access to the sea, through
the historic port of Kotor (Cattaro in Italian,
President, obtained from Austria after World War I), the fear
Filip Vujanovic
2006 is that, should the Montenegrans decide to go their own way, the Serbs
would use force, with enough local support to make resistance
abortive.
Nevertheless, Montenegro voted for independence in 2006 and seems to have successfully made the
transition, recognized by many governments and admitted as a member of the UN. This leaves Serbia as the
last state in Yugoslavia.
1908 was a big year in the Balkans. Bulgaria became

independent and Austria annexed most of its protectorate
from the Congress of Berlin. In Turkey, the Sultan,
"Abdul the Damned," was overthrown by the Young
Turks, whose impetus, unfortunately, was more merely
nationalistic than liberal. Meanwhile, Greece was able to
add Thessaly (1881, with adjustments in 1897). A
rebellion on Crete led to autonomy (1898) as a prelude to
Greek control (1912).

3. GREECE
The revolt of Greece against the Turks was one of the
Greek War of sensations of the 19th century, drawing partisans, like Lord
Independence, 1821-1829 Byron, from far and wide. Against the
Ottomans alone, the Greeks could well
leads revolt, have been successful, but the Sultan called
Alexander Ypsilanti in Muh.ammad 'Alî, who had modernized
1821-1828
the Eyptian army enough that the rebellion
Treaty of London, Britain, was being suppressed. This was too much,
France, & Russia support however, for "civilized" opinion. Not only
Greek independence, the Russians, the traditional protectors of
Battle of Navarino, Orthodox Christians in Turkey, but Britain
Egyptian fleet sunk, 1827 and France, inspired by all that Classical
Oxbridge learning, moved to help the
regent, Greeks, sinking Muh.ammad 'Alî's fleet at
Count Kapodistrias
1827-1830 Navarino in 1827. They say that the ships
are still visible at the bottom of the bay,
Russian War on Turkey, right by the island of Sphacteria, where the
1828-1829; Athenians defeated the Spartans early in
Peace of Adrianople, 1829, the Peloponnesian War, and just south of
London Conference, 1830, "Sandy Pylos," where a great Mycenaean
recognition of city supplied wise Nestor to the Greek
Greek Independence forces at Troy.
King,
Otto of Bavaria The house of Denmark supplied most the kings of modern
1832-1862
Greece. The kingship itself contained an interesting
ambiguity, since the Greek word basileus only meant "king"

in Classical Greek. In mediaeval Greek, basileus was used by

George I of Denmark 1863-1913
the Emperors of Romania to translate Latin imperator, i.e.
1913-1917, "emperor." So which was it? Was the ruler of Greece merely
Constantine I the King of the Hellenes, or the Emperor of the Romans
1920-1922
(Rhômaioi)? When the Greeks tried to seize a large part of
Alexander 1917-1920 western Asia Minor from the Turks in 1920, it looked like
restoring the Empire was the objective. Unfortunately, Turkey
1922-1924, remained, and remains, fundamentally stronger than Greece,
George II 1935-1941, and the Greek invasion only provoked the expulsion of all
1946-1947 Greeks from the mainland.
Republic, 1924-1935
Politically, Greece has swung back and forth in the 20th
President, century. Whether the monarchy was a good
Pavlos Konduriotis 1924-1926, thing was often in doubt, as it was briefly
1926-1929 abolished in the 20's and almost not reinstituted after World
War II. Then the Army took over in 1967, creating a
Theodoros Pangalos 1926 dictatorship that lasted until 1974. King Constantine II tried to
organize a counter-coup against the dictatorship, but then fled
Alexandros Zaimis 1929-1935 the country when he failed. Eventually the dictators abolished
the monarchy. When democracy was restored, after a stupid
German Occupation, 1941-1944 attempt to overthrow the government of Cyprus (provoking a
Turkish invasion), the Greeks nevertheless seemed to think
Paul 1947-1964 that Constantine had not been sufficiently vigorous in
opposing the dictatorship, so the monarchy was not restored.
1964-1973,
Constantine II Since then, Greece seems to have made a speciality of
exile 1967
electing anti-American, socialist governments, long after that
Military Dictatorship, 1967-1974 made any sense either geo-politically or economically. A
good example of recent foolishness was a nationwide strike
Giorgios Zoitakis 1967-1972 on May 17, 2001, with 10,000 protesters marching on the
Parliament in Athens. Protesting what? Well, the Greek state
1972-1973, pension system is nearly bankrupt, and the Government is
Giorgios Papadopoulos President, considering reforms, like cutting benefits and increasing the
1973 retirement age (to 65). Even the socialist government,
however, might have anticipated the offense to the Greek
Phaidon Gizikis 1973-1974 sense of entitlement that this would cause.
Republic, 1974 This kind of thing was all bad enough, but then 60 Minutes
reported (6 January 2002) that the Greek government, and
Michael Stasinopoulos 1974-1975
especially the dominant Socialist Party, appeared to be
Konstantin Tsatsos 1975-1980 tolerating a radical leftist terrorist organization, "17
November," that had been responsible for bombings and
1980-1985, murders for years. Not a single member of this organization
Konstantin Karamanlis had been arrested or even identified by the government, even
1990-1995
though unmasked members raided a police station for
weapons and could easily have been described. When

members of the Greek press were threatened for reporting on

Christos Sartzetakis 1985-1990
the organization, and police closed the investigations even of
Konstantin Stephanopoulos 1995-present murder cases against them, one began to wonder if a sort of
leftist death squad had come into existence in Greece. This
boded ill for the future of Greece, not only economically, but even as a functioning democracy. Now,
however, this situation is looking up. Perhaps under pressure to straighten things out if Greece wanted to host
the 2004 Olympics, the government now has arrested many members of "17 November," and the suspects
have been spilling details about the membership and operations of the organization [Los Angeles Times,
Wednesday, August 7, 2002, "Toppled From Their Pedestal"]. The actual popularity of the group now has
been damaged by the very willingness of its members to inform and cooperate in order to avoid harder
sentences. Happily, the 2004 Olympics came off without incident.
Although the Greek monarchy is now gone, the Greek Royal family remains impressively connected to two
of the most important centers of contemporary European royalty. The heirs of the British monarchy are now

all descendants,
through Prince
Philip, of King
George I of
Greece; and all
the Greek Royal
Family itself is
descended from
both Queen
Victoria and the
Emperor
Frederick III of
Germany. Then
Constantine II's
sister Sophia
married Juan
Carlos of Spain,
who was able to
do in Spain what
Constantine
wasn't able to in
Greece -- restore
democracy. Now
the heir of Spain,
Philip (Filipe), is
a descendant of
Kings George,
Constantine I,
and Paul of
Greece. One
might gather
from this
diagram that the
throne of Britain
is due to pass the
House of
Denmark and
Greece, or, more
precisely, the
House of Schleswig- Holstein- Sonderburg- Glucksburg; but on marrying Elizabeth, Prince Philip renounced
his rights to the Greek throne and his connection to the Greek Royal family, taking the name of his mother's
family, Battenberg/Mountbatten, so this connection is obscured. Now that royalty is more a matter of
international celebrity than of political power, Greece, by blaming Constantine for a bunch of military
dictators, is really missing out on its share of space in People magazine. This may seem like an absurdly
trivial consideration, but Greece depends heavily on foreign tourism; and foreign tourism depends heavily on

international perception and publicity. Space, free space, in People magazine means millions of dollars in
business for Greece. Instead, Greeks still have these ridiculous demonstrations for socialism (not to mention
the frightening terrorist activity) and nurse their historic grievance against Turkey.
A real basis for the latter concerns Cyprus. In 1974 the Greek generals tried to annex Cyprus to Greece. This
provoked a Turkish invasion and the de facto partition of the Island (and, happily for Greece, the overthrow
of the generals). The Turks even set up a separate Turkish Cypriot Republic, which is recognized by no one in
the world but Turkey. What this all really meant was that the effort to maintain Cyprus as a bi-national
Republic, since independence from Britain in 1960, had failed utterly. The obvious solution would seem to be
a real partition of the island with the Greek and Turkish parts annexed, respectively, by Greece and Turkey.
Since the Turks took rather more of the island than was warranted by the Turkish percentage of the
population (with Turkish settlers now introduced to fill the space), Greece could expect a territorial
adjustment in exchange for international recognition of Turkish separation. For some reason, however, the
international community still seems to expect a restoration of the bi-national Republic. With no real pressure
on Turkey, however, and no prospect of it, the bi-national Republic is certainly dead and buried, and the
realistic solution is not even being addressed.
Conspicuous Americans of Greek origin in recent days have been the stunning actress Melina Kanakaredes,
of the late NBC drama Providence, and the comedienne, actress, writer, and producer Nia Vardalos, whose
2002 movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, was an unexpected and astonishing success, with over $200 million
in domestic boxoffice. The movie good naturedly pokes fun at the father's old world paternalism and
exaggerated nationalistic claims (e.g. that the Japanese word kimono is actually of Greek origin), a familiar
phenomenon in Greek nationalism.
As noted above, it is now largely forgotten in Greece, and entirely outside of it, that in the Middle Ages the
Greeks called themselves "Romans" (Rhômaioi), because, as it happens, they were. For many centuries
Hellênes, which the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, and now the modern Greeks again, meant pagan
Greeks. The history of Mediaeval Greece is thus found with that of Rome and Byzantium.
The map for 1912 gives us the situation right before the
Balkan Wars. Turkish holdings in Europe still extend all
the way to the Adriatic, including Albania which,
although largely Moslem, has already been restless for
independence.

4. SERBIA & YUGOSLAVIA
George Petrovic, leads revolt,

Kara ("Black") George 1804-1813
leads revolt,
1815-1817;
Milos Obrenovic Prince,
1817-1839,
1858-1860
Milan I 1839
1839-1842,
Michael
1860-1868
Alexander Karadjordjevic
1842-1858
(Karageorgevich)
1868-1882
Milan II Obrenovic
King,
1882-1889
1889-1903,
Alexander I
murdered
1903-1921
Peter I
Karadjordjevic King of Yugoslavia,
1919-1921

Regent,
1918-1921
Alexander II
1921-1934
Peter II 1934-1945
Regent,
Paul
1934-1941
German & Italian Occupation, 1941-1943 In the shadow of the Napoleonic Wars and a Russian
war with Turkey, Serbia began the Balkan independence
German Occupation, 1943-1945
movement against Turkey with a long revolt that led to
Communist takeover, 1945 an Ottoman grant of autonomy. The rivalry of the two
leaders of the revolt, Milosh Obrenovic and "Black"
Ivan Ribar 1945-1953 George Petrovic, however, led to a century of
sometimes bloodly conflict between their two families,
Josip Broz Tito 1953-1980 culminating in a coup in 1903 when King Alexander I
was murdered. The Congress of Vienna in 1878 granted
Lazar Kolisevski 1980 Serbia full independence, and the status of a Kingdom
followed shortly. The Serbian dream was not just to
Cvijetin Mijatovic 1980-1981 unite all Serbian speakers remaining
in Bosnia, Montenegro, Hungary,
Sergej Kraiger 1981-1982
and Turkey, but all of the "Southern
Petar Stambolic 1982-1983 Slavs," including the Croatians,
Slovenians, and perhaps even
Mika Spiljak 1983-1984 Bulgarians. In the aftermath of
World War I, which began with the
Veselin Ðuranovic 1984-1985 Serbian inspired assassination of the
Archduke Francis Ferdinand of
Radovan Vlaikovic 1985-1986 Austria in Sarajevo, this dream was
realized in the establishment of
Sinan Hasani 1986-1987 Yugoslavia, which contained all the
Southern Slavs except for Bulgaria,
Lazar Mojsov 1987-1988
which had its own fiercely separate
Raif Dizdarevic 1988-1989 traditions and ambitions. Macedonia, however, had been
wrested from Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War
Janez Drnovsek 1989-1990 (1913). These benefits were substantially due to the
Russians, to whom the Serbs looked as the protectors
Borisav Jovic 1990-1991 and patrons of the Orthodox Slavs. World War I
formally began when Russia declared war on Austria to
Stjepan Mesic 1991 protect the Serbs. The flags of both Serbia and
Yugoslavia are like the tricolor flag of Russia, with just
Branko Kostic 1991 a different arrangement of the stripes. The ethnic

tensions between Orthodox Serbs and

Dobrica Cosic 1992-1993
Catholic Slovenes and Croatians (and
Zoran Lilic 1993-1997 others), however, manifested
themselves both in World War II, when the Germans
Srdjan Bozovic 1997 found willing allies in the Croatians, and with the Fall of
Communism, when the growth of democracy unmasked
Slobodan Milosevic 1997-2000 the separatist hostilities again. Yugoslavia broke up,
with bitter fighting, atrocities, and "ethnic cleansing" as
Vojislav Kostunica 2000-present the various communities and new states sought to secure
territory.
Although all the groups have been guilty of offenses, the consenus of international
Former Yugoslav
observers and investigators, not to mention the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague,
Republics
seems to be that the Serbs, seeking to maintain a dominant position and initially with
a military advantage, are more guilty than others, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. Slovenia
The future remains uncertain, as NATO/UN peacekeeping forces are the only thing
that seems to restrain the violence from breaking out again in Bosnia, and the status Croatia
of Kosovo is open, as Serbs flee the retaliation of the Albanians, which has extended
to vandalizing churches and monasteries, and the Albanians have no interest in being Bosnia Herzegovina
returned to Serbia. All the now stands between "Yugoslavia" being just Serbia is the
continued adherence of Montenegro. The two countries are no different ethnically, Macedonia
linguistically, or religiously. All that is different is history, which is enough to fuel a
Montenegran independence movement. Be that as it may, the combined state has essentially become Serbia
again.
Mediaeval Serbia
The Balkan Wars all but eliminated Turkey in Europe. In

the First War (1912-1913), everyone attacked Turkey,
which even lost Adrianople to Bulgaria. Serbia was going
to annex Albania, but the Great Powers required that it
become an independent state. The Serbs were not happy
about that, and Bulgaria wasn't happy about its share
either. So the Second War (1913) featured everyone
against Bulgaria, which lost Macedonia to Serbia,
Adrianople to Turkey, and some territory south of the
Danube to România. Meanwhile, Italy had been at war
with Turkey in 1912 and had obtained Libya and, on this
map, the Dodecanese Islands.

5. BULGARIA Bulgaria was the last of

the mediaeval Balkan
Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878
states to regain
Alexander of complete independence
Prince,
Battenberg from Turkey. Although
1879-1886
usually regarded as a
Prince, Kingdom, rather more
1887-1908 was implied when King
Ferdinand of Ferdinand (a second
Saxe-Coberg-Gotha King or Czar, cousin of Edward VII
1908-1918 of England) also called
himself "Tsar." He is
Boris III 1918-1943 actually supposed to
have carried around the
Simeon II 1943-1946 vestments (obtained
from a theatrical
Regent, costumer) of a Roman (/
Cyril
1943-1944 Byzantine) Emperor.
This was no less than
Communist takeover, 1946
what most of the
Vasil Petrov Kolarov 1946-1947 successor states
wanted, but the
Mintscho Naitschev 1947-1950 Bulgarians came
closest to the physical
Georgi Damjanov 1950-1958 heart of mediaeval
Romania in the First
Dimitar Ganev 1958-1964 Balkan War (1912-
1913) when they
Georgi Traikov 1964-1971
Todor Schivkov 1971-1989
Petar Mladenov 1989-1990

occupied Adrianople and drew near

Schelju Schelev 1990-1997
Constantinople. This advantage, however, was
Petar Stojanov 1997-2001 lost in the Second Balkan War (1913), when
Bulgaria took on all the other belligerents from
Georgi Parvanov 2001-present the First War, largely in a dispute with Serbia
over Macedonia (where a dialect or near relative
of Bulgarian was spoken), and was overwhelmingly defeated. Adrianople went back to
Turkey, Macedonia went to Serbia, and other territories went to Greece and Romania. Still
stinging from this defeat, Bulgaria threw its lot with the Axis in World War I, which cost it
access to the Aegean Sea. The same strategy was followed in World War II, where the
wartime borders show us the Bulgarian wish list, with gains from Serbia, Romania, and Greece (Turkey was
not in the War). The post-War settlement erased those gains, except against Romania, which had also been a
member of the Axis. Today Macedonia has broken away from Yugoslavia, but to become independent rather
than a part of Bulgaria. Note that the numbering of Kings Boris III and Simeon II goes back to the original
mediaeval Bulgarian Tsars.
Mediaeval Bulgaria, Qaghans & Tsars

Mediaeval Bulgaria, Asens
Mediaeval Bulgaria, Terters
Trouble over Bosnia began World War I, when a member

of a Serbian "Black Hand" assassination squad killed the
Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Austria ended up
declaring war on Serbia, Russia on Austria, and Germany
on Russia. The Germans then, of course, invaded France,
Russia's ally, and did so through Belgium, violating
recognized Belgian neutrality and bringing Britain into
the War. Turkey and Bulgaria, the losers of the Balkan
Wars, sided with Germany and Austria, while the other
Balkan countries went with the Allies (Greece reluctantly
-- Queen Sophia was Kaiser Wilhelm's sister). The result
was losses for Bulgaria and gains for all the Allies, with
Serbia orchestrating the formation of Yugoslavia from
Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other remants of
Austria-Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. România got
Transylvania from Hungary and also gains from Russia,
which was distracted by the Russian Revolution and Civil
War. Bulgaria's loss of its Aegean coast would prove
fortunate for the region when it later went communist.
However little Greece and Turkey liked each other, it was
convenient for them as Western allies to have a land
frontier.

6. ALBANIA
Just about the poorest and least educated people in Europe,
Ismail Kemal Bey 1912-1914 the Albanians had unexpected
independence thrust upon them after the
King, First Balkan War (1912-1913) and then
Wilhelm of Wied 1914, found themselves locked into paranoid
d.1945 and pauperized isolation by a particularly
nasty and megalomanaical
Essad Pasha Toptani 1914-1916 Communist regime after
World War II, under longtime Communist Party Chief
Austrian Occupation, 1916-1918 Enver Hoxha. After the schism between Comminist China
and the Soviet Union, for many years Albania was China's
Turchan Pasha 1919-1920 only international ally and supporter, regularly submitting
the PRC for membership in the United Nations. But
Regency Council, 1920-1924
eventually, after membership, China began allowing
Bishop Fan Noli 1924 Capitalism, and Albania had to retreat into its own paranoid
isolation as the last surviving Stalinist dictatorship. Since
1925-1928 Hoxha expected the Capitalists to invade at any time, the
Albanian landscape became covered with small bunkers, to
Ahmet Zogu, defend every inch. The country, which had always been poor
King,
Zog I anyway, became even poorer in Hoxha's grip, and it is
1928-1939
d.1961 nowhere near even recovering, much less developing to the
level of its European neighbors. The Fall of Communism
Italian & German Occupation, 1939-1943 even witnessed large numbers of Albanians attempting to
flee to Italy by boat. Among the mysterious, autochthonous
King, peoples of the Balkans, the Albanians were strongly
Victor Emanuel (III)
1939-1943 Latinized under Rome, Islamicized under Turkey, coveted
by Italy and Serbia, and include substantial communities in
German Occupation, 1943-1945
Greece (denied by Greece, which officially has no ethnic
Communist takeover, minorities). Like a number of peoples in the Balkans, they
Enver Hoxha Dictatorship, 1945-1985 may not know just what to make of themselves in the
modern world, much less how their society is supposed to
Omer Nishani 1946-1953 function. Recent conspicuous Americans of Albanian
heritage have been the Belushis, John and his brother Jim,
Haji Leschi 1953-1982 and Sandra Bullock (whose mother is German and father,
reportedly, of Albanian derivation). One of John Belushi's
Ramiz Alia 1982-1992 memorable roles on Saturday Night Live was in the ongoing
"Greek Diner" skits. The Belushis, indeed, had run such a
Sali Berisha 1992-1997 diner in Chicago.
Rexhep Kemal Mejdani 1997-present
As the Ottoman Empire declined in strength, and Christians

in the Balkans found European allies who favored their

Pretender,
Leka independence, like Britain for Greece and Russia for Serbia,
1961-present
Romania, and Bulgaria, the Balkans became the scene of one
conflict after another. The Turks were not entirely out of the picture until 1913, and this still left a number of
the successor states, especially Bulgaria and Serbia, not entirely happy with their shares. The Serbs also
pursued a grievance against Austria-Hungary, which inspired the assassination of the Archduke Francis
Ferdinand in 1914, precipitating World War I. In the end the Serbs realized their dream of "Yugoslavia," the
union of all the "Southern Slavs." The dream of the Serbs, however, was not necessarily the dream of all their
fellow Yugoslavs. Macedonians really spoke a dialect of Bulgarian, and would have been part of Bulgaria if
the Bulgarians had had their way. Slovenia, which historically had been part of Austria, and Croatia, which
historically had been part of Hungary, were divided from the Serbs by religion, Catholicism versus Serbian
Orthodoxy, and history, the Latin West versus the Greek, Slavonic, and Turkish East, even though both the
Serbs and Croatians really spoke the same language -- Serbo-Croatian. Bosnia-Herzegovina was a messy
mixture of Serbs, Croatians, and those from both groups who had converted to Islam during the long Turkish
presence (the Bosniacs).
For a long time the jumble of ethnic groups in Yugoslavia

didn't seem to make too much difference. A preview of
the future, however, was evident when the Germans didn't
have much trouble getting Croatians to kill Serbs and
others in World War II. The map at left shows the
boundaries the way the Germans sorted them out during
the War. Hungary, Croatia, România, and Bulgaria were
all German allies. Hungary, of course, wanted
Transylvania back, but this would have to be at the
expense of another German ally, so Hitler compromised
by giving Hungary a part (the part with the most
Hungarians) of Transylvania, but then compensated
România with extra territory in the Ukraine (going off the
map). Bulgaria got an expanded Aegean coast and a
major goal for some time, Macedonia. While Albania was
occupied by Italy, it was nevertheless expanded on what
would have been Albanian nationalist principles, with
large pieces of Kosovo and Eprius. Banat was a
Romanian speaking region of Yugoslavia which, for
some reason, was made independent rather than ceded to
România. The Ionian Islands were directly annexed to
Italy, probably because they had belonged to Venice for
some centuries. The principle of Italian irredentism in the
Adriatic was that any place that had ever had an Italian
name should belong to Italy.
On the post-World War II map, România has lost

considerable territory to the Soviet Union, including what

Stalin took in 1940 (now Moldova), and the territory that
had been gotten from Bulgaria in 1913. Otherwise, pre-
War boundaries were restored. Marshall Tito (a Croat),
after a successful Communist insurgency against the
Germans, got Yugoslavia put back together, broke with
Stalin, helped found the "unaligned" movement in the
Cold War, and for many years appeared to govern a
happy and prosperous compromise between East and
West -- a favorite vacation destination for Europeans.
With the Fall of Communism, however, the whole

business came unglued. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia,
and most Bosnians wanted to go their own way. The
dream of the Serbs crumbled, but their vision of destiny
and grievance did not. First they moved against Croatia,
either as a preemptive attack or in retaliation for the
actions of the dictatorial Croatian leader, Franjo Tudjman,
against resident Serbs. It is now a little hard to determine
who started it; but the Serbs, tempted by military
superiority, invaded in a way that looked more like
conquest than humanitarianism. Later, when the Serbs
were tied up in Bosnia and Croatia had built up its forces,
Tudjman really did expel and massacre Serbs, but the
international community was already prepared to excuse
or ignore that as just retaliation. Both Serbia and Croatia, sometimes in cooperation, then turned on Bosnia,
which soon became a byeword for massacre and atrocities, including mass rapes, such had not been seen in
the Balkans since World War II. The Serbs, at the very least, handled their public relations very poorly.
Photos of emaciated prisoners in Serbian concentration camps immediately lost them the international
propaganda war. Although the Croatians and Bosniacs certainly committed some atrocities themselves, the
Serbian massacres seemed larger, more blatant, and more insolent and defiant. While Tudjman might well
have been prosecuted as a war criminal (he is now dead), it has mainly been the Serbs, and the former
President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who have been the targets of war crime prosecutions by the
Interntional Tribunal at the Hague. While this has not been entirely fair to the Serbs, it does not excuse them
from what was indeed done. By whining about their own centuries of oppression, while slaughtering
Moslems, the Serbs managed to become some of the most self-righteous war criminals within memory. Some
NATO bombing, peacekeepers on the ground, arrests, and war crimes trials finally put some kind of lid on the
conflict in Bosnia. But many guessed what was coming next. Because of the Croatian offensive and version
of "ethnic cleansing," some Serbs then fled all the way to....Kosovo.
7. MACEDONIA
Claimed by Bulgaria and seized by Serbia in the Balkan Wars,
Nikola Kljusev 1991-1999 Macedonia was nevertheless allowed to leave Yugoslavia in 1991 with a
minimum of hassle. Much more hassle came from Greece, which felt
threatened by this tiny state using the name "Macedonia" and,

apparently, identifying itself with the Macedonia of Alexander the

Savo Klimovoski 1999
Great. The new flag featured the "Star of Vergina," from the tomb of
Boris Trajkovski 1999-present Philip II of Macedon. This implied Macedonian
designs on northern Greece, also containing part of
historic Macedonia; and indeed Macedonians did express some claims there. I even saw
stickers on lampposts in New York City proclaiming "Macedonia is Greek!" What this
was supposed to mean was not going to be obvious to anyone. It made it sound like
Greece itself had designs on the new Republic of Macedonia. Did anyone even in New
York City know, or care, what this was all about? Probably not.
As it happened, Greece initially blocked admission of Macedonia to the United Nations. The flag was
modified and the country is now usually referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia" (FYRM). Bulgaria seems to have given up claims to Macedonia, but I am still not clear whether
Macedonian is or is not a dialect of Bulgaria. There are ways to determine this. Otherwise, the region has
simply never been anything but "Macedonia."
I have received correspondence from a couple of Greeks disputing this, contending that the territory of the
FYRM was never in historic Macedonia. Well, there is going to be considerable uncertainty about all ancient
boundaries, and there is no telling how far Philip II's Macedonia extended north. Chances are it was well into
FYRM territory (probably the whole valley of the Vardar/Axios River). Nevertheless, for Roman Macedonia
the boundaries are better known. The capital of the FYRM, Skopje (Roman Scupi), was definitely in the early
Roman province of Moesia Superior (later Dacia Mediterranea). However, the boundary of Moesia was
immediately south of Skopje, which itself is quite close to the northern boundary of the FYRM. One map in
the Atlas of the Roman World (Tim Cornell & John Matthews, Facts on File Publications, 1982, 1988, p.75)
shows the bend of the Axius (Axios/Vardar) River, with Scupi on the north bank, as the actual northern
boundary of Macedonia. Other maps (pp.141, 146) show some of the bend itself in Moesia, but this still
leaves most of the territory of the FYRM in Roman Macedonia. The Roman cities of Stobi (near modern
Stip), Lychnidus (modern Ohrid), and Heraclea Lyncestis (near modern Bitola) were all in Roman Macedonia
and in the present FYRM. There is agreement on this in the Atlas of Classical History (Richard J.A. Talbert,
Routledge, 1985, 1989, p.143).
For some, Macedonian claims to Greek Macedonia may be based on the territorial integrity of the Macedonia
of Philip II and on the presumed ethnic identity of the modern Macedonians with the ancient. This kind of
claim cannot now be taken seriously, both because ancient boundaries are going to mean nothing in modern
international law and because the modern Macedonians speak a Slavic language which certainly has nothing
to do with the (albeit poorly attested) language of the ancient Macedonians. The other
basis of Macedonian claims, however, is more serious, and that concerns Macedonians
living in Greece. The Greeks deny that there is any such presence; but then Greece officially denies that there
are any ethnic minorities in Greece. Linguistic maps of Greece in the 19th century show areas of speakers of
Albanian, Vlach, Macedonian, and even Turkish. The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume II (Hermann
Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978) shows Macedonian
speakers extending from south of Skopje (Üsküp in Turkish, in a partially Albanian speaking area,
continguous with Kosovo) all the way down to Thessalonica (p.120). If there are no longer Macedonian
speakers in the modern Greek part of this area (only acquired in 1913), then there is some explaining to do. If
Greece expelled the Macedonians, suppressed their language, or got them to leave through harassment or

oppressive policies, none of these are going to be admissions to the credit of Greece, or admissions likely to
be made, for just such a reason. At the very least, the FYRM can reasonably ask for an accounting on this
issue.
I am informed that Greeks would be happy with the FYRM simply being called "Northern Macedonia." This
is a little silly and is not going to make any difference in any Macedonian claims or
possible threat against Greece. A parallel situation in Europe is actually the relationship of
Luxembourg to Belgium. When Belgium became independent of the Netherlands in 1830,
it took with it a very large part of Luxembourg. This area of Belgium is still called
"Luxembourg." I have never heard that Luxembourg, which itself became independent of
the Netherlands in 1890, today makes any claims against Belgium. But even if it did, tiny
Luxembourg, although with the highest per capita income in the world, would not
constitute any kind of real threat. Poor and tiny Macedonia is not going to constitute any more of a threat to
Greece. If Macedonian guerrillas were crossing over into Greece, this would be a matter of real concern and
complaint, but I do not understand that anything of the sort has happened; and even if it did, Greece would
have no difficulty knowing where to direct counter-action.
As it has happened, the problem of guerrillas has troubled the FYRM itself. Albanian refugees inundated
northern Macedonia in 1999, where there was already, as noted, an Albanian community. With them came
armed Albanians who, having lost in battle with the Serbs, were interested in "liberating" northern
Macedonia. They succeeded no better there, but for a while there was considerable danger of a wider conflict.
Meanwhile, Macedonia is the poorest of the former Yugoslav Republics, with a lower per capita income even
than Albania. This puts it perilously close to being the poorest country in Europe -- though it is probably safe
from that, since Moldova has a per capita income of not much over $300, while Macedonia's is more than
$1500. "Room for improvement" hardly begins to tell the tale. The dispute over Macedonia's name and claims
doesn't even begin to address the real problem economic development in the FYRM and elsewhere in the
Balkans.
A major part of Serbia itself since 1913, the province of

Kosovo was only 10% Serb in population. Most of the
rest were Albanian Moslems, who had been deprived of
the autonomy they had under the old Yugoslavia and
were now beginning to fight for independence through
the radical Islamic "Kosova Liberation Army" (KLA).
What many observers expected, then, was that the Serbs
would turn the "ethnic cleansing" campaign made famous
in Bosnia to the problem of too many Albanians,
especially rebellious Albanians, in Kosovo. With the UN
and the NATO allies already energized about Bosnia,
simple defiance was not going to work for the Serbs the
way it might have if action had been taken against
Kosovo before all the events in Bosnia. But defiance was
the approach that the Serbs took, over a land to which
they emotionally claimed "historic rights," but which had
mostly been occupied by others since the 17th century

and had been in Serbian hands only since 1913. Although

many Serbs now cite atrocities during World War II or
say there was even "ethnic cleansing" against them under
Tito, their claim to Kosovo is mainly as part of
"historic" (i.e. 14th century) Serbia.
Unfortunately, in modern Europe several wars have been

fought between France and Germany, Italy and Austria,
Germany and Poland, etc., over many such "historic"
claims. Such things made a poor rationale for dictatorial
and terrorist measures, especially by an undemocratic
country. When NATO decided to move against Serbian measures in Kosovo in March 1999, we ended up
with the next round of the ongoing Balkans War. This time, however, the naked preference of the Russians
for the Orthodox Serbs over the Moslem Albanians, and similar sentiments evidently shared by Greeks and
others, left the Albanians with no local friends at all. Albania itself has been a basket case of anarchy and
corruption almost the whole time since the end of Communism there. But the outcome of such a conflict was
very problematic when the NATO countries would rather fight a quick, high tech war on the cheap, before
body bags and anti-war sentiment upsets things at home, while the Serbs, who learned their ruthlessness from
Marshal Tito, wanted nothing better than to appear as martyrs of America, even while burning villages and
driving people out of Kosovo. A century of war thus ended more or less as it began, with Serbian grievance
dragging others into a war, while NATO, unable to commit on the ground, ended up bombing civilian
infrastructure in Serbia, contrary to international law, in a rapidly growing "total war."
In June 1999, the Serbs finally gave in, after heavy bombing of Serbia itself, and the Kosovars, driving out
the remaining Serbs of Kosovo and attempting to provoke an Albanian rising in Macedonia, have behaved
more or less the way the Serbs did. But Kosovo now seems headed for long term autonomy or even
independence.

Ottoman Sult.âns
Home Page
Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights
Reserved

GERMANIA: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Vikings, Orkney, etc.
SUCCESSORS OF ROME:
GERMANIA, 395-774
At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a
Gothic Empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what
Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the
ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without
law, a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different
glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be
acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is
impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire.
Athaulf, King of the Visigoths [Orosius, Adversum Paganos, translated in Stephen Williams,
Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, Routledge, 1985, 2000, p.218]
Introduction
Six major German tribes, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards,
and the Franks participated in the fragmentation and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The
Vandals were actually two tribes, the Asding and the Siling Vandals. Several other tribes were also
involved, the Alans
and the Suevi in
particular, though the
Alans were an Iranian
steppe people, not
Germans. The six
major tribes, however,
founded significant
kingdoms. All of them
disappeared except one,
the Franks, who gave
their name to Western Europe in languages like Arabic. The diagram illustrates the fate of the kingdoms,
two overthrown by the Franks, two by Romania, and one by Islâm. The parts of Italy preserved from the
Lombards by the Romans later, of course, fell to the Franks too (if then ceded to the Pope); and North
http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm (1 of 35)8/25/2006 5:33:50 AM

Africa, retrieved by the Romans from the Vandals, then went to Islâm. The Frankish kingdom breaks up
into the elements of Mediaeval European history. Although Burgundy and Lorraine are now gone as such,
Switzerland and Monaco are Modern pieces of the former, and the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg
are Modern pieces of the latter.
Besides the German tribes that entered and conquered or damaged the Western Roman Empire, there were
the tribes that remained back in Germany proper. These were the Saxons, the Alemanni, the Thuringians,
and the Rugians. When the Rugians were destroyed by Odoacer in 487, a new confederation of Germans
formed in their place, the Bavarians. All these tribes in Germany were eventually subjugated by the
Franks, the Alemanni in 496 and 505, the Thuringians in 531, the Bavarians at some point after 553, and
then finally the Saxons by 804. When Germany eventually separated as East Francia, the old tribal areas
assumed new identities as the Stem Duchies.
Index
● Visigoths
❍ Suevi
❍ Early Gothic History
● Burgundians
● Vandals
● Ostrogoths
● Lombards
❍ Dukes of Benevento
● Thuringians
❍ Dukes of Thuringia
● Bavarians
● Alemanni
● Saxons
● Franks
● Anglo-Saxon England
❍ Kings of Kent
■ Archbishops of Canterbury
❍ Kings of Sussex
❍ Kings of Northumbria
❍ Kings of Essex
❍ Kings of Mercia
❍ Kings of East Anglia
❍ Kings of Wessex

● Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia

❍ Runes
❍ Kings of Dermark, Norway, Sweden
❍ Earls of Orkney
My sources for all these tables and maps can be found on the page for Francia and in "Decadence, Rome
and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History." In particular,
genealogies for the German kingdoms can be found in the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur
europäischen Geschichte, Volume III, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser, Ergänzungsband
[Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Second Edition, 2001].
This page continues and supplements the material in "Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD".
The Visigoths, 395-711
None of six main German tribes, save one, survived the early part of the Middle Ages. Only the Franks
created an enduring state. The principal immediate damage to the Empire was done by the Visigoths, who,
instead of being assimilated like earlier barbarians settled on Roman
territory, which would have been the plan

VISIGOTHS
of Valens, could not be properly subdued by Theodosius I.
Alaric I 395-410 They then began to operate against the Empire. With the
attention of Stilicho, left by Theodosius in charge of the
Athaulf (Ataulfo) 410-415 Army, occupied by the Visigoths, the Western frontiers were
stripped of troops. On January 1, 407, the Alans, Vandals, and
Sigeric 415 Suevi crossed a frozen Rhine to engage in an uncontested
romp through Gaul and Spain. Settling in Spain in 409, these
Wallia 415-417 tribes were never troubled by the Romans. Instead, the
defeat of Vandals &

Alans in Spain, 417
Theodoric I 417-451
withdrawal to Aquitaine, 418; killed

by Huns, battle of Chalôns-sur-Marne
(otherwise known as the Campus
Mauriacus or the Catalaunian
Plains), 451

Visigoths, who soon became

Thorismund 451-453 SUEVI
semi-independent allies of the
Theodoric II 453-466 Western Emperors and settled Hermeric 409-438
in Aquitaine, turned upon
invades Spain, defeats Suevi, 456 them. In 416, the Visigoths Rechila 428-448
broke up the kingdoms of the
Euric (Eurico) I 466-484 Alans and the Siling Vandals, Mérida, 439;
leaving the Suevi and Asding Seville, 441
Alaric (Alarico) II 484-507 Vandals as potential allies
against possible Roman Rechiar(ius) 448-456
defeated by Franks, revival.
driven from Gaul, 507 Peace with Romans, 452;
defeated & killed by
The Suevi became an
508-511, Visigoths, 456
Amalaric (Amalarico) established Kingdom in Spain,
526-531
with the Kings detailed in the Aioulf 456-467
capital at Toledo, 527 table at right. When the
Visigoths expanded from Maldras 467-460
Ostrogoths, Aquitaine into Spain, the Suevi
493-526 continued in the northwest. The Richimund 460-c.463
Theodoric the Great
Kingdom survived until the
511-526 Visigoths completed their Frumar 460-c.465
conquest of Iberia in 585.
Theudes (Theudis) 531-548 Meanwhile, in 428, the Asding Remisund c.463-?
Vandals crossed over into
Theudegisel 548-549 unknown kings
Africa. By 442 they had
Agila I 549-554 established themselves, ending Carriaric c.550-559
the ancient source of grain for
Romans in Cartagena Roman Italy. With the Western Theodemar 559-570
& Andalusia, 551 Empire obviously in collapse,
the Visigoths then expanded Catholic, 561
Athanagild(o) 554-567 into much of the rest of Gaul
and Spain (469-478). The Miro 570-582
Theodomir 567-571 Visigothic Kingdom, pushed
entirely into Spain by the Eboric 582-584
Leuva (Leova) I 571-572 Franks (507), absorbing the
Andeca 584-585
Suevi (584), and converting
Leu(/o)vigild(o) 572-586 from Arianism to orthodox Visigoth conquest
Catholicism (589), endured
Reccared(o) I 586-601
until the armies of Islâm arrived in 711. The history of Spain
Catholic, 587, Kingdom, 589 is then largely of Islâmic Spain, until the Christian north
revives and Islâm power goes into decline, around the turn of
Leova II 601-603 the millennium. Local rulers of Islâmic Spain can be found as
follows:
Witterich 603-610

Gundemar 610-612
Sisebut (Sisebur) 612-621
Reccared II 621
Swintilla (Suinthila) 621-631
Sisenand(o) 631-636
Chintila 636-640
Tulga 640-642
Chindaswind(/suinto) 642-653
Recdeswinth 653-672
Wamba 672-680
Euric (Erwig) II 680-687
E(r)gica 687-702
Witiza 702-709
Roderic (Rodrigo) 709-711
Agila II 711-714
Overthrown by Omayyads,
711; Christian Kingdom of
Asturias, 718

● The Omayyad Amirs, 756-912

● The Omayyad Caliphs, 912-1031
● The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1010-1114
❍ The Jahwarids of Cordova
❍ Murcia
❍ The 'Abbâdids of Seville
❍ The H.ammûdids of Málaga
❍ The Zîrids of Granada
❍ Aft.asids of Badajoz
❍ The 'Âmirids of Valencia
❍ The Dhu'n-Nûnids of Toledo
❍ The Banû Mujâhid of Denia and Majorca
❍ The Tujîbids of Saragossa
❍ The Hûdids of Saragossa
● The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD

● The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1145-1266
❍ Cordova
❍ Valencia
❍ Murcia
❍ The Banû Ghâniya of Majorca
● The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238

● The Nas.rid Sult.âns of Granada, 1238-1492 AD
❍ The Hûdids of Murcia
While the Visigoths are gone before we get the classic form of Mediaeval history, with the presence of
Islam, Visigothic Spain nevertheless contributed substantially to the form that Mediaeval Western
European (Frankish/Latin) culture would take. It did this in great measure through the work of St. Isidore
of Seville (c.560-636). Isidore's massive 20 volume encyclopedia, the Etymologies or Orîginês, drew on all
sources available to him, many now lost (and while Spain was still in easy and regular contact with
Constantinople), to provide the basis for education for centuries, perhaps 800 years, to come. Thus we start
off with the seven "liberal arts," in the form of the trivium (hence "trival"), grammar, rhetoric, and logic,
and the quadrivium, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. We end up with something like the first
Mediaeval summa, one not confined to any particular subject, but to all subjects. As Paul Johnson says, it
"founded a civilization" [A History of Christianity, Touchstone, 1976, p.154]. Seville itself, however,
would soon belong to another civilization.
Slightly different lists of Visigothic Kings are given by the sources. The Oxford Dynasties of the World, by
John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, p.59] looks good. The original version here was
based on the Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982] and Bruce R.
Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I've tried to combine and reconcile the lists to an extent, but I have no way

of knowing at the moment which dates are preferable.
Many Visigothic names survive into modern Spanish. Of the Kings, the name of Rodrigo seems the most
obvious example. Later names like Ferdinand (Ferdinando, Fernando) are also examples.
The origin and history of the Goths is a matter of great interest, dispute, and speculation. The island of
Gotland off the coast of Sweden seems to testify to the location and antiquity of the name, but there is no
real historical evidence linking the Goths to it, apart from much later, and legendary, accounts, like the
history of the Goths completed in 551 by Jordanes, a Goth himself -- although it seems to be based on a
larger history by Cassiodorus. What is better known is that in the first centuries A.D.
German tribes expanded from the Baltic & North Sea coasts of Germany south and
east along the frontier of the Roman Empire. In so doing they interacted with Roman
culture, even developing their own writing system, the Runes. By the third century,
the Goths were in the forefront of this expansion, passing around the Roman salient of Dacia, shown on the
following map.
From this
position, in
251 the
Goths raided
into the
Balkans,
killing the
Emperors
Decius and
Herennius.
In 267 the
Goths even
sailed down
into Roman
territory, in a
kind of
anticipation
of the
Viking (or
Varangian)
raids of later
centuries,
sacking
Athens -- though, not really being seafaring themselves, they used ships from Greek colonials in the Crimea
(the Cimmerian Bosporus) and nearby. The Emperor Gallienus inflicted some setbacks on them, before he
was murdered, but they were finally defeated in 269 at the battle of Naissus by Claudius II, henceforth
known as "Gothicus." Nevertheless, Aurelian then withdrew Roman legions and settlers from Dacia in 271.
By then some of the Goths were moving on, and soon different Gothic communities can be distinguished.
Previously, it was thought that Visigoths and Ostrogoths familiar from later history were already

discernable. However, this now looks anachronistic, as discussed elsewhere. Gothic power did expand
through the Ukraine. Eventually, it may have extended all the way to the Don, and then spread north, by
some (questionable) reckonings all the way back to the Baltic. The Gothic "empire" of King Ermanaric (i.
e. "King [riks] Herman," where "Herman" itself is from [h]er[i], "army," and man, "man") collapsed
abruptly when the Huns arrived in about 370 -- Ermanaric is even supposed to have committed suicide.
This pushed the Goths back into Roman territory, which began all the troubles for Rome.
But after some centuries in the area, the Goths had left a treasure hoard behind in what later would be
modern Romania. A Runic inscription on one item in the hoard contains the words Gutani, which was the
Goths' own name for themselves (it turns up in Latin as Gutones) and hailag, the Gothic word for "holy"
and recogniably cognate to modern German heilig. The Ostrogoths left behind something else: a small
community in the Crimea. This survived and was still speaking Gothic as late as the 16th century. The
Imperial Ambassador to Constantinople, Bubecq, 1560-1562, took down sixty words from informants from
the Crimea, confirming the Gothic identity of their language. But then the community vanished at some
later period. The long episode of Germans in the East would later evoke dreadful ambitions. There is little
doubt that Hitler saw himself as revenging Ermanaric with his invasion of Russia.
The Burgundians, c.407-534
BURGUNDIANS
The Burgundians, like the Franks, did not play a great role in
established at undermining the Western Empire. They moved into the
Gebicca d.407 vacuum of Roman power, and were conveniently ceded
Worms
Roman lands (443 & 458). King Gundobad briefly was a
Gundahar/ player in the last stages of Western politics, holding power as
407- killed by Huns the commander of the Roman Army from 472 to 473. By 534,
Gondikar/
434 & Aëtius however, Frankish power could no longer be resisted, and
Gunther
Burgundy became another piece in the Frankish kingdom.
Gundioc/Gunderic 434-473
ceded Sapaduia (cisjurane

Burgundy), 443; Sequania
(transjurane Burgundy), 458
Chilperic I 443-c.480
son of Gundioc,
473-
Chilperic II killed by
493
Gundobad
Gundomar 473-
son of Gundioc?
I? 486

son of Gundioc,
473-
Godegisel killed by
501
Gundobad
son of Gundioc,
473- West Roman
Gundobad
516 Generalissimo,
472-473
516-
Sigismund killed by Franks
524
Gudomar II 524-532
Overthrown by Franks
The Kingdom of the Burgundians remained a unit in

the many divisions of the Merovingian and
Carolingian domains, until independent kingdoms
resulted in the 880's. The map shows later
subdivisions, especially of the Duchy and the Free
County, which remained distinct for the longest.
Upper and Lower Burgundy became a united
Kingdom, based at Arles (hence, the "Arelate").
Eventually the Kingdom disappeared, with its parts
largely absorbed by France. The name of Burgundy
became primarily associated with the French Duchy
of Burgundy (which bestowed its name on the wine
of the region) and its subsequent possessions in the
Low Countries.

The Vandals, c.428-534
VANDALS
Establishing themselves in North Africa and then taking to the sea, the
Gunderic c.406-428 Vandals probably did the most damage in the long run to the structure of
Roman power. This was the doing of one Vandal genius, Gaiseric, whose
Gaiseric 428-477 name
significantly
Invasion of Africa, 428; means "Caesar
Capture of Carthage, 439; King." The sea
Sack of Rome, 455; Joint E/ power by which
W expedition against; the Romans had
Vandals fails, 468 defeated the
Carthaginians
Huneric 477-484 and then tied
together the
Gunthamund 484-496 Empire of the
Mare Nostrum
Thrasamund 496-523
now disappeared
Hilderic 523-530 for the first time.
There was really
Gelimer 530-534 no hope of
restoring the
Overthrown by Romans Western Empire
until the Vandals
were swept from the sea and their base recovered.
In 468 the last unified Eastern and Western military
expedition was organized against the Vandals. That
it failed was mainly due to incompetence and
treachery. The Western military commanders,
mainly Germans, who were jealous of their own power, were never interested in such combined action
again. In the end, however, the plan was revived, after the Western Empire was gone; and in 534 Justinian's
great general Belisarius ended the Vandal kingdom and restored Roman authority.
The Ostrogoths, 493-553
When the last Western military commander,

Odoacer, decided to depose the child
Emperor Romulus "Augustulus" and not
appoint another one, this formally restored
the unity of the Roman Empire. Odoacer

returned the Imperial Regalia to

Constantinople and legally became an
official of the Emperor Zeno. This
dependency, however, was in name only,
and Zeno soon directed his uncomfortably
active allies, the Ostrogoths, to overthrow
Odoacer. Invading Italy in 489, the
Ostrogoths did not succeed in killing
Odoacer and taking Ravenna until 493.
OSTROGOTHS
Theodoric/
Thiudareiks 493-526
the Great
Animal killing ended Rather than 476, the "fall" of the Western Empire might be pegged instead
in Colosseum, 523 to 493, when the last bona fide Roman officer, Odoacer, is overthrown by a
German tribal king -- and the late Roman capital of Ravenna falls for the
Athalaric 526-534 first time to an invader. The kingdom of Theodoric the Great then becomes
the high water mark of German power in the
Theodatus/
534-536 Mediterranean West. Holding off the Franks, propping
Theodahad up the Visigoths, and enlarging the Italian Kingdom,
Theodoric also presides over a good measure of prosperity and literary
Vitiges 536-540 activity.
Theodebald 540
Theodoric's name, although it looks like an adjective from "Theodore" in
Eraric 540-541 Greek, "Gift of God," actually is a rendering of Thiudareiks or "King of the
People" in Gothic. Thiuda or "people" is a cognate of theoda in Old
Tortila (Baduila) 541-552 English and of deutsch in modern German (or "Teuton" by way of Latin).
Reiks is a cognate of rex in Latin and raja in Sanskrit. "Thiudareiks" itself
Teias 552-553 has many modern descendants: Dietrich in German, Derek in English from
German, Dirk in Dutch, Thierry in French, and Terry in English by way of
Overthrown by Romans French. "Terry" is now usually seen as an abbreviation of "Terence," but
the Oxford Dictionary of First Names [Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges,
1990] says otherwise.
Like Visigothic Spain, Ostrogothic Italy would contribute towards the civilization of Mediaeval Europe.
Cassiodorus (c.490-c.583) and Boethius (476-524) both were distinguished writers. Although himself
executed by Theodoric for treason, Boethius produced a number of enduring philosophical classics that
were essential Latin reading in the Middle Ages. These included his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge --
the Introduction to Aristotle's logical works that was the starting point for Mediaeval philosophy -- and then
his On the Consolation of Philosophy, written in prison before his execution. In the commentary-upon-
commentary style of Medieval learning, Boethius would be followed much later by Peter Abelard (1079-

1142). Although nominally a Christian, Boethius' Consolation owed little to religion.
In the genealogy below, we can see some Kings of the Ostrogoths before Theodoric's descent into Italy.
The actual dynasty ends in 540, when Belisarius conquered the country for the Emperor Justinian. When
Ostrogothic resistance revived, the Kings were unrelated to the old dynasty. The heiress of the dynasty,
Matasuntha, actually then married into the house of Justinian. Her son, Germanus, would form the only
actual link between the Justinian Emperors and their successors Tiberius II and Maurice. The last days of
the Ostrogoths were an exhausting campaign against the Romans that may have damaged Italy far more
then any previous event in the protracted "Fall" of Rome. Tortila was the principal King and most effective
leader in this period. He fell in battle against the Roman general Narses.
The Lombards, 568-774
The recovery of Italy by the Romans from the

Ostrogoths turned out to be a devastating event for
the country. Between 536 and 553 the war surged
back and forth, probably doing more damage than
all the previous fighting since the invasion of Italy
by the Visigoths in 410.


LOMBARDS
Not until the 19th century would Italy ever again be the unified center of an
Alboin 568-573 important independent power. When the Lombards descended in 568,
neither were they strong enough to secure the whole country nor were the
Celph 573-575 Romans strong enough to throw them out. The peninsula was fragmented
into the main Lombard kingdom in the north (Lombardy), a Roman salient
Autharis 584-590 from Rome to Ravenna and Venice, a couple of semi-independent Lombard
duchies in the south (Spoleto and Benevento), and Roman footholds in the
Theodelinda 590-591 south at Naples, Sicily, and other points. The Rome-Ravenna corridor is
later "donated" to the Pope by the Franks and becomes the Papal States,
Agilulf 591-615
enduring as such, in whole or in part, until 1870, when the unified Kingdom
Adaloald 615-625 of Italy finally occupies Rome. The Lombards themselves slowly waxed in
power as the Romans suffered the devastating blows dealt by the rise of
Arioald 625-636 Islâm. Finding himself at the mercy of the advancing Lombards, the Pope
began to appeal to the Franks. The Lombard kingdom was finally wholly
Rotharis 636-652 defeated and annexed by Charlemagne in 774. The "Iron Crown of
Lombardy" then was mostly at the mercy of political events beyond the
Aribert I 652-661 Alps.
Grimoald 662-671
Other German Tribes, 508-806
Garibald 671-674
The list of the
Kings of Thuringia Kings of the
Bertharit 674-688 Kings of the
Bavarians, Bavarii
Thuringians is Widephus 4th century
Cunibert 688-700 something I Theodo I 508-512
have only seen occupied by the
Aribert II 701-712 at one source, a Huns, c.450-c.455 Theodo II 512-537
historical
Liutprand 712-744
website. The Bisin 5th century Theodo III 537-565
Rachis of Friuli 744-749 dates are pretty
early. The line Baderich 5th century control by Franks,
Aistulf of Friuli 749-756 ends with after 553
Berthachar 5th century
Frankish
Desiderius 756-774 Theodobald I 537-567
conquest, but a c.500-
Duchy of Hermenefried
Overthrown by Franks 531 Garibald I 550-590
Thuringia is
later briefly annexed by Grimwald I 590-595
revived, as seen below. the Franks
Tassilo I 591-609
The confederation of the Bavarii was a relatively late creation. The original
tribe in the area, the Rugians, were destroyed when they attempted to invade Garibald II 609-640
Italy against Odoacer in 487. The Bavarians formed in their place. Later,
Agilolf 609-630
when Justinian succeeded in destroying the Ostrogoths (552), the Bavarians

moved south of the Danube, but about the same time they also came under the
Theodo IV 640-680
control of the Franks. Thus, the line of Kings, or perhaps Dukes, after
Frankish suzerainty, continues until formal annexation by Charlemagne in Theodo V 680-702
788.
Theodobert 702-725
The Alemanni were a confederation of
Kings of the Alemanni;
German tribes, an old adversary of Rome, Grimwald II 702-723
control by Franks,
from the 3rd century. While they occupied the
496, 505 Theodobald II 702-715
left bank of the Rhine during the collapse of
Leuthari c.536-554 the Western Empire, they otherwise were not
particularly active in the "fall" of Rome. Then Tassilo II 702-730
Butilin c.536-554 they became targets of Clovis, first Christian
Hubert 725-737
King of the Franks, who defeated them in 496
Haming d.c.539 and 505. Henceforth, until annexation by Odilo 737-748
Charlemagne in 806, they were dependents of
Leutfred I c.570-587 the Franks. Tassilo III 748-788
Uncilen 588-613 annexed by Franks
Their domain, revived as the Duchy of
Gunzo d.613 Swabia, lost its name in Germany, but the
word nevertheless surives as the name for Germany itself in the Romance
Chrodebert c.615-639 languages, like Allemagne in French. The left bank of the Rhine, taken by
the Alemanni and passed to Swabia, became Alsace. Alsace and Lorraine
Leutfred II c.640-673/95 were gradually conquered by France, substantially beginning with the
settlement of the Thirty Years War in 1648 (the Treaty of Westphalia).
Godefred c.700-709 Although annexed by Germany in 1871, Alsace has been back with France
since 1918. It retains, however, many Germanic place names (Strasbourg,
Huocin d.c.712
Ensisheim, Haguenau, Hochfelden, Altkirch, etc.) and, at least until the
Willehari d.c.712 post-World War I era, many native German speakers. Neither Germans nor
French bothered with any plebiscite to see which country the locals
Lanfred I c.720-730 preferred.
Nebi d.746 What I was long missing here

Saxons
was a list of the Kings of the
Theodobald c.737-744 Saxons in the days before Vegdegg
Charlemagne's conquest in 804. I 1st century AD
Lanfred II 746-749 Odinson
had seen individual names in
histories, but it seemed like the Gelder ?
Gerold 791-799
matter was not well enough
Isenbard 799-806 known for a list to be assembled. Freawine 4th century
Now, however, Bruce R.
annexed by the Franks Gordon's Regnal Chronologies Guictglis 5th century
has such a list, which I am happy
Hulderic 6th century
to reproduce. There do not seem to be enough Kings for the
period covered, and with someone named "Odinson," we are back

in a legendary period familiar from Scandinavia. It may also have

Alof the Great 6th century
been the case that the Saxons were not politically unified, and
there was not a single succession of Kings for the whole people.
There do seem to be some connections with the early Kings of Boddic 7th century
adjacent Denmark, in a period when we also get a confused
jumble of names there, which have not yet been convincingly Berthold ?
assembled in a coherent order.
Sighard ?
The Saxons were a tough fight for the Franks, just about the Dietrich ?
worst. It took Charlemagne 27 years (777-804) to effectively
reduce the country. The fighting, by all accounts, was brutal, with Wernicke 8th century
little restraint or humanity shown by either side.
Withukund ?-777,
Saxon paganism, toughness, and the Great 778-785
Dukes of Thuringia
ruthlessness perhaps foreshadows the
Frankish conquest,
Radulf c.634-642 future ferocity of the Vikings.
Saxons, of course, had previously 777-778, 785-790,
colonized Britain. The Saxon chiefs rebellion, 790-804
independent, 639
Aelle and Cissa are said to have
Hetan I c.642-687 established themselves in Sussex (the "Southern Saxons"), apparently some
time between 449 and 491. As uncertain as these dates are, they are more than
Gozbert c.687-689 we have to go on for Saxony itself.
Hetan II c.689-719
A telling sign of a bit of Merovingian decline is that Thuringia should drift
annexed by the Franks into independence for 80 years. We can imagine that Frankish control of the
Bavarians and Alemanni during the same period was likely to have been pretty
slack. Significantly, Thuringian independence ends in the days of Charles Martel. The Bavarians and
Alemanni must have been more entrenched. It was only Charlemagne, waxing in power, who eliminated
the native lines.
Germania Index
The Stem Duchies
Home Page
Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.
All Rights Reserved

Anglo-Saxon England
Kings of Sussex, Bernicia, Deira,
Northumbria, Essex, Mercia, and East Anglia
When Constantine "III" took his

Kings of Sussex Kings of Bernicia
Saxons troops out of Britain in 407 to try Angles
and seize the Roman throne, a
Aelle & Cissa 491-c.516 Roman garrison was never Ida 547-559
restored. At first this just meant
killed at Battle of Badon? trying to repel Frisian and Saxon Glappa 559-560
rule by Mercia, c.516-c.660 pirates. Around 455, however,
Hengest from Jutland, the land of Adda 560-568
Athelwalh c.660-c.685 the Jutes, established himself in
what would then become the Aethelric 568-572
Berthun 685-686 Kingdom of Kent. Because of its
Theoderic 572-579
priority, the Kings of Kent are
Nothhelm or
c.692-c.725 listed on the Periphery of Francia Frithuwald 579-585
Nunna
page for the British Isles. The
Wattus c.692 Venerable Bede says that the first Hussa 585-592
Angles or Saxons arrived in or just
Athelstan c.714 after 449 [A History of the English Kings of Deira
Church and People, 1955, Angles
Athelbert c.725-c.750 Penguin, p.55]. He says that the
South Saxon Aelle was the first Aelle 560-599
Osmund c.758-c.772 bretwalda, or overlord of the
Aetheiric 599-604
Saxons. However, Aelle may have
Dukes of Sussex under Mercia
been killed by Ambrosius Aurelius Kings of Northumbria,
Oswald c.772 at the Battle of Badon Hill, some Angles
time between 493 and 518. The
Oslac c.772 story of Ambrosius as assimilated Bernicia,
into the Authurian legends, as 593-616;
Ealdwulf 765-c.791 examined elsewhere, and the Aethelfrith
Deira,
victory is supposed to have gained 604-616
Elfwald c.772-? a respite. Before long, however,
the Celtic Britons were pushed annexed Bernicia, and Deira,
back into the west, especially Wales and Cornwall. From there many 604
escaped to what would become Brittany. The Germans became

organized into several Kingdoms. In the south the Jutes, who would Edwin 616-633
soon disappear from their homeland with Danish conquest, established
themselves in Kent and the Isle of Wright. In the north, Angles, who Deira,
would similarly disappear from the southern part of Jutland but then Osric
633-634
would give their name to the whole of England (Anglia), established
Mercia, East Anglia, Bernicia and Deira, which united to form Bernicia,
Eanfrith
Northumbria, and several smaller, subsidiary Kingdoms. Finally, in the 633-634
south the Saxons, who would remain an important power on the
continent, established the Kingdoms of the South Saxon, Sussex, of the St. Oswald 634-642
East Saxons, Essex, and of the West Saxons, Wessex. Since Wessex
Oswiu 642-670
eventually absorbs all the others and creates the united Kingdom of
England, its Kings are given with Kent on the Periphery of Francia Deira,
page. St. Oswine
644-651
Deira,
Kings of Essex Aethciwaid
651-655
Saxons
Ecgfrith 670-685
580's-
Sledda
c.600 Aldfrith 686-705
c.600- Eadwulf I 705-706
Saebert
c.616
Osred I 706-716
Sexred, Saeward,
c.616-623
& Saexbald Cenred 716-718
killed in battle against Osric 718-729
Wessex, 623
720-737,
Sigebert I Parvus 623-c.650 Ceotwulf
d.760
c.650- 737-758,
Sigebert II Sanctus Actually, Wessex was not able to Eadberht
c.653 d.768
absorb all of England, for as it
Swithhelm c.653-663 began to do this, the Vikings Oswulf 758-759
arrived. This started with the
663-688 sacking of the Monastery at Aethelwald 759-765
Lindisfarne, in Bernicia, in 793.
Sigehere
Kent, 687- Eventually, Northumbria, East Alhred 765-774
688 Anglia, Essex, and about the north-
eastern half of Mercia were 774-779,
Sebbi 663-c.693 overrun and became part of the Aethelred I
790-796
Danelaw. At first the Vikings
Sigeheard 693-c.707 raided, sacked, and carried off Aelfwald I 779-788
slaves, or were bought off with

"protection" money -- "Danegelt"

Kent, 788-790,
-- but then Danes and Norwegians Osred II
Swaefred or 689-692 d.792
began to establish their own
Swaefheard
693-c.707 Kingdoms. They also passed 796,
around to Ireland and the Isle of Osbald
d.709
Offa 707-709 Man and began encroaching from
the west on Wales and England. Eardwulf 796-808
Saelred 709?-746 This finally led to the outright
annexation of England to Denmark Aelfwald II 808
Swebert 709-738 by King Canute in 1016, though
the Danish Kings only lasted until Eardwulf 808-809
Swithred 746-759
1042. A fair number of Danish
Eanred 809-841
Sigeric 759-798 words ended up in English, like
"skiff," which is simply the Danish 841-844,
Sigered 798-825 cognate of the English word Aethelred II
844-848
"ship."
annexed by Wessex, 825 Redwulf 844
848-866,
Osbert
Kings of Mercia Kings of East Anglia d.867
Angles Angles
Aelle 866-867
Creoda or Crida c.585-c.593 Uffa 571-c.578
Danish conquest of Deira, 867
Pybba c.593-c.606 Tytila c.578-c.599
Egbert I 867-873
Ceorl c.606-c.626 Redwald c.599-c.625
Ricsige 873-876
Penda 633-655 Eorpwald c.625-c.632
Egbert II 876-878
Northumbrian rule, 655-658 Ricbert c.632-c.634
Eadwulf II 878-913
Wulfliere 658-675 c.634-c.638,
Sigebert Aldred 913-927
d.c.641
675-704,
Aetheired I Wessex annexes Bernicia, 927
d.716 Egric c.638-c.641
Cenred 704-700 Anna c.641-c.653
Ceolred 700-716 Athelhere c.653-c.655
Aethelbald 716-757 Athelwold 655-c.663
Beomred 757, d.769 Ealdwulf c.663-c.713

Offa 757-796 Alfwald c.713-c.749
Ecgfrith 796 Beonna c.749-c.761
Cenwulf 796-821 Athelred c.761-790
Ceolwulf I 821-823 Athelbert 790-794
Beornwulf 823-825 overrun by Mercia, c.794-796
Ludeca 825-827 Eadwald c.796-c.799
827-929, overrun by Mercia, c.799-823

Wiglaf
830-840
Athelstan c.823-837
Wessex rule, 829-830
subject to Wessex, 829
Berhtwulf 840-852
Athelweard 837-850?
If a contemporary was betting on
Burgred 852-874 which English Kingdom would
Beorhtric 852-854 have dominated the others, Mercia
Ceolwulf II 874-879 might long have seemed the one
Edmund 854-869 poised to do so, as it was larger and
subsequent control by Wessex bordered on most of the others.
Oswald c.870
With King Offa (757-796), this
Aetheired II 870-911
overrun by the Danes, 829 promise might have seemed on the
Aethelflaed 911-918 verge of being fulfilled. Offa not
only dominated several neighbhors and treated with the new Frankish
Aelfwyn 918-919 King Charlemagne, but he settled a permanent border with the Welsh.
This was defined with a fortification, "Offa's Dike," that ran amost 150
annexed by Wessex, 919 miles from north to south. It remains the largest artifact of Saxon
England, evidence of England emerging from the Dark Ages and
becoming part of cosmopolitan Francia. After Offa, however, Mercia began to lose its grip and the
advantage passed to Wessex.
If Offa begins to represent the European political coming of age of England, we could say this had already
happened intellectually earlier in the century. With Bede (673-735) we have, according to Thomas Fuller,
"the profoundest scholar of his age for Latin, Greek, musick and what not" [cf. Bede, Historical Works, on
the title page and spine, Ecclesiastical History on the dust jacket, Books I-III, Loeb Classical Library,
Harvard U. Press, 1930, 1999, p.xiii]. Bede is the first historian of Britain, perhaps since Tactitus, and the
beginning of English history with his A History of the English Church and People [op.cit.]. It is noteworthy
that this is included in the Loeb Classical Library, when few would think of Anglo-Saxon England as part
of the Classical World. It is probably included just because it is a classic in Latin -- though the absence of
Anna Comnena from the series, as a classic in Greek (or of many of Mediaeval works in Latin, like Isidore
of Seville, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.), is then awkward. Although perhaps not often appreciated, Bede does

provide some interesting perspectives on Roman history. Bede is also the earliest source with which to
begin trying to make sense of the King Arthur legends.
Today, some of the names of the early Kingdoms survive as Counties, like Kent and Essex. The County of
Middlesex, occupied by the City of London, tended to be part of Essex, but this was the area where three
Kingdoms came together and the border moved around a good bit. Some of the names have even passed to
the New World, as with Middlesex County, New Jersey.
These tables are mainly based on The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, by Mike Ashley
[Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999, pp.208-321] but with the lists for Bernicia, Deira,
Northumbria, and Mercia intially drawn up from the Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby
[Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, pp.64-66].
Germania Index
Perifrancia Index
Home Page
Legendary and Early

Kings of Scandinavia
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine.

"From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord."

This page supplements The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 588 AD-Present with diagrams of the
earliest kings, with some of their legendary and mythic progenitors. When that link is used, a new browser
window will open for the page. If one of the windows is reduced in size and positioned conveniently, the
diagrams here can be compared with the table there.
The information here is derived from the Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev by
Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist [Kings River Publications, Kingsburg, California, 1997], The
Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley [Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York,
1998, 1999], the large genealogical chart, Kings & Queens of Europe, compiled by Anne Tauté [University
of North Carolina Press, 1989], and Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York,
1982]. These sources are not consistent, and choices and compromises have been made, especially to
simply get a coherent picture of some things, which is actually not always possible. Thus, neither of the two
sets of dates for Ragnar Lodbrok (750-794 or 860-865), King of Denmark and Sweden, works if he is the
Viking chief who sacked Paris in 845 and treated with Charles the Bald. If he was, then, actually, all we
have to do is split the difference, more or less!
While writing exists in the Scandinavian countries for the entire period covered below
(and eventually across a broad swath of Europe from Britain all the way to the
Ukraine), namely the system of Runes, as shown at left, it ends up being of limited
value for historical information. Objects and small monuments are inscribed with
names and some references to events and transactions, but we do not find great monumental historical
inscriptions like that of Ramesses II about the battle of Qadesh or like that of Darius at Behistun about his
rise to power, much less texts on practical media that tell us much about ongoing developments. As
Christianity crept into the region, bringing the Latin alphabet with it, full texts began to be
written, preserving Sagas and instituting chronicles. One gets the impression that Runes
were regarded as somewhat more magical than utilitarian, which is pretty much the way they were later
remembered. Or the more practical media of utilitarian inscriptions may simply have decayed in the damp
climates. Nevertheless, Runic inscriptions continue throughout the Middle Ages in Scandinavia for the
traditional epigraphic and magical purposes.
The descent of the earlist kings is reckoned all the way back to Odin (Wotan, Woden -- hence
"Wednesday"). This may be a dimly remembered historical person, but the fact that other Germans, like the
Saxons who invaded Britain, also reckoned their descent from Odin may indicate that this is a mythic
device and that Odin
indeed is understood
as the Odin, the king
of the gods. That full
genealogy is not
shown here (it is in
Ashley, p.209).
Instead, I pick it up
where the Danish line
divides, with one
branch picking up

kings of Sweden,
who otherwise seem
to have a separate
descent from Odin
for earlier kings.
These early, mythic
kings are the
Ynglings, which end
in Sweden with
Ingjald Illrade.
Ingjald is succeeded
either by Ivar
Vidfamne or Olaf
Tretelgia (or
Tretelia), who is also
said to have fled
Sweden and founded
the royal line of
Norway. Ivar is also
reckoned as a king of
Denmark, but the
coordination between
the two lines is not
always clear. Much
the same can be said
for subsequent kings
down to Ragnar
Lodbrok. Fortunately,
the sons of Ragnar
are supposed to have
divided his
inheritance, and this
begins to get us on
more secure
historical ground
(which means that the
9th century rather
than the 8th century
dates for Ragnar are
probably more like
it). Especially
noteworthy is the line
of descent that
involves rulers of

York (Northumbria),
the Isle of Man, and
Dublin. Thus we are
well into the period
when Viking raiders are spread all over Western Europe, and Eastern as well (Randver Radbartsson is
supposed to have been fathered by a Russian, i.e. a Norseman in Russia, a Varangian). This diagram
continues with the Swedish kings, who, however, as described by Alen and Dahlquist, do not necessarily
continue the same line of descent. This is a little more organized than we get with Denmark, but it may well
indicate that kings are ruling simultaneously and that the legendary genealogy is in fact a mythic
construction. Erik I thus may indeed precede Erik II, even though the dates here have him later in the 9th
century. With Erik VI, however, we get into more historically secured material, which is where Tauté
begins her diagram.
With the continuation of Swedish

kings, there are just a few
uncertainties. We are missing the
name of Stenkil's wife, the
daughter of King Edmund III.
After Stenkil's death, there is some
trouble, and two usurpers became
sufficiently established, or
remembered, that they get
numbered as Erik VII and Erik
VIII. One of these may be a king
listed in other places as "Erik
Arsaell," but there is no discussion
of this name where I might expect
it, in Alen and Dahlquist. Another
uncertainty is whether King Blot-
Sven was or was not married to a
daughter of Stenkil. And then there
is the question whether Sverker I
was or was not descended from
Blot-Sven. Alen and Dahlquist
show that he was; Tauté does not
show it. Some sources show rather
different dates for Halsten and
Inge I, and Inge II may also have
been reigning simultaneously with
Filip. Tauté does not list Magnus
Nielsson at all, and Alen and
Dahlquist have Inge II dying in
1125 on one page and living until
1130 on another. After they are all

out of the way, we get rival lines,

the "Sverkerska" and "Erikska"
dynasties, between whom the
Throne swaps back and forth, often
violently, for a century. The
execution of a number of heirs
prepared the way for both male
lines to die out, and the Throne
passes to the sons of Birger Jarl,
beginning the "Folkung" dynasty.
From there, the genealogy of
Sweden is continued on The Kings
of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
page.
The diagram
for the kings of
Denmark
begins with
some of the
same figures
given for
Sweden above.
Here we get
another
phenomenon.
From various
sources we
known of
several kings
who do not fit
into the
legendary
succession or
genealogy.
While these
figures can be

found given
authentic
looking dates
and listed in
succession, the
impression
persists that
most of them
were in fact
ruling
simultaneously.
If sufficient
time had
elapsed, they
all either would
have been
dropped from
memory or
worked up into
a seamless
legendary
picture. As it
happened,
history was fast
approaching
and a jumble is
what we get.
Denmark was
not a unified
kingdom, much
as we get that
sense from the
earlier
legendary
material. It was
probably much
like
contempory
and adjacent
Saxony, which
consisted of
three major
tribes
(Westphalians,

Angarii, and
Eastphalians)
and two minor
ones
(Wihmuodi and
Nordalbingi).
The chief of
the
Westphalians,
Widukind,
surrendered to
Charlemagne
in 785.
Widukind is
supposed to have been related some some Danish kings and spent some time there in refuge. The first
properly historical king of Denmark was Gorm the Old, who is said to have been a son of Hardeknut
(Canute I), but is shown by Ashley descended through Canute, Frodo, and Harald II. Harald is completely
ignored by Alen and Dahlquist. This confusion gives us a fitting end to the legendary period -- though
Gorm is more than a little legendary himself. We are then quickly into the fully history period, for which
there don't seem to be major uncertainties, except for some overlapping reigns that result in some kings
being dropped from some accounts. Again, from here, the genealogy of Denmark is continued on The
Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden page.
Norway may have begun as a colony of Sweden, represented by the legendary founder, Olaf Tretelgia. This
simplifies things, since there may have not been the large number of rival kingdoms as may actually have
existed in Sweden and Denmark, and which serve to confuse the account. As with Sweden above, branch
lines lead to
interesting
colonial
acquisitions
of the
Vikings. For
instance, the
line of
Thorstein the
Red
intermarries
with the
Earls of
Orkney --
the Orkneys
are the group
of islands off
the north end

of Scotland.
Similarly,
the line of
Olaf
Geirstade
leads directly
(according to
Ashley) to
Rolf (or
Rollo) who
became the
first Duke of
Normandy.
For
subsequent
Norman
influence on
European
history, this
was one of
the most
fateful
events.
An
interesting
career is that
of Harald III
Hårdråde.
When his
brother St.
Olof II died
in battle
against
Canute II the
Great of
Denmark in
1030, Harald
flees into
exile in
Kiev. He
makes his
way as a
mercenary

all the way

down to
Sicily and
eventually
back home
to Norway in
1047, where
the Danes
were gone
and Olof's
son, Magnus
I the Good,
ruled
Norway and
Denmark.
Harald joins
Magnus in
rule, but the nephew doesn't last long. After Harald's long quest, then follow years of successful rule. In
1066, however, Harald's ambitions overwhelm him. He lands in England, intending to follow Canute in the
rule of that country. He is unexpectedly defeated and killed, however, by Harold II. This is often regarded
as the end of the Furor Normannicus, the Viking Terror. Harold, unfortunately, rode from victory over
Harald to defeat and death at the hands of William of Normandy, who thus effects the conquest of England
by Northmen, somewhat removed from their Viking past, after all.
After the succession jumps around a bit, we get a couple of major uncertainties. Harald IV may not really
have been a son of Magnus III. And then Sverre almost certainly was not a son of Sigurd II, but he claimed
to be -- probably just a convenient pretext upon which a usurper could fight for the Throne. Since his fight
was successful, subsequent kings of Norway were descended from him. After this, as above, the genealogy
of Norway is continued on The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden page.
Germania Index
The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
Earls of Orkney
Home Page
Copyright (c) 2002, 2004 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Earls of Orkney
The Orkney Islands, whose inhabitants are "Orcadians," lie

Earls of Orkney
off the northern tip of Scotland. They were a fief of Norway
c.874-c.875, founded in the ninth century by King Harald I Fairhair. The
Ragnald I the Wise Lords, called Earls in English fashion, thus with equal or
d.894
better justice could be called "Jarls," with the Norwegian
Sigurd I the Mighty c.875-892 cognate. Over time, Scottish influence increased, with even
intermarriage into the Scottish Royal Family. Scottish
Thorstein the Red c.875-900 sovereignty was established in 1469. In 1471 the rule of the
Islands was taken directly by King James III of Scotland.
Guthorm c.892-893 The Islands had become part of the dowery of Margaret of
Oldenburg, daughter of Christian I, King of Denmark,
Hallard c.893-894
Norway, and Sweden, in her marriage to James.
Einar I 894-920?
The Orkneys were one set of North Atlantic Islands,
Arnkel 920?-954 including the Shetlands, Faeroes, and Hebrides, that were
natural stepping stones and staging areas for Viking raids on
Erlend I 920?-954 Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere. Until the King of Norway
asserted authority, the Islands were more or less nests of
c.937-954
pirates. The way in which things became more organized we
Erik Bloodaxe King of Norway, can see in one stunning connection: A son -- Hrólfur, Rolf,
or Rollo -- of the first Earl, Ragnald, went on to become the
933-934
first Duke of Normandy. The consequences of this for
Gunnhildr, Ragnfred, 954-955, European history, from England to Sicily and beyond, are
& Godred 976-977 beyond calculation; yet this connection to the Orkneys is
rarely noted.
Thorfinn I Skullsplitter c.947-977
The Orkneys retreat from the spotlight of history for many
Arfinn 977-979? centuries. They suddenly acquire great significance,
however, in World War I. A large sound south of the main
Havard 979?-981? island (Pomona), Scapa Flow, became the main base for the
Grand Fleet of the British Royal Navy. This might seem to
Liot 981?-984?
be rather far from anything, but it put the fleet in a position,
Hlodvir 984?-987? at the entrance to the North Sea, to intercept the German
High Seas Fleet whatever it might do. As it happened, the
Sigurd II 987?-1014 German fleet was thus intercepted in 1916, resulting in the

Battle of Jutland. When the War ended, the German fleet

Somerled 1014-1015
was the interned in Scapa Flow. Rather than have the ships
Einar II 1014-1020 turned over to Britain or her allies in a post-war settlement,
in June 1919 the Germans scuttled their ships in a dramatic,
Brúsi 1014-c.1030 surprise action. There the ships still lie, long after most of
their British rivals, however victorious, have been broken up
Thorfinn II the Mighty c.1018-c.1060 and sold for scrap.
Ragnald II 1038-1046 The list and genealogy here is entirely from The Mammoth
Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley [Carroll
Paul I c.1060-1098
& Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999].
Erlend II c.1060-1098
1099-1105,
d.1130
Sigurd III,
I of Norway
King of Norway,
1103-1130
Haakon 1105-1126
Magnus I 1108-1117
Paul II the Silent 1126-1137
Harald I Smoothtalker 1126-1131
Ragnald III 1137-1158
Harald II the Old 1139-1206
Erlend III 1154-1156
Harald III 1195?-1198
David 1206-1214
John I 1206-1231
Magnus II of Angus 1231-1239
Gilbert 1239-1256
Magnus III 1256-1273
Magnus IV 1276-1284

John II 1284-1311
Magnus V 1311-c.1329
Malise c.1329-1353?
1353-1357/60,
Erengisl
d.1392
Henry I of St. Clair 1363/1379-1400
Henry II 1400-1420
1420-1471,
William
d.1480
Scottish sovereignty, 1469;

resigned to Socttish crown, 1471



Germania Index
The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
Home Page

Consuls of the Roman Republic
Consuls of the
Roman Republic
The Roman Republic Two Consuls, the principal

Executive officers of the Roman
L. Iunius M.f. Brutus Republic -- Respublica Romana --
L. Tarquinius Collatinus were elected at Rome to yearly
509 BC Suffecti: P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola terms (sometimes we get
T. Lucretius T.?f. Tricipitinus substitutes or replacements,
M. Horatius M.f. Pulvillus suffecti). Roman dating, as that by
Eponymous Archons at Athens,
P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola II was by these Consuls. The list of
508
T. Lucretius T.f. Tricipitinus Roman Consuls to 337 (the year of
the foundation of Constantinople)
P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola III is given by E.J. Bickerman,
507
M. Horatius M.f. Pulvillus II Chronology of the Ancient World
(Cornell University Press, 1968,
Sp. Larcius Rufus 1982, pp.140-162).
506
T. Herminius Aquilinus
M. Valerius Volusi f. (Volusus?) Here, Consuls are only given for

505 the Roman Republic, ending with
P. Postumius Q.f. Tubertus
27 BC, when Octavian was
P. Valerius Volusi f. Publicola IV granted the title Augustus, by
504 which he is then known as the first
T. Lucretius T.f. Tricipitinus II
of the Roman Emperors, although
Agrippa Menenius C.f. Lanatus the title Imperator ("commander")
503
P. Postumius Q.f. Tubertus II was already used. Nevertheless, the
Consular office continued; and in
Opiter Verginius Opit. f. Tricostus 337 it actually doubled, since
502
Sp. Cassius Vecellinus Consuls began to be chosen at
Constantinople as well as for
Rome. This continued until the
http://www.friesian.com/rome.htm (1 of 35)8/25/2006 5:34:26 AM

Postumius Cominius Auruncus reign of Justinian, as explained by

501 Bickerman himself:
T. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus)
Ser. Sulpicius P.f. Camarinus Cornutus The Romans dated

500
M'. Tullius Longus by consuls until AD
537 when Justinian
T. Aebutius T.f. Helva (Novell. 47)
499
C. (or P.) Veturius Geminus Cicurinus introduced the dating
according to the
Q. Cloelius Siculus regnal years of the
498
T. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus) II emperors. From 534
in the West and after
A. Sempronius Atratinus
497 541 in the East, only
M. Minucius Augurinus
the emperors held the
A. Postumius P.f. Albus (Regillensis) consulship. Yet, the
496 dating by consuls
T. Verginius A.f. Tricostus Caeliomontanus
continued to be used
Ap. Claudius M.f. Sabinus Inregillensis in Egypt until 611.
495 Accordingly, we
P. Servilius P.f. Priscus Structus
have the complete
A. Verginius A.f Tricostus Caeliomontanus list of consuls from
494
T. Veturius Geminus Cicurinus Brutus and
Collatinus, the
Postumus Cominius Auruncus II founders of the
493
Sp. Cassius Vecellinus II Roman Republic in
509 BC, to Basilius
T. Geganius Macerinus in AD 541: 1,050
492
P. Minucius Augurinus years. [p.69]
M. Minucius Augurinus II
491 While Bickerman may have the list
A. Sempronius Atratinus II
to 541, he only gives it to 337.
Q. Sulpicius Camerinus Cornutus Since his book is the chronology of
490 the "ancient world," perhaps this
Sp. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus) II
explains why it wouldn't extend
C. Iulius Iullus after 476, but that doesn't explain
489
P. Pinarius Mamertinus Rufus why it should already end at 337.
This certainly relfects a disinterest
Sp. Nautius Sp.?f. Rutilus or a distaste for Late Antiquity,
488
Sex. Furius Medullinus? Fusus? such as I have discussed elsewhere.
The foundation of Constantinople
T. Sicinus Sabinus?
487 is one of the conventional dates for
C. Aquillius Tuscus?
the beginning of "Byzantine"
history. The list of Consuls of the

Roman Empire, or at least the

Sp. Cassius Vicellinus III
486 Western Consuls at Rome right
Proculus Verginius Tricostus Rutilus
down "to Basilius," are now given
Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis on a popup page.
485
Q. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus
Bickerman's list gives the year in
L. Aemilus Mam.f. Mamercus the AD (the Christian Annô
484
K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus Domini, "in the Year of the Lord")
era and the year in the AUC era.
M. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus The latter I have discarded, since it
483
L. Valerius M.f. Potitus was not used, as described by
Bickerman himself:
Q. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II
482
C. Iulius C.f. Iullus
An era ab urbe
K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II condita (from the
481 founding of the city
Sp. Furius Fusus
of Rome) did not, in
M. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II reality, exist in the
480 ancient world, and
Cn. Manlius P.f. Cincinnatus
the use of reckoning
K. Fabius K.f. Vibulanus III the years in this way
479
T. Verginius Opet.f. Tricostus Rutilus is modern....
L. Aemilius Man.f. Mamercus II The principal reason

478 C. Servilius Structus Ahala for not using the
suff.: Opet. Verginius Esquilinus system ab urbe
condita was that the
C. (or M.) Horatius M.f. Pulvillus
477 age of the city was
T. Menenius Agrippae f. Lanatus
disputed... [p.77]
A. Verginius Tricostus Rutilus
476 Bickerman says that Cicero, Livy,
Sp. Servilius (P.f.?) Structus
and Diodorus identified the
P. Valerius P.f. Publicola founding of the city with the 2nd
475
C. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus year of the 7th Olympiad, as the
chronology of the Olympiads had
L. Furius Medullinus been constructed by Polybius. The
474
A. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso more familiar date now is the one
hit upon by Atticus, Titus
L. Aemilius Mam.f. Mamercus III Pomponius Atticus (d.32 BC), in
473
Vopiscus Iulius C.f. Iullus his Liber annalis. This was 753
BC, the 4th year of the 6th
L. Pinarius Mamercinus Rufus
472 Olympiad, and was then
P. Furius Medullinus Fusus
popularized by Varro, Marcus

Terentius Varro (d.27 BC). The

Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Crassinus Inregilliensis Sabinus
471 year is now associated with Varro
T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus
more than Atticus.
L. Valerius M.f. Potitus II
470 Roman names ideally consisted of
Ti. Aemilius L.f. Mamercus
three parts, the tria nomina: the
T. Numicius Priscus praenômen, the given name, the
469
A. Verginius Caeliomontanus nômen, the "gentile" name or name
of the gens or clan, and the
T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus II cognômen, the surname or family
468
Q. Servilius Structus Priscus name (though this was sometimes
missing, as with C. Flaminius,
Ti. Aemilius L.f. Mamercus II killed at the battle of Lake
467
Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus Trasimene against Hannibal in 217,
and could also be more in the form
Q. Servilius Priscus II
466 of an epithet or personal name).
Sp. Postumius A.f. Albus Regillensis
Thus, the full name of Julius
Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus II Caesar was Gaius Iulius Caesar,
465 with the praenômen, nômen, and
T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus III
cognômen, respectively. Today
A. Postumius A.f. Albus Regillensis people would tend to think of
464 "Julius" as the given name, but it
Sp. Furius Medullinus Fusus
was not, though the nômen was
P. Servilius Sp.f. Priscus often used for women as the
463
L. Aebutius T.f. Helva equivalent, as with Augustus's
daughter Julia. In the list of
L. Lucretius T. f. Tricipitinus Consuls, there is another name that
462
T. Veturius T.f. Geminus Cicurinus is given, the "filiation," or, as it
would be called from Greek, the
P. Volumnius M.f. Amintinus Gallus "patronymic," the name of one's
461
Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus Cornutus father. This consists of the
praenômen of the father (in the
P. Valerius P.f. Poblicola
genitive case) followed by filius,
460 C. Claudius Ap.f. Inregillensis Sabinus
"son" (abbreviated f.). The filiation
suff.: L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus
is given between the nômen and the
Q. Fabius M.f. Vibulanus III cognômen. Caesar's name, without
459 abbreviations, thus could be Gaius
L. Cornelius Ser.f. Maluginensis Uritus
Iulius Gaii filius Caesar. Some
C. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus II extended filiations are given, as
458 Carvetus ? with C. Livius M. Aemiliani f.
suff.: L. Minucius. P.f. Esquilinus Augurinus Drusus, Consul in 147. A name
may end with various epithets, like
L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus, Dictator, 458 Africanus, an agnômen, also called

a "surname," which can be legally

C. (or M.) Horatius M.F. Pulvillus II
457 granted in recognition of some
Q. Minucius P.f. Esquilinus
service to Rome, or might accrue
M. Valerius M'.f. Maximus Lactuca informally. For instance, Pompey
456 the Great, Cn. Pompeius Cn.f.
Sp. Verginius A.f. Tricostus Caeliomontanus
Magnus, did not have a cognômen,
T. Romilius T.f. Rocus Vaticanus but then acquired Magnus, "Great,"
455 as the equivalent. One might expect
C. Veturius P.f. Cicurinus
this to have happened informally,
Sp. Tarpeius M.f. Montanus Capitolinus but it was in fact legally granted by
454
A. Aternius Varus Fontinalis Sulla.
Sex. Quinctilius Sex.f. The praenômen is usually

453
P. Curiatus Fistus Trigeminus abbreviated in the table, as follows:
T. Menenius Agripp.f. Lanatus
452 ● A. = Aulus
P. Sestius Q.f. Capito Vaticanus
● Ap. = Appius
Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus II ● C. = Gaius
451 Cn. = Gnaeus
T. Genucius L.f. Augurinus ●
● Corn. = Cornelius
450 Decemviri ● D. = Decimus
● Fl. = Flavius
L. Valerius P.f. Potitus ● K. = Kaeso
449
M. Horatius Barbatus ● L. = Lucius
● M. = Marcus
Lars (or Sp.) Herminius Coritinesanus M'. = Manius
448 ●
T. Verginius Tricostus Caeliomontanus ● N. = Natus
● P. = Publius
M. Geganius M.f. Macerinus
447 ● Q. = Quintus
C. Iulius (Iullus?)
● Ser. = Servius
T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus IV ● Sex. = Sextus
446 ● Sp. = Spurius
Agrippa Furius Fusus
● T. = Titus
M. Genucius Augurinius ● Ti. = Tiberius
445
C. (or Agripp.) Curtius Philo
Thus, Caesar's name is actually
Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. listed as C. Iulius C.f. Caesar.
444 suff.: L. Papirius Mugillanus Augustus, a nephew of Caesar, and
L. Sempronius A.f. Atratinus originally C. Octavius, but as a son
by adoption, assumed exactly the
M. Geganius M.f. Macerinus II same name, with the agnômen
443
T. Quinctius L.f. Capitolinus Barbatus V Octavianus. This is how he is
listed as a Consul for the year 43.

Subsequently, however, he is listed

M. Fabius Q.f. Vibulanus
442 as Imp. Caesar Divi f., "Emperor
Post. Aebutius Helva Cornicen
Caesar, son of the Divine
C. Furius Pacilus Fusus [Caesar]."
441
M'. (or M.) Papirius Crassus
For the year 43 Octavian is actually
Proculus Geganius Macerinus given as a suffectus (Suff.), a
440
T. Menenius Agripp. Lanatus II "substitute" Consul.
Agrippa Menenius T.f. Lanatus The first list of Consuls was

439
T. Quinctius L.f Capitolinus Barbatus VI apparently compiled around 300
BC, and undoubtedly contained a
L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus, Dictator, 439 great deal of legendary material
and speculative chronology. As
438 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.
Bickerman says:
M. Geganius M.f Macerinus III
437 L. Sergius L.f. Fidenas The cornerstone of
Suff.: M. Valerius M.f. Lactuca Maximus ancient Roman
chronology was the
L. Papirius Crassus capture of Rome by
436
M. Cornelius Maluginensis the Gauls, since this
event was the earliest
C. Iulius (Iullus?) II fact of Roman
435
L. (or Proc.) Verginius Tricostus history mentioned
and dated by
C. Iulius Iullus III contemporary Greek
L. (or Proc.) Verginus Tricostus II or authors. The date
434
M. Manlius Capitolinus corresponded to
Q. Sulpicius Ser.?f. Camerinus Praetextatus 387/6 BC... Yet, the
roman consular list
433-432 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.
indicated 382 BC. In
T. Quinctius L.f. Poenus Cincinnatus order to use the
431 Greek synchronism,
C. (or Cn) Iulius Mento
Diodorus twice gives
L. (or C.) Papirius Crassus the names of the
430 same Roman
L. Iulius Vop.f Iullus
eponyms... Livy
Hostus Lucretius Tricipitinus reaches the date
429
L. Sergius C.f Fidenas II 387/6 by inserting a
quinquennium of
anarchy without the
magistrates... The
Fasti Capitolini

insert four years of

A. Cornelius M.f. Cossus
dictators sine consule
T. Quinctius L.f Poenus Cincinnatus II
and in this way arrive
(Listed by Diodorus between the
428 at 391/0 as the date
colleges of 428 and 427:
of the Gallic sack of
L. Quinctius (L.f. Cincinnatus)
Rome... [p.69-70]
A. Sempronius (L.f. Atratinus))
C. Servilius Structus Ahala Nevertheless, histories usually give

427 the sack of Rome as an
L. Papirius L.f Mugillanus
unproblematic 390 BC.
426-424 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot.
The purpose of dividing executive
C. Sempronius Atratinus power between two Consuls for
423
Q. Fabius Q.f. Vibulanus annual terms was to prevent the
concentration and accumulation of
422 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. power and the restoration of
something like the monarchy.
Cn. (or N.) Fabius Vibulanus
421 Nevertheless, times of crisis might
T. Quinctius T.f Capitolinus Barbatus
call for greater authority and
420-414 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. unified command. Consequently, a
Dictator could be appointed, for a
A. (or M.?) Cornelius Cossus term of six months. The archetype
413 of what a Dictator should be like,
L. Furius L.f. Medullinus
with legendary embelishments, was
Q. Fabius Ambustus Vibulanus L. Quinctius L.f. Cincinnatus,
412
C. Furius Pacilus who was supposed to have been
appointed in 458 and 439.
L. Papirius L.f. Mugillanus Cincinnatus had been impoverished
411
Sp. (or C.) Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus and was simply farming his own
land. The story is that the
M'. Aemilius Mam.f. Mamercinus messengers from the Senate found
410
C. Valerius L.f. Potitus Volusus him working on his farm, dirty and
undressed. They asked him to put
Cn. Cornelius A.f. Cossus
409 on his toga and then informed him
L. Furius L.f. Medullinus II
that he had been appointed
408-394 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. Dictator. This scene is clearly
cherished by the historian Livy,
Seige & Capture of Veii, 405-396 Titus Livius, who relates it thus:
L. Valerius L.f. Potitus Now I would solicit

P.? (or Ser.) Cornelius Maluginensis the particular
393
Suff.: L. Lucrrtius Tricipitinus Flavus attention of those
Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Camerinus numerous people

who imagine that

L. Valerius L.f. Potitus II
392 money is everything
M. Manlius T.f. Capitolinus
in this world, and
391-376 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. that rank and ability
are inseparable from
Gauls sack Rome, 390 wealth: let them
observe that
370-367 Trib. Mil. Cons. Pot. Cincinnatus, the one
man in whom Rome
L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus reposed all her hope
366
L. Sextius f. Sextinus Lateranus of survival, was at
that moment working
L. Genucius M.f. Aventinensis a little three-acre
365
Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala farm (now known as
the Quinctian
C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus
364 meadows) west of
C. Licinius C.f. Stolo or Calvus
the Tiber, just
Cn. Gentucius M.f Aventinensis opposite the spot
363 where the shipyards
L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus II
are today. A mission
Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala II from the city found
362 him at work on his
L. Genucius M.f. Aventinensis II
land -- digging a
C. Licinius C.f. Calvus or Stolo ditch, maybe, or
361
C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus II ploughing. Greetings
were exchanged, and
M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus he was asked -- with
360
C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus a prayer for the god's
blessing on himself
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas and his country -- to
359
Cn. Manlius L.f. Capitolinus Imperiosus put on his toga and
hear the Senate's
C. Fabius N.f. Ambustus
358 instructions. This
C. Plautius P.f. Proculus
naturally surprised
C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus him, and, asking if
357 all were well, he told
Cn. Manlius L.f. Capitolinus Imperiosus II
his wife Racilia to
M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus II run to their cottage
356 and fetch his toga.
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas II
The toga was
C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus III brought, and wiping
355
M. Valerius L.f. Poplicola the grimy sweat from
his hands and face he

put it on; at once the

M. Fabius N.f. Ambustus III
354 envoys from the city
T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus
saluted him, with
C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus IV congratulations, as
353 Dictator, invited him
M. Valerius L.f. Poplicola II
to enter Rome, and
P. Valerius P.f. Poplicola informed him of the
352 terrible danger of
C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus II
Minucius's army.
C. Sulpicius M.f. Peticus V [Livy, The Early
351
T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus II History of Rome,
translated by Aubrey
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas III de Sélincourt,
350
L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Penguin Books,
1960, p.197 --
L. Furius M.f. Camillus "God's" changed to
Ap. Claudius P.f. Crassus Inregillensis "the god's," ed.]
349
(Listed under this year by Diodorus:
M. Aemilius, T. Quinctius)
This resonated in the 18th century
M. Valerius M.f. Corvus for everyone who believed in
348 Republican government, limited
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas IV
government, by honest private,
C. Plautius Venno (or Venox) disinterested citizens. That is how
347 Cincinnati, Ohio, got its name.
T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus
M. Valerius M.f. Corvus II Nevertheless, the office of Dictator

346
C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus II itself contained the potential for
danger. Although the end of the
M. Fabius Dorsuo Republic is usually dated to 27 BC,
345
Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus Rufus when Octavian became Augustus, a
key date certainly would be 44 BC,
C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus III when Caesar was made Dictator for
344
T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus II life. A lifetime office is not a
Republican office. Of course,
M. Valerius M.f. Corvus III
343 Caesar was then assassinated, but
A. Cornelius P.f. Cossus Arvina
his friends and his heir, Octavian,
First Samnite War, 343-341 defeated the Republicans.
Augustus, indeed, did not assume
Q. Servilius Q.f. Ahala III or create a Dictatorship for life
342 (refusing Dictatorship or
C. Marcius L.f. Rutilus IV
Consulship for life in 22 BC),
C. Plautius Venno (Venox) II maintaining a fiction of Republican
341
L. Aemilius L.f. Mamercinus Privernas government, but he did become

Tribune for life, and his informal

T. Manlius L.f. Imperiosus Torquatus III
340 constructions gradually solidified
P. Decius Q.f. Mus
into the lifetime office of
Latin War, 340-338 Imperator. Rule by one man had
threatened earlier. The first real
Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus threat may have been Marius, C.
339 Marius C.f., who reformed and
Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo
enlarged the army, enrolling
L. Furius Sp.f. Camillus landless proletarii, and was then
338
C. Maenius P.f. able to help defeat the revolt of
Jugurtha (112-105). Marius was
Annexation of Campania, 338 elected to five successive
Consulships, 104-100, even though
C. Sulpicius Ser.f Longus
337 it was supposed to be illegal for
P. Aelius Paetus
anyone to succeed himself in the
L. Papirius L.f. Crassus office (or serve again for ten years).
336 Eventually, he seized Rome by
K. Duillius
force in 87, driving out Sulla. But
M. Atilius Regulus Calenus then he died of natural causes the
335 next year. Sulla himself, L.
M. Valerius M.f. Corvus IV
Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix (felix =
Sp. Postumius Albinus (Caudinus) "happy" or "lucky," an apparently
334
T. Veturitis Clavinus informal agnômen), was the next
threat. He was made Dictator in 82
333 Dictator year and continued in the office until he
resigned in 80 or 79, dying in 78.
Cn. Domitius Cn.F. Calvinus One of Sulla's supporters, Pompey
332
A. Cornelius P.f. Cossus Arvina II would have represented the next
threat of one-man rule, but he had
C. Valerius L.f. Potitus
331 to contend with powerful rivals like
M. Claudius C.f. Marcellus
Crassus, M. Licinius P.f. Crassus,
L. Papirius L.f. Crassus II and then Caesar himself. Crassus
330 was killed by the Parthians, and
L. Plautius L.f. Venno (Venox)
Caesar defeated Pompey in 48 BC.
L. Aemilius L.f Mamercinus Privernas II A fleeing Pompey was then
329 obligingly executed by Cleopatra,
C. Plautius P.f. Decianus
with whom, as we know, Caesar
C. Plautius Decianns II or ushered in the height of his power.
P. Plautius Proculus The last century of the Republic
328
P. Cornelius Scapula thus looks like little more than a
or P. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus continuing civil war to see which
individual would assume the
equivalent of a permanent

dictatorship. Why this should have

L. Cornelius Lentulus
327 happened is a good question for
Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo II
any kind of elective government.
Second Samnite War, 326-304
The fasces,
C. Poetelius C.f. Libo Visolus III "bundles," axes
326
L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor tied with red
ribbon in a
L. Furius Sp.f. Camillus II bundle of birch
325
D. Iunius Brutus Scaeva (or elm) rods,
were symbols
324 Dictator year of the
imperium,
C. Sulpicius Ser.f. Longus II
323 "command," the
Q. Aulius Q.f. Cerretanus
power and
Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus authority of the
322 Roman State
L. Fulvius L.f. Curvus
and of its
T. Veturius Calvinus II offices, each
321 carried by a
Sp. Postumius Albinus (Caudinus) II
lictor who accompanied officials.
L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor II These were symbols of Etruscan
320
Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo III Kings, and originally the axe might
be double-bladed, the labrys,
L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor III familiar from the Aegean world
319
Q. Aulius Q.f. Cerretanus II and which apparently gave its name
to the great palace at Knossos, the
L. Plautius L.f. Venno (Venox) Labyrinthos. Twelve fasces were
318
M. Folius C.F. Flaccinator carried (by twelve lictores) for the
Roman Kings, a number inherited
Q. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula
317 by the Consuls. Other officials
C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus
rated their own number of fasces,
Sp. Nautius Sp.f. Rutilus as follows, though the display of
316 them in Rome itself was often
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas
limited.
L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor IV
315
Q. Publilius Q.f. Philo IV ● Dictators, 24
● Consuls, 12
M. Poetelius M.f. Libo ● Praetors, Proconsuls, 6
314
C. Sulpicius Ser.f. Longus III ● Legates, 5
● Priests, 1
L. Papirius Sp.f. Cursor V
313
C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus II Although they continued to be used

for the Emperors, originally 12,

M. Valerius M.f Maximus (Corrinus)
312 after Domitian, 24, by the 18th
P. Decius P.f. Mus
century they were symbols more of
C. Iunius C.f Bubulcus Brutus III Republican than of Imperial
311 government. As such, fasces turn
Q. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula II
up in American, French, Swiss, and
Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus II other modern Republican
310 iconography. However, Mussolini,
C. Marcius C.f. Rutilus (Censorinus)
seeking his own version of modern
309 Dictator year Roman power, liked the symbolism
more of power and unity than of
P. Decius P.f. Mus II Republicanism, and he adopted the
308
Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus III fasces to symbolize his own
political party. This made the party
Ap. Claudius C.f. Caenus
307 the Fascist Party, which then
L. Volumnius C.f. Flamma Violens
contributed its name to related
Q. Marcius Q.f. Tremulus political ideologies, which in the
306 simplest terms would be
P. Cornelius A.f. Arvina
totalitarian, collectivist, and
L. Postumius L.f. Megellus nationalistic. Now, a form of
305 Ti. Minucius M.f. Augurinus collectivism, of subordinating the
Suff.: M. Fulvius L.f. Curvus Paetinus individual to the state, is not alien
to Roman sensibility, as considered
P. Sempronius P.f. Sophus elsewhere. While the power of the
304
P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Saverrio Emperors would have been to
Mussolini's liking, the purposes of
Ser. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Roman Republican government,
303
L. Genucius Aventinensis however, dividing and limiting
authority, were alien to "Fascist"
M. Livius Denter purposes, which were for unlimited
302
M. Aemilius L.f. Paullus and absolute government.
301 Dictator year
The saying is that Rome conquered
M. Valerius M.f. Corvus V the world in self-defense. If all one
300 does is read Roman sources, this is
Q. Appuleius Pansa
what it sounds like. The dynamic of
M. Fulvius Cn.f. Paeyinus this is simple enough. If your
299 T. Manlius T.f. Torquatus neighbors are giving you trouble,
Suff.: M. Valerius M.f. Corvus VI defeat them. Right from the
beginning, however, the Roman
L. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Barbatus viewed disputes with neighbors as
298
Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Maximus Centumalus something like betrayal and began
to conquer them instead of just

setting them back. But they also

Third Samnite War, 298-290
began to truly absorb neighbors,
Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus IV not always giving them the same
297 rights as Roman citizens, but giving
P. Decius P.f. Mus III
them something, and benefiting
Ap. Claudius C.f. Caecus II from their participating in the
296 Roman army. Since absorbing a
L. Volumnius C.f. Flamma Violens II
neighbor means that one acquires
Q. Fabius M.f. Maximus Rullianus V the neighbors of their far borders,
295
P. Decius P.f. Mus IV the process begins over again.
L. Postumius L.f. Megellus II By 301 BC, Rome, after a very

294
M. Atilius M.f. Regulus long process, had risen from a city
state to dominate Latium and then
L. Papirius L.f. Cursor
293 Campania. In the South of Italy the
Sp. Carvilius C.f. Maximus
Romans faced Greek city states.
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges They called the area Magna
292 Graecia, "Great Greece," but got
D. Iunius D.f. Brutus Scaeva
their own word for the Greeks,
L. Postumius L.f. Megellus III which modern Western European
291 languages still use, from some tribe
C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus
in the area.
M'. Curius M'.f Dentatus
290
P. Cornelius Cn.f. Rufinus
M. Valerius M.f. Maximus Corvinus II

289
Q. Caedicius Q.f. Noctua
Q. Marcius Q.f Tremulus II

288
P. Cornelius A.f. Arvina II
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus

287
C. Nautius Rutilus
The maps here duplicate the
M. Valerius Maximus (Potitus?) treatment at the Hellenistic
286
C. Aelius Paetus
Monarchs page, except for the last
C. Claudius M.f. Canina map, for 44 BC. For the following
285 maps, click on the map for a full
M. Aemilius Lepidus
sized popup.
C. Servilius Tucca
284
L. Caecilius Metellus Denter By 270, the Romans have absorbed
Etruria (Tuscany) and have
defeated and absorbed the Greek

cities in Italy, despite the best effort

P. Cornelius Dolabella
283 of Pyrrhus, King of Epirus. Pyrrhus
Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Calvinus Maximus
contributed an enduring phrase to
C. Fabricius C.f. Luscinus discourse. Although he won his
282 first battles against the Romans, the
Q. Aemilius Cn.f. Papus
slaughter was so great, he
L. Aemilius Q.f. Barbula commented that one more such
281
Q. Marcius Q.f. Philippus victory and he would be ruined.
Hence, a "Pyrrhic Victory," where
P. Valerius Laevinus one might as well have lost,
280
Ti. Coruncanius Ti.f. because of the cost.
War with Pyrrhus, 280-275
P. Sulpicius P.f. Saverrio

279
P. Decius P.f. Mus
C. Fabricius C.f. Luscinus II

278
Q. Aemilius Cn.f. Papus II
P. Cornelius Cn.f. Rufinus II Carthage was the Great Power of

277
C. Iunius C.f. Bubulcus Brutus I the Western Mediterranean in these
days, and relations with Rome had
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges II
276 initially been friendly. But once the
C. Genucius L.f. Clepsina
two powers found themselves
M'. Curius M'.f. Dentatus II strategically adjacent, Rome's
275 attitude changed. Roman
L. Cornelius Ti.f. Lentulus Caudinus
diplomacy towards Carthage
M'. Curius M'.f. Dentatus III became touchy and demanding,
274 with a simmering hostility. The
Ser. Cornelius P.f. Merenda
disputes were over Sicily, where
C. Fabius M.f. Licinus Rome had no possessions, but of
273
C. Claudius M.f. Canina II course any Greek cities appealing
to Rome for help could become
L. Papirius L.f. Cursor II "allies." Carthage put up with this
272
Sp. Carvilius C.f. Maximus II for a while, but the perhaps
inevitable war broke out in 264.
Surrender of Tarentum, 272 This was the First Punic (i.e.
Phoenican) War, which lasted a
K. Quinctius L.f. Claudus
271 punishing 20 years (264-241).
L. Genucius L.f. Clepsina
Syracuse got caught in the middle,
C. Genucius L.f. Clepsina II and eventually went over to the
270 Romans, thereby preserving some
Cn. Cornelius P.f. Blasio

autonomy. The land campaign was

Q. Ogulnius L.f. Gallus
269 a tough one, but the decisive
C. Fabius C.f. Pictor
actions came at sea. Carthage was a
P. Sempronius P.f. Sophus thalassocracy, and the Romans
268 could only contend by building a
Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Russus
navy. The initial tactics, since the
M. Atilius M.f. Regulus Roman were not knowledgeable
267
L. Iulius L.f. Libo seafarers, where to grapple and
board Carthaginians ships. Until
D. Iunius D.f. Pera the Carthaginians could counter
266
N. Fabius C.f Pictor such tactics, the Romans got an
advantage and experience at sea.
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Gurges They inexperience, however, told
265
L. Mamilus Q.f. Vitulus several times when Roman fleets
were caught by storms at sea.
Ap. Claudius C.f. Caudex
264 Storms ended up doing more
M. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus
damage than the Carthaginians.
First Punic War, 264-241 Carthage was at a disadvantage in
that the Carthaginian state did not
M'. Valerius M.f. Maximus (Messalla) have the manpower of the Roman,
263 relying on allies and mercenaries;
M'. Otacilius C.f. Crassus
and since the state was essentially a
L. Postumius L.f. Megellus commercial one, there was a certain
262
Q. Mamilius Q.f. Vitulus lack of enthusiasm for the
investment in military power that
L. Valerius M.f. Flaccus would have been necessary. Rome
261
T. Otacilius C.f. Crassus won Sicily, and then rubbed in its
victory by annexing Corsica and
Cn. Cornelius L.f Scipio Asina Sardinia in 237.
260
C. Duilius M.f.
By 220 Carthage itself had
L. Cornelius L.f. Scipio
259 acquired new resources. Hamilcar
C. Aquillius M.f. Florus
Barca, the Carthaginian
A. Atilius A.f. Caiatinus commander in Sicily during the
258 First Punic War, prepared for the
C. Sulpicius Q.f. Paterculus
future by moving to Spain and
C. Atilius M.f. Regulus enlarging Carthaginian possessions
257 there. He died, but his son
Cn. Cornelius P.f. Blasio II
Hannibal planned on what would
L. Manlius A.f. Vulso Longus need to be done to deal with Rome.
256 Q. Caedicius Q.f. Once Rome acquired "allies" in
Suff.: M. Atilius M.f. Regulus II Spain and began making demands,
Hannibal knew it was time.

Ser. Fulvius M.f Paetinus Nobilior

255
M. Aemilius M.f. Paullus
Cn. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Asina II

254
A. Atilius A.f. Caiatinus II
Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio

253
C. Sempronius Ti.f. Blaesus
C. Aurelius L.f. Cotta

252
P. Servilius Q.f. Geminus
L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus What Hannibal did was to take his

251 seasoned army from Spain and to
C. Furius C.f. Pacilus
march over the Alps into Italy,
C. Atilius M.f. Regulus II initiated the Second Punic War
250 (218-201). This is the most serious
L. Manlius A.f. Vulso II
threat that Rome ever faced to the
P. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher growth of its power. It didn't help
249
L. Iunius C.f. Pullus that Hannibal turned out to be one
of the greatest generals in all of
C. Aurelius L.f. Cotta II history. For centuries thereafter,
248
P. Servilius Q.f. Geminus II Roman mothers could frighten their
children with, "Hannibal is at the
L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus II gates!" In three years, Hannibal
247
N. Fabius M.f. Buteo won three crushing victories and
killed two Roman Consuls. The
M'. Otacilius C.f. Crassus II
246 third victory, at Cannae (in 216), all
M. Fabius C.f. Licinus
but annihilated four Legions,
M. Fabius M.f. Buteo enveloping them on each flank and
245 then surrounding them. This has
C. Atilius A.f. Bulbus
become the ideal battle of military
A. Manlius T.f. Torquatus Atticus history, though rarely matched.
244 Hannibal, however, labored against
C. Sempronius Ti.f. Blaesus II
three insuprable disadvantages: (1)
C. Fundanius C.f. Fundulus Rome had the manpower resources
243
C. Sulpicius C.f. Galus to recover quickly from the defeats;
(2) Hannibal did not have a seige
C. Lutatius C.f. Catulus train and was unable to take or
242
A. Postumius A.f. Albinus seriously threaten Roman cities;
and (3) his hope that his victories
A. Manlius T.f. Torquatus Atticus II would inspire defections from the
241
Q. Lutatius C.f. Cerco cities of Latium, Campania, and
Magna Graecia proved generally

unfounded. His prospective allies

C. Claudius Ap.f Centho
240 knew what Rome was like, what
M. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus
Roman vengeance could be like,
C. Mamilius Q.f. Turrinus and Hannibal seemed to have little
239 to offer them by way of certainties
Q. Valerius Q.f. Falto
or sureties.
Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus
238
P. Valerius Q.f. Falto
L. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus Caudinus

237
Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus
Occupation of Corsica & Sardinia, 237
P. Cornelius L.f Lentulus Caudinus

236
C. Licinius P.f. Varus
While Hannibal endured no real
T. Manlius T.f. Torquatus defeats in Italy, the strategy of Q.
235
C. Atilius A.f. Bulbus II Fabius Maximus Verrucosus,
made dictator in 217, was to avoid
L. Postumius A.f. Albinus
234 battle. This made him Cunctator,
Sp. Carvilius Sp.f. Maximus (Ruga)
"Delayer." Repudiation of this, and
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus a determination to come to grips
233 with Hannibal, simply led to
M'. Pomponius M'.f. Matho
Cannae. Fabius was vindicated, and
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus now he has contributed another
232 phrase to modern discourse,
M. Publicius L.f Malleolus
"Fabian tactics." This has even
M. Pomponius M'.f. Matho ended up in political history, as
231
C. Papirius C.f. Maso "Fabian Socialism," the idea that
socialism could be instituted, not
M. Aemilius L.f. Barbula by an abrupt Marxist revolution,
230
M. Iunius D.f. Pera but through piecemeal and
incremental victories. As a device
L. Postumius A.f. Albinus II to institute socialism, not only was
229
Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Centumalus this quite successful, but it
continues to be successful even
First Illyrian War, 229-228
when everyone has forgotten, or at
Sp. Carvilius Sp.f. Maximus II least doesn't admit, what the
228 purpose of the process is -- and
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus II
even the word "socialism" is
P. Valerius L.f. Flaccus avoided.
227
M. Atilius M.f. Regulus

While Hannibal was largely

M. Valerius M'.f. (Maximus) Messalla
226 neutralized in Italy, Rome
L. Apustius L.f. Fullo
continued to dominate the sea and
L. Aemilius Q.f. Papus Roman strategy began to focus on
225 conquering Spain in Hannibal's
C. Atilius M.f. Regulus
rear. At first this had its ups and
T. Manlius T.f Torquatus II downs, against Hannibal's brother
224 Hasdrubal, and then seemed to be
Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus II
going very badly when the brothers
C. Flaminius C.f. P. Cornelius L.f. Scipio and Cn.
223
P. Furius Sp.f. Philus Cornelius L.f. Scipio Calvus were
both killed there in 211. They were
Cn. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Calvus immediately succeeded by the
222
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus former's son, P. Cornelius P.f.
Scipio -- who would become
P. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Asina Africanus. Scipio captured New
221 M. Minucius C.f. Rufus Carthage (Carthago Nova,
Suff.: M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II Cartagena), Hamilcar's capital, in
209. Hasdrubal, defeated in 207,
M. Valerius P.f. Laevinus
left to join Hannibal in Italy. C.
Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola
220 Claudius Ti.f. Nero secretly took
Suff(?): L. Veturius L.f. Philo
his army away from watching
C. Lutatius C.f. Catulus
Hannibal and joined M. Livius M.
L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus f. Salinator at the River Metaurus
219 to defeat and kill Hasdrubal. The
M. Livius M.f. Salinator
head of Hannibal's brother was then
P. Cornelius L.f. Scipio thrown into his camp. This must
218 have been the most bitter of
Ti. Sempronius C.f. Longus
moments for Hannibal, who now
Second Punic War, 218-201; knew that he could expect no more
Defeat by Hannibal at Trebia River, 218 from the resources of Spain -- all
his father's work lost.
Cn. Servilius P.f. Geminus
217 C. Flaminius C.f. II Wrapping things up in Spain,
Suff.: M. Atilius M.f. Regulus II Scipio return to Rome and then led
an invasion of Africa itself in 204.
Defeat by Hannibal at Lake Trasimene, Flaminius killed,
This had been tried in the First
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus Dictator, 217
Punic War and had not gone well.
L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus II Now Scipio tempted over the
216 Carthagian ally, Masinissa of
C. Terentius C.f. Varro
Numidia. The Numidians had
supplied much of the best
Carthaginian cavalry. Now, as

Hannibal at last returned to Africa

Defeat by Hannibal at Cannae, Paullus killed,
to deal with the threat, this cavalry
Varro escapes, 216
was turned against him when he
Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus finally met decisive defeat at Zama
L. Postumius A.f. Albinus III in 202. Carthage then repudiated
215 Suff.: M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus II abd. Hannibal and the War was settled
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus expeditiously. Carthage was left
(Cunctator) III with a rump African state, with few
rights to pursue her own policies.
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus IV Rome became the dominant, almost
214 the only, state in the Western
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus III
Mediterranean.
First Macedonian War, 214-205
A sad and ugly episode of the War
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus was when M. Claudius M.f.
213
Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Gracchus II Marcellus took Syracuse (which
had switched sides to Carthage) in
Ap. Claudius P.f. Pulcher
212 212. Archemides, probably the
Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus III
greatest mathematician of antiquity,
P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Maximus had used his powers of invention to
211 create engines that helped
Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Centumalus Maximus
withstand the Roman seige for
M. Valerius P.f. Laevinus II three years. Before the city fell,
210 Marcellus instructed his men to
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus IV
respect Archemides, but the great
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Verrucosus V man was killed, for various
209
Q. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus IV legendary reasons, when a Roman
soldier found him.
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus V
208
T. Quinctius L.f. Crispinus By 192 Rome had defeated
Macedonia (Second Macedonian
C. Claudius Ti.f. Nero
207 War, 200-196) in revenge for
M. Livius M.f. Salinator II
siding, for a while, with Carthage.
Q. Caecilius L.f. Metellus T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus
206 defeated Philip V at
L. Veturius L.f. Philo
Cynoscelphalae (197) and
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus proclaimed the "Freedom of
205
P. Licinius P.f. Crassus Dives Greece" at the Isthmian Games
(196). This made Rome a player in
M. Cornelius M.f. Cethegus the Aegean, and naturally it made
204
P. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus enemies of anyone on the hither
shore. This turned out to be the
Scipio Africanus invades Africa, 204 Seleucid King Antiochus III, the

Great, who had marched to India

203 and apparently restored the power
C. Servilius C.f. Geminus
of his Kingdom.
Ti. Claudius P.f. Nero
202
M. Servilius C.f. Pulex Geminus
Scipio Africanus defeats Hannibal at Zama, 202
Cn. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus

201
P. Aelius Q.f. Paetus
P. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Maximus II

200 Antiochus, however great, was no
C. Aurelius C.f. Cotta
match for the Romans. At
Second Macedonian War, 200-196 Magnesia in 190, Antiochus was
defeated by Scipio Africanus, who
L. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus allowed the glory to go to his
199
P. Villius Ti.f. Tappulus brother, L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio,
as nominal commander. L.
T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus Cornelius was then honored with
198
Sex. Aelius Q.f. Paetus Catus the agnômen Asiaticus or
Asiagenus. The Seleucids ceded
C. Cornelius L.f Cethegus Anatolia north and west of the
197
Q. Minucius C.f. Rufus Taurus, never to return. The
Romans rewarded Pergamum with
L. Furius Sp.f. Purpureo
196 most of this territory.
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus
M. Porcius M.f. Cato (the Elder) By 145 two major changes had
195
L. Valerius P.f. Flaccus occured. The Third Punic War (149-
146) had ended with the
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus II annihilation of Carthage. This had
194
Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Longus been urged on by M. Porcius M.f.
Cato, better known as Cato the
L. Cornelius L.f. Merula Elder, who always ended his
193
A. Minucius Q.f. Thermus speeches with a ringing, Delenda
est Carthago, "Carthage must be
L. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus
192 destroyed." It was, under the
Cn. Domitius L.f. Ahenobarbus
direction of P. Cornelius P.f.
Syrian War, 192-188 Scipio Africanus Aemilianus,
adopted as a grandson of Scipio
M'. Acilius C.f. Glabrio Africanus, accompanied by the
191 Greek historian Polybius. At the
P. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Nasica
same time, Greece was conquered
by L. Mummius L.f. (Fourth

L. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Asiaticus/Asiagenus Macedonian War, 149-146).

190 Corinth was brutally sacked in an
C. Laelius C.f.
example of Roman revenge.
Defeat of Antiochus III the Great, 190 Meanwhile, Parthia, independent
since 248, tossed the Seleucids out
Cn. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso of eastern Iran by 185. And Judaea
189
M. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior had thrown off Seleucid control by
164.
C. Livius M.f. Salinator
188
M. Valerius M.f. Messalla
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus

187
C. Flaminius C.f.
Sp. Postumius L.f. Albinus

186
Q. Marcius L.f. Philippus
Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher By 74 BC, when Cyrene was made

185 a province, Asia, meaning western
M. Sempronius M.f. Tuditanus
Anatolia, had also been annexed,
P. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher when the lands of Pergamum were
184 willed to Rome in 133 by the last
L. Porcius L.f. Licinus
King, Attalus III. Cilicia was
Q. Fabius Q.f. Labeo annexed after a campaign against
183
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus priates by M. Antonius M.f. in
102. Cilician pirates had kept Rome
L. Aemilius L.f. Paullus well supplied with slaves. The
182
Cn. Baebius Q.f. Tamphilus existence of so many slaves led to
notable slave revolts, in Sicily up to
P. Cornelius L.f. Cethegus 100, and especially the huge revolt
181
M. Baebius Q.f. Tamphilus of Spartacus coming in 73.
Warfare was carried on by Marius
A. Postumius A.f. Albinus (Luscus)
against the revolt of Jugurtha and
180 C. Calpurnius C.f. Piso
invasions by the Celtic (not
Suff.: Q. Fulvius Cn.f. Flaccus
German) tribes of the Teutones and
L. Manlius L.f. Acidinus Fulvianus Cimbri. The Social War (91-88) led
179 to Italian provincials being given
Q. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus
full Roman citizenship. A different
M. Iunius M.f. Brutus sort of conflict was between the
178 Popular and the Senatorial parties
A. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso
at Rome itself, with Marius for the
C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher former and Sulla emerging for the
177
Ti. Sempronius P.f. Gracchus latter. Sulla was given command to
deal with Mithridates III of Pontus,

who turned the Black Sea into a

Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Hispallus
Pontic lake, overran Anatolia, and
176 Q. Petillius
invaded Greece (First Mithridatic
Suff.: C. Valerius M.f. Laevinus
War, 88-85). It came down to Civil
P. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola War between Marius and Sulla,
175 with Marius in possession of Rome
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II
in 87. But then he died the next
Sp. Postumius A.f. Albinus Paullulus year. Sulla and the Senate took
174 control. Sulla then had to deal with
Q. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola
Mithridates again (Second
L. Postumius A.f. Albinus Mithridatic War, 83-82). When
173
M. Popillius P.f. Laenas Sulla died in 78, his political heir
was Pompey.
C. Popillius P.f. Laenas
172
P. Aelius P.f. Ligus
Third Macedonian War, 172-168/7
P. Licinius C.f. Crassus

171
C. Cassius C.f. Longinus
A. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus

170 By 44, when Caesar was
A. Atilius C.f. Serranus
assassinated, the outlines of the
Q. Marcius L.f. Philippus II future were in place. L. Licinius L.
169 f. Lucullus had been left by Sulla
to fight Mithridates, which he did
L. Aemilius L.f. Paullus II successfully. But his army didn't
168
C. Licinius C.f. Crassus like him, and in 66 he was replace
by Pompey, who then destroyed
Q. Aelius P.f. Paetus Mithridates and imposed a Roman
167
M. Iunius M.f. Pennus settlement on Anatolia, Syria, and
Palestine (67-63). Local
C. Sulpicius C.f. Galus autonomous states were allowed to
166
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus remain, but it is revealing that
several of these rulers sported
T. Manlius A.f. Torquatus
165 names like Philorhômaios, "Lover
Cn. Octavius Cn.f.
of Rome."
A. Manlius A.f. Torquatus
164 Pompey enjoyed a unique
Q. Cassius L.f. Longinus
opportunity in history, when he
Ti. Sempronius P.f. Gracchus II took Jerusalem in 63. According to
163
M'. Iuventius T.f. Thalna Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias or
Flavius Josephus):

P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica (Corculum) Among the disasters

C. Marcius C.f. Figulus of that time nothing
162
Suff.: P. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus sent such a shudder
Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus through the nation as
the exposure by
M. Valerius M.f. Messalla aliens of the Holy
161
C. Fannius C.f. Strabo Place, hitherto
screened from all
L. Anicius L.f. Gallus
160 eyes. Pompey and his
M. Cornelius C.f. Cethegus
staff went into the
Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Dolabella Sanctuary, which no
159 one was permitted to
M. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior
enter but the high
M. Aemilius M'.f. Lepidus priest, and saw what
158 it contained -- the
C. Popillius P.f. Laenas II
lampstand and the
Sex. Iulius Sex.f. Caesar lamps, the table, the
157
L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes libation cups and
censers, all of solid
L. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Lupus gold, and a great
156
C. Marcius C.f. Figulus II heap of spices and
sacred money
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica II totalling £2,000,000.
155
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus II Neither on this nor
on any other of the
Carneades at Rome, introduces Greek philosophy, 155
sacred treasures did
he lay a finger, and
Q. Opimius Q.f.
only one day after
154 L. Postumius Sp.f. Albinus
the capture he
Suff.: M'. Acilius M'.f. Glabrio
instructed the
Q. Fulvius M.f. Nobilior custodians to purify
153 the Temple and
T. Annius T.f. Luscus
perform the normal
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus III sacrifices. [The
152 Jewish War,
L. Valerius L.f. Flaccus
translated by G.A.
L. Licinius M.f. Lucullus Williamson.
151
A. Postumius A.f. Albinus Penguin, 1959, p.41]
T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus Noteworthy in Joseph's description

150
M'. Acilius L.f. Balbus of the contents of the Sanctuary is
the absence of the Ark of the
Convent, whose fate is discussed

L. Marcius C.f. Censorinus elsewhere.

149
M'. Manilius P.f.
Spartacus defeated several Roman
Third Punic War, 149-146 armies, including that of the Consul
C. Cassius L.f. Longinus at
Sp. Postumius Sp.f. Albinus Magnus Mutina in 72. He was defeated by
148
L. Calpurnius C.f. Piso Caesoninus Crassus in 71 and crucified with his
entire army along the Appian Way.
Fourth Macedonian War, Rome The shadow of Spartacus, however,
annexes Greece & Macedonia, 148 looms larger in modern political
history than in Roman. The
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus
147 Communists who attempted a
C. Livius M. Aemiliani f. Drusus
revolution in Berlin in 1919, led by
Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Rosa Luxemburg, were the
146 "Spartacists," seeing workers
L. Mummius L.f.
through Marxist theory as slaves
Carthage destroyed by Scipio Aemilianus, 146 under Capitalism. This Communist
connection continued much later
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Aemilianus with the movie Spartacus (1960),
145
L. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus whose screenplay was written by
Dalton Trumbo, a man who had
Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f Galba been an active member of the
144
L. Aurelius L.?f. Cotta Communist Party USA, was
blacklisted after being found in
Ap. Claudius C.f. Pulcher
143 Contempt of Congress, but then
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Macedonicus
was given screen credit by Kirk
L. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Calvus Douglas, a star and producer of the
142 movie, breaking the blacklist for
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Servilianus
the first time (it had been an
Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio agreement among Hollywood
141 producers, with no legal force).
Q. Pompeius A.f.
While Trumbo wrote under a
C. Laelius C.f. pseudonym during the blacklist,
140
Q. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio hardly even suffering
professionally, and of course was
Cn. Calpurnius Piso not shipped off to a Gulag or shot
139
M. Popillius M.f. Laenas the way similar dissidents in his
beloved Soviet Union were, he
P. Cornelius P.F. Scipio Nasica Serapio continues to be celebrated as a
138
D. Iunius M.f. Brutus (Callaicus)
martyr by the people who don't
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus Porcina want to admit how bad Josef Stalin
137 was or who, more disturbingly, still
C. Hostilius A.f. Mancinus

promote forms of collectivism and

L.? Furius Philus
136 political correctness that differ little
Sex. Atilius M.f. Serranus
from Soviet principles. Note well:
First Sicilian Slave War, 136-132 Trumbo was not penalized for his
opinions or for free speech -- he
Ser. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus never exercised free speech by
135
Q. Calpurnius C.f. Piso honestly voicing his opinions in
public. His very success and
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus II celebrity were a joke on capitalism
134
C. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus and clueless liberals.
P. Mucius P.f. Scaevola Julius Caesar began his career as

133
Calpurnius L.f. Piso Frugi an adherent of Marius's popular
party. However, Caesar allied with
Pergamum willed to Rome, 133
Pompey and Crassus in the First
P. Popillius C.f. Laenas Triumvirate (60). This enabled him
132 to win command in Gaul.
P. Rupilius P.f.
"Cisalpine" Gaul, in northern Italy,
P. Licinius P.f. Crassus Mucianus was already Roman. "Transalpine"
131 Gaul, beyond the Alps, he
conquered from 58 to 51. This gave
L. Cornelius Lentulus him a large and loyal army, with
130 M. Perperna M.f. which he invaded Italy in 49, when
Suff.: Ap. Claudius Pulcher he crossed the Rubicon River, the
boundary of his command. By 44
C. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus BC, he had defeated Pompey (at
129
M'. Aquillius M'.f. Pharsalus, 48), dallied with
Cleopatra, married her as a second
Cn. Octavius Cn.f. wife (rather shocking to the
128
T. Annius Rufus Romans), and consolidated his
position as de facto monarch. This
L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla
127 was the Roman Empire in most
L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna
essentials, though disposing of final
M. Aemilius Lepidus opposition and the definitive forms
126 of Imperial power had to be
L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes
engineered by Augustus, who also
M. Plautius Hypsaeus had to defeat Caesar's own friend
125 and adherent, M. Antonius M.f. --
M. Fulvius M.f. Flaccus
Marc Anthony, who famously
C. Cassius Longinus succeeded Caesar in the arms of
124
C. Sextius C.f. Calvinus Cleopatra.

Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus (Baliaricus)

123
T. Quinctius T.f. Flamininus
Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus

122
C. Fannius M.f.
L. Opimius Q.f.
121
Q. Fabius Q. Aemiliani f. Maximus
P. Manilius P.?f.
120
C. Papirius Carbo
The cause of the Republican
L. Caecilius L.f. Metellus (Delmaticus) assassins of Caesar ended at the
119 battle of Philippi in 42. Most
L. Aurelius Cotta
notable among the assassins was
M. Porcius M.f. Cato Brutus, Marcus Iunius Brutus, "the
118 noblest Roman of them all."
Q. Marcius Q.f. Rex
Although Brutus's name meant
L. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Diadematus "heavy" or "immovable," and was
117
Q. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola used to mean dull or stupid, and is
now used to mean brutal ("You
C. Licinius P.f. Geta brute!" -- indeed, "brutal" is just the
116
Q. Fabius Q. Serviliani f. (Augur) Maximus Eburnus adj. brutalis from brutus), it was a
cognômen of the gens Iunius and
M. Aemilius M.f. Scaurus recalls the name of the first Consul
115
M. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus of the Republic, L. Iunius M.f.
Brutus. Brutus was widely
M'. Acilius M'.f. Balbus
114 respected for his conscientiousness,
C. Porcius M.f. Cato
integrity, and patriotism -- though
C. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Caprarius Cicero thought him guilty of
113 extortion. He joined Pompey but
Cn. Papirius C.f. Carbo
was pardoned by Caesar after
M. Livius C.F. Drusus Pharsalus. His adherence to the plot
112 against Caesar gave it most of its
L. Calpurnius L.f. Piso Caesoninus
moral weight. When Caesar saw
War against Jugurtha, 112-106 that Brutus was among his
attackers on the Ides of March, he
P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica Serapio reportedly lost heart. Suetonius, C.
111
L. Calpurnius Bestia Suetonius Tranquillus ["The
Deified Julius," Lives of the
M. Minucius Q.f. Rufus Caesars], reports that Caesar said
110
Sp. Postumius Albinus nothing during the attack, "though
some have written" that he said to
Brutus, Kaì sù téknon? "And you,

child?" in Greek [Loeb Classical

Q. Caecilius L.f. Metellus (Numidicus)
109 Library, Suetonius, Volume I,
M. Iunius D.f. Silanus
Harvard, 1913, 1998, p.140-141 --
Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba Shakespeare puts it, loosely, in
l08 Q.? Hortensius Latin, Et tu, Brute?]. This phrase,
Suff.: M. Aemilius Scaurus among other things, continues to
fuel speculation that Brutus was
L. Cassius L.f. Longinus actually Caesar's own natural son, a
107 twist that puts the whole business
C. Marius C.f.
in an even more tragic light than it
C. Atilius Serranus already has. Although driven out of
l06
Q. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio Rome by riots, in 43 the Senate
itself rewarded Brutus with a
P. Rutilius P.f. Rufus proconsular command in the
105
Cn. Mallius Cn.f. Maximus Balkans. Nevertheless, the matter
would be settled by force, and after
C. Marius C.f. II the defeat by Anthony and
104
C. Flavius C.f. Fimbria Octavian at Philippi, Brutus
committed suicide. The Roman
Second Sicilian Slave War, 104-100
Republic thus may be said to have
C. Marius C.f. III ended with a Iunius Brutus the way
103 it had begun with a Iunius Brutus.
L. Aurelius L.f. Orestes
C. Marius C.f. IV So, we must ask, what went wrong

102
Q. Lutatius Q.f. Catulus with the Roman Republic? From
Polybius to Machiavelli and
Marius defeats Teutones & Cimbri, 102-101; beyond, it was admired as a system
anti-piracy campaign in Cilicia, 102 of government, and it did have a
good run, but in the end it
C. Marius C.f. V unquestionably failed. What
101
M'. Aquillius M'.f. happened?
C. Marius C.f VI
100
M. Antonius M.f.
99
A. Postumius Albinus
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Nepos

98
T. Didius T.f.
Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulas

97
P. Licinius M.f. Crassus

Machiavelli, in a tradition from the

Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus
96 Greeks to the present, thought that
C. Cassius L.f. Longinus
that the Roman Republic worked
L. Licinius L.f. Crassus because of a mixture of institutions,
95 designed to correct each other and
Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola
limit the abuses that various pure
C. Coelius C.f. Caldus forms of government would have.
94
L. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus Thus, he believed that Monarchy
alone led to Tyranny, Aristocracy
C. Valerius C.f. Flaccus alone let to Oligarchy, and
93
M. Herennius M.f. Democracy alone led to Anarchy.
The Republic included a (limited)
C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher Monarchical power in the Consuls,
92
M. Perperna M.f. Aristocratic power in the Senate,
and Democratic power in the
L. Marcius Q.f. Philippus
91 Tribunes and other institutions of
Sex. Iulius C.f. Caesar
the Plebs. We have other features,
Social War, 91-87 such as the custom for most of the
Republic that one Consul would be
L. Iulius L.f. Caesar from the Patrician/Senatorial class,
90 while the other would be a Pleb.
P. Rutilius L.f. Lupus
Cn. Pompeius Sex.f. Strabo Since, for at least the last century,
89
L. Porcius M.f. Cato most trendy political opinion has
despised the principles of limited
L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla (Felix) government and naively imagined
88
Q. Pompeius Q.f. Rufus that the more democracy the better,
most recent judgment about the
First Mithridatic War, 88-85 Roman Republic would be that it
was insufficiently democratic.
Cn. Octavius Cn.f.
Indeed, a great deal of the political
87 L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna
conflict through the whole history
Suff.: L. Cornelius Merula
of the Republic was in the direction
Marius seizes Rome, 87 of greater democracy, of greater
power for the Plebs; and for the last
L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna II century, from Marius to Caesar,
86 C. Marius C.f. VII there was a virtual, and sometimes
Suff.: L. Valerius C.?f. Flaccus very real, civil war between
Senatorial and Popular factions.
Marius dies, 86 That was perhaps initiated by the
two Gracchi brothers, Ti.
L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna III Sempronius Gracchus (Tribune
85
Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo 133) and C. Sempronius

Gracchus (Tribune 123 & 122). A

Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo II
84 land reform bill, trying to
L. Cornelius L.f. Cinna IV
redistribute agricultural holdings to
L. Cornelius L.f. Scipio Asiaticus small farmers, instead of their
83 being worked by slaves for
C. Norbanus
landlords, got Tiberius lynched by
Second Mithridatic War, 83-82 Senatorial opponents. Gaius
continued with other democratizing
C. Marius C.f. proposals but also provoked, for the
82 time being, successful opposition.
Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo III
Their cause, however, continued
Sulla Dictator, 82-79 and would be championed, not
always consistently, by Marius and
M. Tullius M.f. Decula Caesar. The trouble with viewing
81
Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Dolabella this history as a simple Aristocracy
vs. Democracy morality play is that
L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix II in winning, the leader of the
80
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius Popular faction, Julius Caesar, did
not usher in utopian Democracy but
P. Servilius C.f. Vatia (Isauricus)
79 simply dictatorship and then a very
Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher
durable Monarchy. Disturbingly,
M. Aemilius Q.f Lepidus this is no less than what Plato
78 would have predicted for the
Q. Lutatius Q.f. Catulus
outcome of democratization.
D. Iunius D.f. Brutus
77
Mam. Aemilius Mam.f. Lepidus Livianus The key to all this is the prinicple
of rent-seeking, the desire to live
Cn. Octavius M.f.
76 off one's capital, off the labor of
C. Scribonius C.f. Curio
others, or off pseudo-property
L. Octavius Cn.f. created by political fiat (e.g.
75 monopolies, unnecessary offices,
C. Aurelius M.f. Cotta
etc.). With the cynicism of
L. Licinius L.f. Lucullus politicians, this is obvious. Even
74 uncynical politicians, who may be
M. Aurelius M.f. Cotta
above mere power seeking,
Third Mithridatic War, 74-63 inevitably pass from the scene and
are rapidly replaced by more
M. Terentius M.f. Varro Lucullus mercenary and venal successors.
73
C. Cassius L.f. Longinus (Varus?) Roman politicians are rarely either
purely idealistic or completely
Slave Revolt of Spartacus, 73-71 cynical. Whether someone like
Caesar thought he was doing good
or was simply out for himself is a

good question. They were rarely

L. Gellius L.f. Poplicola
72 unwilling to employ the support of
Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Clodianus
the opposition if circumstances
P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Sura warranted or allowed it. None of
71 this is suprising. More importantly,
Cn. Aufidius Cn.f. Orestes
however, is the fact that democracy
Crassus defeats Spartacus, 71 can also easily become a form of
rent-seeking, with politicians
Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus promising benefits in general. The
70
M. Licinius P.f. Crassus triumph of Caesar and the Empire
depended, in a sense, on the
Q. Hortensius L.f. Hortalus essential tendency of democracy,
69
Q. Caecilius C.f. Metellus (Creticus) even if the forms and functions of
democracy were overriden and
L. Caecilius C.f. Metellus gradually eliminated. The means of
68 Q. Marcius Q.f. Rex this triumph can be summed up in a
Suff.: Servilius Vatia familiar phrase: Panem et
Circenses, "Bread and Circuses."
C. Calpurnius Piso
67 Free food and free entertainment.
M'. Acilius M'.f. Glabrio
The population of Rome, and later
Pompey's Settlement of the East, 67-63 of Constantinople, was favored
with a free ration -- one reason why
M'. Aemilius Lepidus Augustus kept Egypt, with its
66 agricultural productivity, as his
L. Volcacius Tullus
personal possession. This meant
L. Aurelius M.f. Cotta that large parts of the populations
65
L. Manlius L.f. Torquatus of the metropolitan cities of the
Roman Empire didn't need to work
L. Iulius L.f. Caesar much for a living and were
64
C. Marcius C.f. Figulus provided with something else to do.
The loss of productivity, creativity,
M. Tullius M.f. Cicero and enterprise can hardly be
63
C. Antonius M.f. Hybrida imagined. The migration of power
and intiative out of Rome itself,
D. Iunius M.f. Silanus
62 however, does not surprise. The
L. Licinius L.f. Murena
state was much better off once that
M. Pupius M.f. Piso Frugi Calpurnianus happened, and the subsequent loss
61 of North Africa and then Egypt, the
M. Valerius M.f. Messalla Niger
breadbaskets of the Empire,
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Celer eventually ended the possibility of
60 free rations -- though, at the same
L. Afranius A.f.
time, such reductions in territory
First Triumvirate, Pompey, Caesar, & Crassus, 60 greatly limited the resources

available for recovery.

C. Iulius C.f. Caesar
59
M. Calpurnius C.f. Bibulus
The institutions
L. Calpurnius L.f. Piso Caesoninus under which this
58
A. Gabinius A.f. all happened,
however admired
Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, 58-51 by Machiavelli or
others, obviously
P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Spinther allowed for their
57
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Nepos degeneration. The
principles were
Cn. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Marcellinus
56 not wrong, but
L. Marcius L.f. Philippus
their weaknesses
Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus II can be identified.
55 When military
M. Licinius P.f. Crassus II
commands were
L. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus political offices,
54 the danger of a
Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher
successful general, with loyal
Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus troops, using his army for his own
53
M. Valerius Messalla Rufus political purposes became very
great. Caesar could cross the
Parthians kill Crassus at Carrhae, 53 Rubicon because his men were
willing to obey illegal orders and
Cn. Pompeius Cn.f. Magnus III because there was no army or
52
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius Scipio commander his equal in his way. In
comparison to such a general, who
Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Rufus might hold a command for years, the
51
M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus power of the legal Executives of the
state, the Consuls, was paltry. With
L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus Lepidus
50 this in mind, one understands why
C. Claudius C.f. Marcellus
the President of the United States, in
C. Claudius M.f. Marcellus office for a substantial four years, is
49 Constitutionally the Commander-in-
L. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Crus
Chief over armed forces whose own
Caesar Crosses Rubicon, Dictator, 49 tradition is apolitical. The political
appointment of generals, especially
C. Iulius C.f. Caesar II in the Civil War, has existed in
48
P. Servilius P.f. Vatia Isauricus American history, but successful
generals, from the Civil War on,
Pompey defeated by Caesar, murdered in Egypt, 48 have tended to be career military
professionals. Generals dissatisfied
with political decisions concerning

them, like Robert E. Lee, Joseph

Q. Fufius Q.f. Calenus
47 Stillwell, or Douglas McArthur,
P. Vatinius P.f.
might complain, but would end up
Caesar Dictator II, 47-46 doing nothing worse than resigning.
Also, a modern army is so
C. Iulius C.f. Caesar III dependant on its logisical support,
46 ultimately back to civilian sources,
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus
that no general really commands an
Caesar Dictator III, 46-45 independent force.
C. Iulius C.f. Caesar IV Thomas Jefferson said that when he

(without collega)
45 was young, he and his friends used
Suff.: Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus
to say, "Where annual election ends,
C. Trebonius C.f. C. Caninus C.f. Rebilus
tyranny begins." He was unhappy
Caesar Dictator IV, 45-44 with how long the term of the
President was, was appalled at the
C. Iulius C.f. Caesar V term of a Senator (six years), but
44 M. Antonius M.f. was terrified that the President could
Suff.: P. Cornelius P.f Dolabella be elected over and over again.
What frightened him so was the
Caesar Dictator for Life, assassinated, 44 BC example of Poland, where the
election of the Kings of Poland had
C. Vibius C.f. Pansa Caetronianus come entirely under the control of
A. Hirtius A.f. foreign powers. As it happened, for
43 Suff.: C. Iulius C.f. Caesar Octavianus more than the first century of
Q. Pedius (Q.f.?) American history, all the Presidents
P. Ventidius P.f. C. Carrinas C.f. who might have successfully run for
a third term -- Washington,
Second Triumvirate, Antony, Lepidus, & Octavian, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe,
Cicero executed, 43 Jackson, and Grant -- declined to do
so. The precedent of Washington,
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus II
42 who could easily have been
L. Munatius L.f. Plancus
President, or King, for Life, came to
L. Antonius M.f. be viewed as morally binding.
41
P. Servilius P.f. Vatia Isauricus II
Thus, the Julius
Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus II Caesar of
C. Asinius Cn.f. Pollio American history
40
Suff.:L. Cornelius L.f. Balbus was no general
P. Canidius P.f. Crassus but a President,
the one who
broke with
Washington's

precedent
L. Marcius L.f. Censorinus
(literally
C. Calvisius C.f. Sabinus
39 becoming
Suff.: C. Cocceius (Balbus)
President for
P. Alfenus P.f. Varus
Life), and the
Ap. Claudius C.f. Pulcher one who turned
C. Norbanus C.f. Flaccus government into
38 a promise of ever
Suff.: L. Cornelius
L. Marcius L.f. Philippus increasing benefits, rations, and
subsidies. This was Franklin D.
M. Vipsanius L.f Agrippa Roosevelt, and the damage done to
37 L. Caninus L.f. Gallus American government is still
Suff.: T. Statilius T.f. Taurus evident, not just in the rent-seeking
practices that now overwhelm
L. Gellius L.f Poplicola political life, but in the respect paid
M. Cocceius Nerva to Roosevelt by both Democrats and
36
Suff.: L. Nonius (L.f Asprenas) Republicans. Neither Party intends
Marcius to reverse the principle, ennunciated
in their day and rejected by
L. Cornificius L.f. Jefferson and Madison, but
Sex. Pompeius Sex.f. embraced by Roosevelt, that the
35
Suff.: P. Cornelius (P.f. Scipio) United States Government can tax
T. Peducaeus and spend money for any purpose,
as long as this can be construed as
M. Antonius M.f. II
promoting the "general welfare."
L. Scribonius L.f. Libo
Free benefits for everyone would
34 Suff.: L. Sempronius L.f. Atratinus
certainly produce a kind of "general
Paullus Aemilius L.f. Lepidus
welfare," except for the effects
C. Memmius C.f. M. Herennius
produced similar to the Panem et
Imp. Caesar Divi f. II Circenses. Again the damage to
L. Volcacius L.f. Tullus productivity, creativity, and
Suff.: L. Autronius P.f. Paetus enterprise can only be vaguely
33 L. Flavius estimated, though the decline in all
C. Fonteius C.f. Capito of these in countries, like France,
M. Acilius (M'. f.?) Glabrio where taxation and welfare
L. Vinicius M.f. Q. Laronius provisions are much greater than in
the United States, is obvious to
Cn. Domitius L.f. Ahenobarbus anyone who cares to look. While
C. Sosius C.f. dictatorship is not an immediate
32
Suff.: L. Cornelius threat, we already see one
M. Valerius Messalla interesting effect, where aggitation
for more democracy and honest
elections has led to a law, passed by

Congress, approved by the

Imp. Caesar Divi f. III
President, and allowed by the
31 M. Valerius M.f. Messalla Corvinus
Suff.: M. Titius L.f. Cn. Pompeius Q.f. Supreme Court, that prohibits
criticism of candidates for federal
Imp. Caesar Divi f. IV office in advertisements purchased
M. Licinius M.f. Crassus by advocacy groups. This
30 Suff.: C. Antistius C.f. Vetus grotesquely abridges the First
M. Tullius M.f. Cicero Amendment to the United States
L. Saenius L.f. Constitution, and is rather obviously
motivated, like most campaign
Suicides of Antony & Cleopatra, "reform" laws, by the desire to
annexation of Egypt, 30 protect politicians from criticism.
Avenues thus open to real tyranny
Imp. Caesar Divi f. V and perhaps even to real Caesars,
29 Sex. Appuleius Sex.f. leaving us with no confidence that
Suff.: Potitus Valerius M.f. Messalla modern Democracies, or even the
Great Republic itself, might not go
Imp. Caesar Divi f. VI the way of the Respublica Romana.
28
M. Vipsanius L.f. Agrippa II
As Caesar was rising to power, one
Imp. Caesar Divi f. VII
27 of his most vocal critics was Cato
M. Vipsanius L.f. Agrippa III
the Younger, M. Procius Cato. Cato
Octavian becomes Augustus, 27 originally opposed all the Triumvirs;
but as hope for withstanding Caesar
focused on Pompey, he threw his lot with that faction. Cato ended up holding Utica in North Africa
(hence the informal agnômen "Uticensis") under Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius Scipio (Consul with
Pompey in 52), who fled there after Pharsalus. Caesar invaded North Africa in 46 and defeated the
Pompeian forces at Thapsus. Metellus and Cato both committed suicide. Cato's defense of the Republic
was remembered in the British Whig politics of the 18th century. Joseph Addison (1672-1719, admired
more than Locke by Hume) wrote a play, Cato: A Tragedy, in 1713:
While Cato lives, Caesar will blush to see

Mankind enslaved, and be ashamed of empire.
[Act IV, scene iv]
This was followed by a series of 138 letters under the pseudonym "Cato," published by John Trenchard
and Thomas Gordon, between 1720 and 1723. These Cato's Letter were reprinted many times, in Britain
and in America, and played a large part, after the pattern of John Locke's natural law and natural rights
justification of the Glorious Revolution (1688), in the formulation of the ideology of the American
Revolution. Trenchard died in 1723; and Gordon, who did not die until 1750, threw his lot, a bit like
Cato himself, with a particular political faction. The Whig Party of Sir Robert Walpole (considered the
first Prime Minister of England), however, was rather more suitable than the faction of Pompey the

Great. Today, both Cato himself and the Cato's Letters are remembered in the work of the Cato
Institute, whose efforts on behalf of limited, Jeffersonian, and Constitutional government are
occasionally even noticed in Washington.
Consuls of the Roman Empire
Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History
The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History
Rome and Romania
● Animated History of Romania
Home Page
Copyright (c) 2004, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

"History Instructing Youth,"

United States $1 Silver Certificate, "Educational Series," 1896
Essays
● The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Pericles to Heinlein [29.3K]
● Decadence, Rome and Romania, and the Emperors Who Weren't [53.8K]
● The Vlach Connection, and Further Reflections on Roman History [54.5K]
● The Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian [28.7K]

❍ The Semitic and Other Afroasiatic Languages [24.8K]
● Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom [49.5K]
● Conservatism, History, and Progress [26.7K]
● Violence, Non-Violence, and Progress in History [40.2K]
http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm (1 of 27)8/25/2006 5:36:36 AM

● The Great Republic: Presidents and States of the United States, and Comments on American History
[172.6K]
❍ Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
❍ The Old Rebublic, 1789-1861
■ The Star-Spangled Banner [40.2K]
■ California [67.4K]
■ Sequoia
■ Sam Houston & Texas
■ Elisabet Ney
■ The Astors [64.2K]
■ The Vanderbilts [107.9K]
❍ The Middle Rebublic, 1861-1933
■ John Brown's Body and The Battle Hymn of the Republic [40.1K]
■ Marching Through Georgia [15.2K]
■ American Colonial Possessions
■ The Kings of Hawai'i [24.6K]
■ How to Pronounce "Hawai'i"
■ A Syllabary for Hawaiian
■ The Rockefellers [64.2K]
■ The Hearsts
■ The Fords
■ The Roosevelts & Delanos
❍ The New Rebublic, 1933-2005?
■ Six Kinds of United States Paper Currency [48.7K]
■ American Dollars
■ Statistics on Inflation, 1946-1997
■ Alpine County and Equal Representation [26.2K]
■ The Hiltons [7.3K]
■ The Kennedies [60.7K]
■ The Bushes [67.4K]
❍ The Next Rebublic, 2005?-?
● British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime [72.3K]
❍ The Bank of England
❍ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947
● The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History [9.4K]

❍ The Essential Anti-Communist Bibliography
■ The Post-Modern Left
Hence arises the fact that everything better struggles through only with
difficulty, becomes effective, or meets with a hearing, but the absurd

and perverse in the realm of thought, the dull and tasteless in the sphere
of art, and the wicked and fraudulent in the sphere of action, really
assert a supremacy that is disturbed only by brief interruptions.
Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, §59, p.

324 [Dover Publications, 1966, E.F.J. Payne translation]
● Military History
❍ The Battleship Kongô [55.9K]
■ Japanese Battleships
■ U.S. Battle Cruisers & Aircraft Carrier Names
❍ The Pearl Harbor Strike Force [30.3K]
■ Advanced Japanese Destroyers of World War II [17.7K]
■ A Guadalcanal Chronology & Order of Battle, 7 August 1942 - 6 March 1943 [38.7K]
■ Naval Aircraft Designations of Japan and the United States [28.2K]
■ U.S. Army Air Corps, Air Force, and Navy-Airforce Aircraft Designations
❍ Zen and the Art of Divebombing, or The Dark Side of the Tao [77.3K]
❍ Dreadnought [87.0K]
■ Russian Battleships
■ United States Battleships and Other Ships Named After States
■ United States Ships Named After Rivers
■ Dreadnoughts in Other Navies
❍ The Treaty Cruisers
■ Renamed U.S. Cruisers
■ U.S. Light Aircraft Carriers and Lost Carriers
❍ Military Rank [55.7K]
■ Strategy, Tactics, and Operations
■ Feudal Hierarchy
❍ Reflections on Fencing [12.8K]
■ Sir Richard Burton, 1821-1890
...and thus we can understand how the work of War, although so plain
and simple in its effects, can never be conducted with distinguished
success by people without distinguished powers of the understanding.
Carl von Clausewitz, On War [Penguin Classics, 1968, 1982, p. 155]

● Calendars
❍ Groundhog Day and Chinese Astronomy [15.8K]
❍ Julian Day Numbers for dates on the Gregorian and Julian Calendars [14.8K]
❍ The Solar Terms and the Chinese Calendar [19.7K]
■ The Chinese 60 Year Calendar Cycle
■ The Occurrence of the Solar Terms 1995-2006
❍ Chronology and Julian Day Numbers for the Egyptian XII Dynasty [35.4K]
■ The Egyptian Calendar
❍ The Babylonian Calendar [69.0K]
❍ The Jewish and Moslem Calendars with the Era of Nabonassar
■ The Jewish Calendar
■ Islâmic Dates with Julian Day Numbers
❍ A Modern Luni-Solar Calendar
❍ The Determination of Easter [34.3K]
❍ The Greek Orthodox and Soviet Calendar Reforms [41.4K]
❍ Iranian Calendars
❍ The Calendar in India
❍ The Mayan Calendar [86.7K]
❍ Traditional English Names of Full Moons, and the "Blue Moon"
❍ The French Revolutionary Calendar
❍ The Days of the Week [15.6K]
■ David Ewing Duncan's Calendar [Avon, 1998]
The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and

bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them
into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds
which are mighty and worthy of commemoration; as the
playwright [Sophocles] says, it "brings to light that which
was unseen and shrouds from us that which was manifest."
Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark
against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this
irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can
seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip
away into the depths of Oblivion.
Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad, translated by E.R.A.

Sewter [Penguin Classics, 1969, p.17]. Contemporary image of the
Empress Maria, the Alan.

Book Reviews
● American Sphinx, The Character of Thomas Jefferson, Joseph J. Ellis, Alfred A. Knopf, 1997 [18.8K]
● Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, A History of the American Civil War, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel,
Open Court, 1996 [27.2K]
❍ I am a Union man [52.3K]
■ Marching Through Georgia [15.2]
Should a traveller, returning from a far country, bring us an

account of men, wholly different from any with whom we
were ever acquainted; men, who were entirely divested of
avarice, ambition, or revenge; who knew no pleasure but
friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should
immediately, from these circumstances, detect the falsehood,
and prove him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had
stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and dragons,
miracles and prodigies. And if we would explode any forgery
in history, we cannot make use of a more convincing
argument, than to prove, that the actions ascribed to any person are directly contrary to
the course of nature, and that no human motives, in such circumstances, could ever
induce him to such a conduct.
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. VIII, Part I, p. 65 [Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1972, L.A. Selby-Bigge edition, p. 84]
Reference Resources
● Guide and Index to Lists of Rulers [59.5K]
❍ Feudal Hierarchy

Most of the following reference items are perhaps not, strictly speaking,
philosophy of history. The editorial intention originally was to provide some
material of more general interest than the purely philosophical content of The
Proceedings of the Friesian School to attract attention to the website. However,
history provides countless examples for the application
of ideas from both ethics and political economy. If
philosophy is to be historically practical in the Socratic or Platonic sense,
then it helps to know history. Political commitment is also an important
characrteristic of the Friesian School. Therefore, there has been increasing use of the historical files
for these purposes. Not all of history may be covered here, but a very extensive fragment of it
certainly is.
● The Earliest Civilizations

❍ Languages with more than 30,000,000 Speakers as of 1993 [48.8K]
❍ "Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages [19.8K]
❍ Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages
❍ The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe [36.1K]
● Index of Egyptian History [49.6K]

❍ The Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian [28.7K]
❍ Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom [49.5K]
● The Archaic or Early Dynastic Period of Egypt

❍ I Dynasty
❍ II Dynasty
● The Old Kingdom of Egypt

❍ III Dynasty
❍ IV Dynasty
❍ V Dynasty
❍ VI Dynasty
● Index of Mesopotamian and Ancient Middle Eastern History

● Kings of Sumer and Akkad
● The First Intermediate Period of Egypt
❍ VII Dynasty
❍ VIII Dynasty
❍ IX Dynasty
❍ X Dynasty
● The Middle Kingdom of Egypt [35.4K]

❍ XI Dynasty
❍ Chronology and Julian Day Numbers for the Egyptian XII Dynasty
■ The Egyptian Calendar

● The Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods

● The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt
❍ XIII Dynasty
❍ XIV Dynasty
❍ XV Dynasty
❍ XVI Dynasty
❍ XVII Dynasty
● Chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom [96.9K]

❍ XVIII Dynasty
❍ XIX Dynasty
❍ XX Dynasty
❍ Egyptian Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom, List
● Kings of Babylonia
❍ The Canon of Kings
● Kings of Assyria
● Kings of the Hittites
● Kings of Mitanni
● Kings of Urart.u
● Kings of Israel and Judah
● Arabia Felix, Yemen [226.5K]
❍ at-Tababi'a
❍ Saba/Sheba
❍ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar
● The Third Intermediate Period of Egypt

❍ XXI Dynasty
❍ XXII Dynasty
❍ XXIII Dynasty
❍ XXIV Dynasty
❍ XXV Dynasty & Kings of Kush
● Historical Background to Greek Philosophy, Middle Eastern Political Events During the Course of Greek
Philosophy [109.9K]
❍ Kings of Assyria
❍ Kings of Babylon, Neo-Babylonian Period
❍ Kings of the Medes
❍ Kings of Lydia
❍ Kings of Phrygia
❍ Kings of Egypt in the Late Period
■ XXVI Dynasty
■ XXVII (& "XXXI") Dynasty
■ XXVIII Dynasty
■ XXIX Dynasty

XXX Dynasty
■
❍ Great Kings of Persia, Achaemenids

■ Genealogy of the Achaemenids
❍ Kings of Macedonia
❍ Eponymous Archons of Athens [13.2K]
❍ Dialects of Greek
❍ Kings of Sparta
❍ Tyrants and Kings of Syracuse
❍ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K]
❍ The Bosporan Kingdom
● Historical Background to Hellenistic Philosophy & Hellenistic Monarchs [135.9K]

❍ Macedonian Great Kings
❍ Kings of Epirus
❍ The Bosporan Kingdom
❍ Antigonid Kings
❍ Kings of Thrace
❍ Kings of Macedonia
❍ Aetolian & Achaean Leagues
❍ Tyrants and Kings of Syracuse
❍ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K]
❍ The Seleucids, Macedonian Kings of Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.
■ The Seven Wonders of the World
■ Kings of Armenia [42.0K]
■ Kings of Pontus
■ Chiefs & Kings of Galatia
■ Kings of Bithynia
■ The Attalids of Pergamum
■ Kings of Cappadocia
■ Macedonian Kings of Bactria
■ The Parthian Arsacids [28.2]
■ Leaders & Kings of Judaea
■ Kings of Commagene
■ Kings of Caria
■ Kings of Osrhoene or Edessa
■ Kings of Emesa or Homs
❍ The Ptolemies, Macedonian Kings of Egypt ("XXXII" Dynasty)
❍ The Kingdom of the Nabataeans
❍ Arabia Felix, Yemen [226.5K]
■ at-Tababi'a
■ Saba/Sheba
■ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar

● Rome and Romania, 27 BC-1453 AD, Maps and List of Emperors [264.3K]
❍ Index
■ Animated History of Romania [202.5K]
■ Consuls of the Roman Republic [86.7K]
■ Sources
❍ First Empire, "Rome," 27 BC-284
■ A. "Principate," 27 BC-235, 261 years
■ 1. JULIO-CLAUDIANS
■ Consuls of the Roman Empire [50.7K]
■ Roman Coinage
■ 2. The Bosporan Kingdom
■ 3. Armenia, c.330 BC-428 AD [42.0K]
■ The Patriarchs of Armenia [213.4K]
■ 4. Numidia
■ 5. Judaea
■ 6. Nabataeans
■ 7. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES
■ 8. SEVERANS
■ B. Crisis of the Third Century, 235-284, 49 Years
■ Crisis of the Third Century Chart [27.0K]
❍ Second Empire, Early "Romania," 284-610
■ A. "Dominate," 284-379, 95 years
■ 1. TETRARCHS
■ Chart of the Tetrarchy [11.9K]
■ Late Roman Capitals [10.9]
■ 2. CONSTANTIANS
■ The Approaches and Environs of Constantinople [22.1K]
■ The Theodosian Walls of Constantinople [23.0K]
■ Cross Section of the Walls [7.0K]
■ The Patriarchs of Jerusalem [213.4K]
■ The Patriarchs of Antioch
■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople
■ 3. VALENTIANS
■ B. Crisis of the Fifth Century, 379-476, 97 Years
■ 1. THEODOSIANS
■ Bishops & Archbishops of Milan
■ Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch
■ King Arthur
■ Visigoths [64.3K]
■ Burgundians
■ Vandals
■ Western Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD [18.1K]

Eastern Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD [15.2K]

■
■ The Roman Army, c. 408 AD [15.1K]
■ 2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS
■ the End of Roman Gaul
■ C. The East Alone, 476-518, 42 Years
■ 1. LEONINES
■ Ostrogoths
■ Roman Coinage
■ D. Returning to the West, 518-610, 92 years
■ 1. JUSTINIANS
■ Lombards
■ Provinces at the Death of Justinian, 565 AD
■ 2. Georgia, 588-1505 [42.0K]
■ 3. Ghassanids, 220-638
❍ Third Empire, Middle "Romania," Early "Byzantium," 610-1059

■ A. The Advent of Islam, 610-802, 192 years
■ 1. HERACLIANS
■ The Organization of the Themes and Exarchates, at the
Death of Constans II, 668 AD

■ 2. Armenia, 628-806 AD [42.0]
■ Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem
■ 3. SYRIANS (ISAURIANS)
■ 4. Doges (Dukes) of Venice, 727-1797
■ Patriarchs of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice [11.8K]
■ B. Revival and Ascendency, 802-1059, 257 years
■ 1. NICEPHORANS
■ 2. AMORIANS (PHRYGIANS)
■ 3. Bulgaria before Roman Conquest
■ Macedonian Bulgaria
■ 4. MACEDONIANS
■ Mt. Athôs
■ 5. Armenia, 806-1064 [42.0K]
❍ Fourth Empire, Late "Romania/Byzantium," 1059-1453

■ A. The Advent of the Turks, 1059-1185, 126 years
■ 1. DUCASES
■ 2. Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm
■ 3. COMNENI
■ 4. Lesser Armenia [42.0K]
■ Patriarchs of the Great House of Cilicia [3.8K]
■ 5. Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1099-1489 [160.0K]
■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem
■ County of Edessa
■ Principality of Antioch

County of Tripoli
■
■ B. The Latin Empire, 1185-1261, 76 years
■ 1. ANGELI
■ 2. Bulgaria, Asens
■ 3. LATINS
■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople [213.4K]
■ Dukes of Athens
■ 4. Eprius
■ 5. Trebizond
■ 6. LASCARIDS
■ C. The Last Days, 1261-1453, 192 years
■ 1. Serbia
■ 2. Bosnia [246.4K]
■ 3. Bulgaria, Terters
■ 4. The Oghullar of Rûm [75.5K]
■ Aydïn Oghullarï
■ Sarukhân Oghullarï
■ Menteshe Oghullarï
■ Germiyân Oghullarï
■ H.amîd Oghullarï
■ Tekke Oghullarï
■ Jândâr Oghullarï
■ Qaramân Oghullarï
■ Eretna Oghullarï
■ Dulghadïr Oghullarï
■ Osmanli Oghullarï
■ 5. PALAEOLOGI
■ The Flag of ROMANIA
■ 6. Romanians
❍ The Bishops of Rome, the Popes, 42 AD-present [213.4K]

■ Patriarchal Index
● Emperors of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) [13.5K]

❍ Kings of Kush (Ethiopia), XXV Dynasty of Egypt [96.9K]
❍ The Coptic & Melkite Patriarchs of Alexandria
❍ Patriarchs of Ethiopia
● Rivals to Rome:

❍ Irân [28.2K]
■ The Parthian Arsacids, 248 BC-227 AD
■ The Sassanid Shâhs (Great Kings), 224-651 AD
■ Patriarchs of the East [213.4K]
● Successors of Rome in Romania

❍ Islâmic Romania/Byzantium: The Ottoman Sultâns, 1290-1924 AD, Maps and
List of Emperors [122.3K]

■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople [213.4K]
■ Patriarchs of the East
■ Animated History of Turkiya [80.8K]
❍ Modern Romania, Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans
■ 1817, Serbian Autonomy
■ 1834, after Greek Independence
■ 1858, after the Crimean War
■ Romania, 1611-present
■ 1875
■ Congress of Berlin, 1878
■ Montenegro, 1697-1918
■ 1908
■ Greece, 1821-present
■ 1912, before the Balkan Wars
■ Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present
■ 1913-1914, after the Balkan Wars, & before World War I
■ Bulgaria, 1879-present
■ 1925, after World War I
■ Albania, 1914-present
■ 1943, Axis Occupation in World War II
■ 1947, after World War II
■ Macedonia, 1991-present
■ 1999, Ethnic Cleansing
■ Armenia, 1991-present [42.0K]
■ Georgia, 1991-present
■ Culmen Europae
● Successors of Rome: Germania, Francia, Russia, & the Periphery of Francia

❍ Germania & Francia, 395 AD-Present
■ Germania, 395-774 [67.9K]
■ Index
■ Introduction
■ Visigoths
■ Suevi

Early Gothic History

■
■ Burgundians
■ Vandals
■ Ostrogoths
■ Lombards
■ Dukes of Benevento and Spoleto
■ Thuringians
■ Dukes of Thuringia
■ Bavarians
■ Alemanni
■ Saxons
■ Franks [248.5K]
■ Anglo-Saxon England
■ Kings of Kent
■ Kings of Sussex
■ Kings of Northumbria
■ Kings of Essex
■ Kings of Mercia
■ Kings of East Anglia
■ Kings of Wessex
■ Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia
■ Runes
■ Earls of Orkney
■ Francia, 447-Present [268.6K]

■ Index
■ Sources
■ Introduction
■ Feudal Hierarchy
■ Merovingian Franks
■ Carolingian Franks
■ Early
■ Middle
■ Late
■ Lorraine
■ Vermandois
■ Francia after the Carolingians
■ Francia Occidentalis, France
■ Margraves & Counts of Flanders [104.9K]
■ Counts of Artois
■ Kings & Dukes of Brittany
■ Counts of Anjou
■ Dukes of Normandy

■CAPETIAN KINGS
■ Counts of Blois & Champagne
■ Seigneurs of Châtillon
■ Dukes of Burgundy
■ Counts of Toulouse
■ Dukes of Aquitaine
■ Dukes of Gascony
■ Counts of Barcelona
■ Lords & Counts of Foix
■ VALOIS KINGS
■ ORLÉANS & ANGOULÊME KINGS
■ BOURBON KINGS
■ House of Condé
■ French Colonial Possessions
■ Kings of Tahiti
■ Kings of Madagascar
■ Governors of Kwangchouwan
■ BONAPARTE EMPERORS
■ First Empire
■ Second Empire
■ Presidents of France
■ Second Republic
■ Third Republic
■ La Marseillaise [40.2K]
■ Vichy State
■ Provisional Government
■ Fourth Republic
■ Fifth Republic
■ Francia Media
■ Lorraine [119.7K]
■ DUKES OF LORRAINE
■ Counts & Dukes of Brabant
■ Counts & Dukes of Bar
■ Counts of Hainault
■ Counts & Dukes of Berg, Jülich, Mark, & Cleves
■ Counts & Dukes of Luxemburg
■ Counts of Holland
■ Stadholders and Kings of the Netherlands
■ Kings of Belgium
■ Grand Dukes of Luxembourg
■ Burgundy
■ KINGS OF BURGUNDY
■ Culmen Franciae

■The Welfs
■ Counts of Burgundy, the Free County
■ Princes of Orange
■ Counts of Viennois and Dauphiné
■ Counts of Provence
■ Counts & Dukes of Savoy
■ Grimaldi Princes of Monaco
■ Italy [123.2K]
■ The Bishops of Rome, the Popes [213.4K]
■ Doges of Venice [264.3K]
■ Patriarchs of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice [11.8K]
■ Dukes of Spoleto
■ KINGS OF ITALY & EMPERORS
■ Margraves of Tuscany and Spoleto
■ Margraves of Montferrat
■ Margraves & Dukes of Mantua
■ Counts & Dukes of Urbino
■ Kings of Sardinia
■ d'Estes & Dukes of Modena
■ Dukes of Milan
■ Bishops & Archbishops of Milan
■ Doges of Genoa
■ The Medici, and the Hapsburgs of Tuscany
■ Dukes of Parma
■ KINGS OF ITALY
■ Presidents of Italy
■ Italian Colonial Possessions
■ Prime Ministers of Italy
■ Francia Orientalis, Germany

■ The Stem Duchies [137.8K]
■ FRANCONIAN KING
■ Dukes of Franconia
■ SAXON KINGS & EMPERORS
■ Dukes, Electors, & Kings of Saxony
■ Counts & Princes of Schwarzburg
■ Lords, Counts, & Princes of Reuß
■ Dukes of Brunswick, Electors & Kings of Hanover
■ Dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
■ Archbishop-Electors of Mainz, Trier, & Cologne [213.4K]
■ Grand Duke of Frankfurt
■ FRANCONIAN EMPERORS
■ Dukes & Landgraves of Thuringia
■ Margraves of Meißen

■ Dukes of Swabia
■ HOHENSTAUFEN EMPERORS
■ The Welfs
■ Dukes & Kings of Württemberg

■ Margraves & Grand Dukes of Baden
■ Princes of Liechtenstein
■ Lords, Counts, & Princes of Lippe
■ Counts & Princes of Waldeck
■ Dukes, Electors, & Kings of Bavaria
■ Wittelsbach Dukes & Electors
■ Counts & Prince Electors of the Palatinate
■ Kings of Bavaria
■ Dukes of Carinthia
■ Archbishops of Salzburg [213.4K]

■ Grand Duke of Würzburg
■ Margraves & Dukes of Austria

■ Hapsburg Dukes of Austria
■ NON-DYNASTIC EMPERORS
■ Switzerland
■ HAPSBURG EMPERORS
■ Margraves & Electors of Brandenburg & Kings of Prussia
■ The Descent of the Hohenzollern
■ Princes of Hohenzollern Henchingen-Sigmaringen
■ Hohenzollern Margraves & Electors of Brandenburg
■ Kings of Prussia
■ Princes & Dukes of Anhalt

■ Counts & Dukes of Berg, Jülich, Mark, & Cleves
■ Counts & Dukes of Schleswig & Holstein
■ Counts, Dukes, & Grand Dukes of Oldenburg
■ Counts, Dukes, & Princes of Nassau
■ Lords, Counts, & Prince of Layen/Leyen
■ Princes, Dukes, & Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg
■ Landgraves, Electors, & Grand Dukes of Hesse
■ Landgraves & Electors of Hesse-Cassel
■ Landgraves & Grand Dukes of Hesse-Darmstadt
■ Landgraves of Hesse-Homburg
■ Teutonic and Livonian Knights

■ The German Confederation, 1815-1866 [48.1K]
■ HAPSBURG EMPERORS of Austria
■ Republic of Austria
■ Republic of Slovenia
■ HOHENZOLLERN EMPERORS of German "Second Reich"

■ German Colonial Possessions

The Weimar Republic, 1919-1934

■
■ Deutschland über Alles [40.2K]
■ No Emperors of German "Third Reich"
■ Federal Republic, 1949-present
❍ The Periphery of Francia, 445 AD-Present [258.3K]

■ Introduction
■ Index
■ The Kings of Spain and Portugal
■ Counts of Aragón
■ Counts of Castile
■ Spanish & Portuguese Colonial Possessions [86.7K]
■ The Pillars of Hercules
■ Aztec Tlatoani
■ Viceroys of New Spain
■ Governors of Cuba
■ California [67.4K]
■ Spanish and Mexican Governors of Texas [5.9K]
■ The Incas
■ Viceroys of Peru
■ Viceroys of New Granada
■ Viceroys of the Rio de la Plata
■ The Maya and the Kings of Tikal
■ The Mayan Calendar
■ The French Kings of Navarre
■ Counts of Barcelona
■ Presidents of Portugal
■ Prime Ministers of Portugal and Spain
■ The Kings of England, Scotland, & Ireland
■ Anglo-Saxon England
■ Kings of Kent
■ Kings of Sussex
■ Kings of Northumbria
■ Kings of Essex
■ Kings of Mercia
■ Kings of East Anglia
■ Kings of Wessex
■ Kings and Princes of Wales
■ God Save the Queen [40.2K]
■ British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime
[57.1K]
■ The Bank of England
■ Earls of Orkney

■ Kings and Lords of Man

■ Dukes of Marlborough & Earls of Spencer, 1702/1765-Present
■ The Vanderbilts
■ Dukes of Buccleuch, Grafton, & St. Albans, 1663-Present
■ Dukes of Berwick & Fitzjames, 1687-Present
■ Prime Ministers of Britain, 1721-present
■ British Emperors and Viceroys of India, 1876-1947 (1858-1950) [356.3K]
■ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947
■ The Sun Never Set on the British Empire [64.2K; contains a 81.9K animated GIF file]
■ Sir Richard Burton, 1821-1890 [12.8K]
■ Rule Britannia [40.2K]
■ Gibraltar [86.7K]
■ Hong Kong
■ Kings of Tonga
■ Prime Ministers of the Dominions
■ Prime Ministers of Canada
■ Prime Ministers of New Zealand
■ Prime Ministers of Australia
■ Waltzing Matilda [40.2K]
■ Prime Ministers of South Africa
■ Kings of the Zulus
■ Kings of Swaziland
■ Kings of Basutoland/Lesotho
■ Prime Ministers of Ireland
■ Prime Ministers of India
■ Prime Ministers of Pakistan
■ The Kings of Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland

■ Kings of Great Moravia
■ Dukes & Kings of Croatia
■ Bans & Kings of Bosnia
■ Grand Dukes of Lithuania
■ Princes of Transylvania
■ Dukes & Kings of Bohemia, Hungary, & Poland
■ Teutonic and Livonian Knights
■ Modern Latvia
■ Modern Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Croatia, & Bosnia
■ Norman, Swabian, Anjevian, Aragonese, & Bourbon Counts, Dukes, and Kings of Naples and
Sicily [91.0K]
■ Dukes of Benevento
■ Anjevian and Aragonese Kings of Naples and Sicily
■ Savoyard and Bourbon Kings of Naples and Sicily
■ Kings of Sardinia
■ The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden

Legendary and Early Kings of Scandinavia

■
■ Grand Princes of Kiev [75.9K]
■ Earls of Orkney
■ Counts & Dukes of Schleswig & Holstein
■ Swedish and Danish Colonial Possessions
■ Modern Finland, Estonia, & Iceland
■ Outremer, 1099-1489 [160.0K]
■ Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus
■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem [213.4K]
■ Counts of Edessa
■ Norman Princes of Antioch
■ Counts of Tripoli
■ Latin Emperors of Constantinople [264.3K]
■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople
■ Dukes of Athens
■ The State of Israel
❍ Russia, 862-present [75.9K]

■ Index
■ Sources
■ Introduction
■ Grand Princes of Kiev
■ Grand Dukes of Vladimir
■ Grand Dukes of Moscow and Emperors of Russia
■ Romanov Emperors
■ The Russian Empire
■ Russian Battleships
■ Provisional Government
■ General Secretaries of the Communist Party &
Presidents of the Russian Federation/Soviet Union

■ The Greek Orthodox and Soviet Calendar Reforms
■ Presidents of Russia
■ Presidents of Belarus
■ Hetmans & Presidents of the Ukraine
■ Presidents of Armenia [42.0K]
■ Presidents of Georgia
■ Culmen Europae
● Rivals to Rome:

❍ Islâm, 622 AD-present [233.9K]

■ The Prophet, 622-632 AD
■ The Rightly Guided Caliphs, 632-661 AD
■ The Shi'ite Imâms, 632-878 AD
■ The Omayyad Caliphs, 661-750 AD
■ The Abbasid Caliphs, 750-1258 AD
■ The Aghlabids, 800-909 AD
■ The T.âhirids, 821-873 AD
■ The T.ûlûnids, 868-905 AD
■ The Sâmânids, 819-1005 AD
■ The S.affârid, 861-1003 AD
■ The Ikhshîdids, 935-969 AD
■ The H.amdânids of Aleppo, 944-1004
■ The Qarakhânids, c.992-1212 AD
■ The Ghaznawids, 977-1186 AD
■ The Ghûrids, 1011-1215 AD
■ The Buwayhids, 945-1055 AD
■ Islâmic Rulers of Spain, 756-1492 AD
■ The Omayyad Amirs, 756-912
■ The Omayyad Caliphs, 912-1031
■ The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1010-1114
■ The Jahwarids of Cordova
■ Murcia
■ The 'Abbâdids of Seville
■ The H.ammûdids of Málaga
■ The Zîrids of Granada
■ Aft.asids of Badajoz
■ The 'Âmirids of Valencia
■ The Dhu'n-Nûnids of Toledo
■ The Banû Mujâhid of Denia and Majorca
■ The Tujîbids of Saragossa
■ The Hûdids of Saragossa
■ The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD
■ The Mulûk at-Tawâ'if, 1145-1266
■ Cordova
■ Valencia
■ Murcia
■ The Banû Ghâniya of Majorca
■ The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238
■ The Nas.rid Sult.âns of Granada, 1232-1492 AD
■ The Hûdids of Murcia
■ Islâmic Rulers of North Africa, 789-1163 AD
■ The Idrîsids of Morocco, 789-985 AD

■The Rustamids of Algeria, 778-909 AD

■ The Aghlabids, 800-909 AD
■ The Shi'ite Fatimid Caliphs, 909-1171 AD
■ The Zîrids of Tunisia, 947-1163 AD
■ The Hammâdids of Algeria, 1015-1152 AD
■ The Murabit (Almoravid) Sult.âns, 1067-1147 AD
■ The Muwahid (Almohad) Caliphs, 1147-1238 AD
■ The Seljuk Great Sult.âns, 1037-1157 AD

■ Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm, 1078-1307 AD [264.3K]
■ The Zangid Atabegs of Mosul, Aleppo, & Damascus, 1127-1262 AD
■ The Khwârazm Shâhs, 1097-1231 AD
■ The Oghullar of Rûm [75.5K]
■ Aydïn Oghullarï
■ Sarukhân Oghullarï
■ Menteshe Oghullarï
■ Germiyân Oghullarï
■ H.amîd Oghullarï
■ Tekke Oghullarï
■ Jândâr Oghullarï
■ Qaramân Oghullarï
■ Eretna Oghullarï
■ Dulghadïr Oghullarï
■ Osmanli Oghullarï
■ The Il Khâns, 1256-1353 [49.0K]

■ The Jalâyirids, 1340-1432
■ The Qara Qoyunlu, 1351-1469
■ The Timurids, 1370-1500
■ The Aq Qoyunlu, 1396-1508
■ The Khâns of the Golden Horde

■ The Khâns of the White Horde
■ The Khâns of Kazan
■ The Khâns of Astrakhan
■ The Khâns of the Crimea
■ The Ayyûbid Sult.âns, 1169-1252 AD

■ Islâmic Rulers of North Africa, 1217-1659 AD
■ The Marînid Amîrs of Morocco, 1195-1465
■ The Wat.t.âsid Amîrs of Morocco, 1472-1554
■ The Sa'did Sharîfs of Morocco, 1510-1659
■ The H.afs.id Amirs, Caliphs, or Sult.âns of Tunisia, 1229-1574
■ The Zayyânid or Ziyânid Amîrs of Algeria, 1236-1555
■ The 'Alawid Sharîfs, Sult.âns, & Kings of Morocco, 1640-present
■ The H.usaynid Beys of Tunisia, 1705-1957
■ The Keita Kings of Mali, 1230-1390

■ The Si & Askiya Kings of Songhay, 1464-1592

■ The Mamlûk Sult.âns of Egypt, 1252-1517 AD
■ The Abbasid Puppet Caliphs of Egypt, 1261-1517 AD
■ The Ottoman Sultâns, 1290-1924 AD, Maps and List of Emperors [122.3K]
■ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD
■ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD
■ The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD
■ Shibânid Özbegs, 1438-1599

■ Kazakhs, 1394-1748
■ Toqay Temürids, 1599-1758
■ Mangïts of Bukhara, 1747-1920
■ The Shâhs of Irân, 1501-1979 AD [28.2K]
■ The Safavids, 1501-1736
■ The Afsharids, 1736-1750
■ The Zands, 1750-1794
■ The Qajars, 1794-1924
■ The Pahlavis, 1924-1979
■ Sult.âns of Delhi, 1206-1555 [356.3K]

■ Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings, 1206-1290
■ Khaljîs, 1290-1320
■ Tughluqids, 1320-1414
■ Sayyids, 1414-1451
■ Lôdîs, 1451-1526
■ Sûrîs, 1540-1555
■ Moghul Emperors, 1526-1540, 1555-1858

■ Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765
■ Nawwâbs of Oudh, 1722-1856
■ Niz.âms of Hyderabad, 1720-1948
■ Sult.âns of Malacca, 1403-1511

■ Sult.âns of Acheh, c.1450-1903
■ Yemen, 1230 BC-1962 AD
■ at-Tababi'a, 1230 BC-533 AD
■ Saba/Sheba, 755 BC-100 AD
■ Dhu-Raydan & Himyar, 120 BC-629 AD
■ Rassids, 860-1226
■ Ayyûbids, 1173-1229
■ Rasûlids, 1229-1454
■ T.âhirids, 1454-1517
■ Qâsimids, 1597-1962
■ Modern Islâm
■ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD
■ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

■ The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya, 1837-1969 AD

■ The Sult.âns of Oman and Zanzibar, 1754-present
■ The Hâshimites, 1827-present
■ The 'Alawid Sharîfs, Sult.âns, & Kings of Morocco, 1640-present
■ The H.usaynid Beys of Tunisia, 1705-1957
■ The House of Sa'ûd, 1735-present
■ The Sultans of Brunei, 1405-present
■ The Rajahs of Sarawak, 1841-1946
■ Afghanistan, 1747-1973 [35.2K]

■ Prime Ministers & Presidents of Pakistan
■ Islâmic Fascism and Satyagraha in Palestine
● Emperors of the Sangoku, the "Three Kingdoms," of India, China, & Japan [356.3K]
❍ Index
❍ Emperors of India
■ The Mauryas, c.322-184 BC
■ The Macedonian Kings of Bactria, 256-c.55 BC
■ The Sakas/Parthians, 97 BC-125 AD
■ The Saka Era, The Indian Historical Era, 79 AD
■ The Calendar in India
■ The Kushans, c.20 BC-c.260 AD
■ The Guptas, c.320-550 AD
■ Thanesar, c.500-647 AD
■ the Carnatic & Maharashtra, 543-1317 AD
■ Sult.âns of Delhi, 1206-1555
■ Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings, 1206-1290
■ Khaljîs, 1290-1320
■ Tughluqids, 1320-1414
■ Sayyids, 1414-1451
■ Lôdîs, 1451-1526
■ Sûrîs, 1540-1555
■ Sikh Gurûs and the Khâlsâ
■ Moghul Emperors, 1526-1540, 1555-1858
■ Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765
■ British Governors of Bengal and Governors-General of India, 1765-1858
■ British Coinage of India, 1835-1947
■ Nawwâbs of Oudh, 1722-1856
■ Niz.âms of Hyderabad, 1720-1948
■ British Emperors and Viceroys, 1876-1947 (1858-1950)
■ Culmen Mundi
■ Prime Ministers of India
■ Prime Ministers of Pakistan
❍ Emperors of China

■ The Chinese Historical Era, 2637 BC

■ Eras (Nien-hao) of Chinese History
■ Shang Dynasty, 1523-1028

■ Chou Dynasty, 1027-256
■ Spring and Autumn Period
■ Warring States Period
■ States of the Eastern Chou [26.1K]
■ Ch'in Dynasty, 255-207 BC

■ Former Han Dynasty, 206 BC-25 AD
■ Later Han Dynasty, 25-220 AD
■ The Three Kingdoms, 220-265
■ Northern and Southern Empires, 265-589
■ The Six Southern Dynasties, 266-589
■ The Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians, 304-439
■ The Five Northern Dynasties, 386-581
■ Sui Dynasty, 590-618

■ T'ang Dynasty, 618-906
■ The Five Dynasties, 907-960
■ The Ten Kingdoms, 896-979
■ Tartar Dynasties
■ Liao (Khitan) Dynasty, 907-1125
■ Hsi-Hsia (Tangut) State, 990-1227
■ Sung Dynasty, 960-1126

■ Tartar Dynasties
■ Northern Liao (Khitan) Dynasty, 1122-1123
■ Western Liao (Qara-Khitaï) Dynasty, 1125-1218
■ Kin/Chin (Jurchen) Dynasty, 1115-1234
■ Southern Sung Dynasty, 1127-1279

■ Yüan (Mongol) Dynasty, 1280-1368
■ Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644
■ Southern Ming Dynasty, 1644-1662
■ Manchu Ch'ing Dynasty, 1644-1911
■ Foreign Encroachments
■ Macao
■ Hong Kong
■ Kwangchouwan
■ Tibet
■ Republic of China, 1912-present

■ Communist China, 1949-present
■ Categories of Chinese Characters [35.5K]
■ The Dialects of Chinese
■ Examples of Dialect Differences Between Peking, Shanghai and, Canton
■ Pronouncing Mandarin Initials

The Contrast between Classical and Modern Chinese

■
■ The Solar Terms and the Chinese Calendar [19.7K]
■ The Chinese 60 Year Calendar Cycle
■ The Occurrence of the Solar Terms in 1995-2005
■ Groundhog Day and Chinese Astronomy [15.8K]
❍ Emperors, Shoguns, & Regents of Japan

■ The Japanese Historical Era, 660 BC
■ Eras (Nengô) of Japanese History
■ The Legendary Period, 660 BC-539 AD
■ The Historical Period, 539-645
■ The Yamato Period, 645-711
■ The Nara Period, 711-793
■ The Heian Period, 793-1186
■ Fujiwara Chancellors and Imperial Regents, 858-1867
■ The Kamakura Period, 1186-1336
■ Hôjô Regents
■ The Nambokuchô Period, 1336-1392
■ Ashikaga Shôguns
■ The Muromachi Period, 1392-1573
■ The Azuchi-Momoyama Period, 1573-1603
■ Himeji Castle
■ The Edo Period, 1603-1868
■ Edo Castle, Tôkyô Imperial Palace
■ The Modern Period, 1868-
■ Prime Ministers, 1885-present
■ The Pearl Harbor Strike Force [28.2K]
■ A Guadalcanal Chronology & Order of Battle, 7 August 1942 - 6 March 1943 [38.7K]
The Battleship Kongô [55.9K]

■
■ The Treaty Cruisers
■ Advanced Japanese Destroyers of World War II [17.7K]
■ Naval Aircraft Designations of Japan and the United States [28.2K]
❍ The Periphery of China -- Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Tibet, and Mongolia
[114.3K]
■ Kings of Korea
■ Kings of Koguryo
■ Kings of Paekche
■ Kings of Silla and Korea
■ Kings and Emperors of Vietnam
■ Kings of Champa
■ Kings and Emperors of Annam and Vietnam
■ Kings of Thailand

Kings of Sukhothai
■
■ Kings of Lan Na
■ Chao of Chiang Mai
■ Kings of Ayudhya
■ King of Thonburi
■ Kings of Bangkok, Chakri Dynasty
■ Kings of Laos
■ Kings of Vientiane, 1353-1778
■ Kings of Luang Prabang, 1707-1975
■ Kings of Cambodia, 6th century AD-present

■ Kings of Burma
■ Kings of Arakan, 788-1784
■ Kings of Pagan, c.900-1325
■ Kings of Pinya, 1298-1364
■ Kings of Ava, 1364-1555
■ Kings of Shan, 1287-1757
■ Kings of Taungu, 1531-1751
■ Kings of Konbaung/Burma, 1753-1885
■ The Kings of Tibet and the Dalai Lamas

■ Culmen Mundi
■ First Kingdom of Tibet
■ Mongol Regents
■ Second Kingdom of Tibet
■ The Dalai Lamas
■ The Panchen Lamas
■ The Mongol Khâns [75.5K]

■ Index
■ The Conquests of Chingiz Khân, 1227
■ The Great Khâns and the Yüan Dynasty of China
■ The Grandsons of Chingiz Khân, 1280
■ The Chaghatayid Khâns
■ The Khâns of the Blue Horde
■ The Khâns of the White Horde
■ The Khâns of Kazan
■ The Khâns of Astrakhan
■ The Khâns of the Crimea
■ The Il Khâns
■ The Jalâyirids, 1340-1432
■ The Qara Qoyunlu, 1351-1469
■ The Timurids, 1370-1501
■ The Aq Qoyunlu, 1396-1508

■ Shibânid Özbegs, 1438-1599

■ Kazakhs, 1394-1748
■ Toqay Temürids, 1599-1758
■ Mangïts of Bukhara, 1747-1920
Links
● Brian Tompsett's Royal and Noble Genealogy
● Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies
● WW-Person, A WWW Data base of European nobility
Home Page
Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All
Rights Reserved

The Fragility of Thalassocracy
The Fragility of Thalassocracy,

Pericles to Heinlein
Thalassocracy means the rule (krateîn, to rule) of the sea (thálassa, thálatta in Attic). This does not
mean rule by the sea, as "aristocracy" means the rule by the "best," which wouldn't make much sense,
but rule by those who control the sea. The first systematic discussion of this, although not the use of the
term, may have been by Alfred Thayer Mahan in his classic The Influence of Sea Power Upon History,
1660-1783 [1890, Little Brown and Company]. Mahan, however, does not discuss what is usually
considered the first thalassocracy, that of Athens in the 5th Century BC.
A thalassocracy is a state that uses its navy to project its power and to unite various possessions that are
separated by water. Not all naval powers are thalassocracies. Indeed, the key to a state being a
thalassocracy is if its power, even its political existence, would
collapse completely with the annihilation of its navy. This is the
noteworthy fragility of a thalassocracy -- a navy can be crippled
or destroyed, sometimes even in a day, leaving the state
dismembered and helpless. Mahan's book, by highlighting the
importance of sea power, set off a tremendous naval arms race
that lasted through World War I, but the competing Powers paid no more attention than Mahan to the
fragility of the power they were seeking -- Mahan may have avoided analysis of the Athenian experience
just because it ended in failure. Britain, Mahan's own prime exemplar of naval power, managed to lose
its "Empire" despite victories in both World War I and World War II. They were Pyrrhic victories; and
Britain, as the principal modern thalassocracy, proved to wield a power so fragile that even victory could
not preserve it.
The first nation whose power depended principally on its ships may have been Crete, about which we
known little, and then Phoenicia, about which we know a great deal. Phoenicia, however, was never
politically unified, was often under foreign rule, did not effectively retain control of its colonies, and
never used colonies as footholds of conquest. The greatest Phoenician colony, Carthage, itself came
rather closer to a thalassocracy, retaining control of colonies in the Western Mediterranean and then,
under Hamilcar Barca, undertaking the conquest and development of Spain as a Carthaginian imperial
possession.
By then a major thalassocracy had already come and gone. In general Greece exhibited the same
characteristics as Phoenicia. Greek city states founded colonies but then retained little or no control over
them. With Athens, we got something different. The power of Athens began with the League of Delos, a
defensive confederation formed to oppose the Persian invasion of Greece in 480. All members made
http://www.friesian.com/thalasso.htm (1 of 11)8/25/2006 5:36:59 AM

proportional contributions to the common defense, which were kept at the Temple of Apollo on the
Island of Delos. Hence the name. With the Persians defeated, the League continued. But the status of
Athens as the predominant member began to tell. Pericles wanted to move the Treasury of the League
from Delos to Athens. He did this even though no other members of the League agreed. Athens then
began spending the money for its own purposes, and the contributions of League members became in
effect Tribute paid to Athens. The League became what historians now like to call the "Athenian
Empire," although such terminology is pretty anachronistic. Nor is it apt. The "Empire" of Athens, with
more or less unwilling participants, depended wholly on the ability of Athens to maintain naval
supremacy in the Aegean Sea. If that were lost or disrupted, Athens would be powerless.
This is exactly what happened in the war with Sparta, the Peloponnesian War (430-404). Sparta had an
invincible army, so the best that Athens could do was avoid it -- relatively easy in a land of peninsulas
and islands. If some Spartans could be trapped on an island, as did happen, then they could even be
defeated and captured. This all worked fine until the
Spartans began building their own navy. Now Athenian
"allies" had an easier time defecting, since they were no
longer entirely at the mercy of Athens. The Spartans could
now support even island friends. And, if Sparta could wipe
out the Athenian fleet in a great battle, it would win the war
in one day. The great battle came in 405 at Aegospotami.
Destroying the Athenian fleet, the Spartans proceeded at
once to the siege of Athens, which surrendered in 404. The
Athenian thalassocracy burst like a bubble.
The next state heavily dependent on sea power was, indeed,

Carthage. In the First Punic War (264-241) the Romans defeated Carthage and conquered Sicily, in great
measure by destroying the Carthaginian fleet. No one would ever say this was done by finesse. The
Romans simply filled their ships with soldiers, grappled the Carthaginian ships, dropped gangways, and
overwhelmed the enemy with infantry. Carthage never regained naval supremacy -- the best moments
for Carthage in the First Punic War were when
storms destroyed Roman fleets. The response
was Hamilcar's, to recreate Carthage as a land
power in Spain. Hamilcar's son, Hannibal, then
invaded Italy itself in the Second Punic War
(218-202). The Romans, unable to defeat
Hannibal in open battle, then used their own sea
power to defeat him indirectly. Spain was
conquered behind him. And then Africa itself
was invaded. Hannibal had to abandon his army
in Italy and return to defend Carthage itself.
There he was finally defeated in battle.
The Romans turned the Mediterranean into their own lake, the Mare Nostrum, "Our Sea." This control,

except for some periods of piracy, endured until the Vandals captured Carthage in 439. They then, with
exquisite irony, built a fleet that swept the Romans from the Western Mediterranean. When the
Visigoths sacked Rome in 410, they came by land, but when the Vandals sacked Rome in 455, they
arrived, and left, by boat. This supremacy survived until Belisarius arrived in 534. Their base was
abruptly yanked from under the Vandals by the Roman fleet and army from Constantinople. This
reestablished Roman maritime control until the 9th century.
At that point two things went wrong. The Arabs, who had conquered the Mediterranean coast from Syria
to Spain, and who had already arrived twice by boat to besiege Constantinople (674-677 & 717-718),
began asserting naval dominance, resulting in the loss of Roman island possessions, like Crete (823) and
Sicily (827-878). Islamic states never organized on the basis of naval supremacy or detached
possessions, so there was no real Islamic thalassocracy. The closest may have been by Oman in the
Arabian Sea, which projected naval and colonial power all the way to Zanzibar. Otherwise, it is
noteworthy that the first possession over which that Caliphate lost control (in 756) was Spain -- the only
large conquest separated from the others by water. For the Romans, meanwhile, the other naval
challenge was the Vikings, or, as they were called in the East, the Varangians. They arrived at
Constantinople, having come down the rivers of Russia, in 839. Several attacks and wars followed, until
a Treaty in 988 and the subsequent conversion of Russia to Christianity. Things were improving a bit.
Crete was recovered in 961 and Cyprus in 964. The real end of Roman sea power, however, can be
precisely dated. It happened in 1082 when the Emperor Alexius Comnenus signed a commercial
agreement with Venice. In short order, the Italian cities, Venice, Pisa, and Genoa in particular, became
the great commercial and naval powers of the Mediterranean. Venice countenanced no revival of Roman
naval power.
Looking back on the Roman experience, what it looks like is that Rome had a great deal of power apart
from its maritime possessions and navy. The Roman Empire, however, was wrapped around the
Mediterranean Sea -- as Socrates said, like frogs around a pond. This meant that naval power was
necessary for complete mastery of the area. Loss of naval predominance might not be fatal, as it was for
Athens, but it would be a serious blow to Roman power. Where naval supremacy was lost, as to the
Vandals, or in the 9th century, the state was doomed to retreat to a continental redoubt. The Chinese
experience is interesting in comparison. The contemporary of the early Roman Empire, the Han
Dynasty, broke up (220 AD) and was partially conquered by barbarians, just like Rome. China,
however, recovered and was reunited by the Sui Dynasty (590), not long after Justinian partially
retrieved the Western Empire. China, however, was not wrapped around an empty Sea. China was also
culturally, ethnically, and religiously rather more homogeneous. In the Mediterranean world, every little
peninsula had a different nationality, different language, and, before Christianity, a different religion.
The sort of separatism, manifesting itself in religious dissent, that made Egypt and Syria welcoming of
the Arab Conquest, was much more of a danger for Rome than for China. The Roman Empire, even in
its Mediaeval incarnation, thus shrank and ultimately collapsed, while China was reconstituted time after
time. The disunity of Europe and the Mediterranean world may actually have made for greater cultural
and technological innovation. China was historically more conservative. The disunity, however, looks

dictated by the geography, and especially by the seas that both separated and connected the lands.
The Italian cities were thalassocracies, but their power remained very limited and could not effectively
project itself in continental struggles. They had no effective continental redoubts to speak of. Venice
retreated before the Ottomans, and Genoa was successively occupied by France. The rising Great
Powers had resources beyond what any Italian city could ever claim. The new Great Powers, however,
became tied to naval power with the acquisition of colonial empires. Spain derived much of its power
from the silver mines of Mexico and Peru. Every year, Spanish finances hung on the treasure fleet
sailing from Vera Cruz to Cadiz. Spain itself, however, did not put its own revenues to use in the
development of modern commercial culture and banking. The Netherlands, revolting against Spain
(1568-1648), was able to do that. In the 17th century, the new Maritime Powers -- the Netherlands,
Britain, and France -- surpassed Spain and Portugal in wealth and power. This had little to do with
colonial possessions or even sea power. The European Balance of Power was determined on land, and
even all the American silver of Spain could not keep it competitive with the cultural and institutional
advantages of its rivals. Britain, as an island, realized how important its navy was, but a purely naval
strategy did not begin to tell until well into the 18th century.
British predominance at sea was definitely established in the Seven Years War (1756-1763), when
France lost the principal assents of its colonial empire, particularly Canada. This quickly gives us the
picture of Britain as the paradigmatic modern thalassocracy. There are already features of this picture,
however, that are singularly revealing of both its power and its fragility. The particular power of the
British colonial empire was the degree to which British possessions were settled by immigrants and
grew into powers in their own right. America was the first in this direction, but then the fate of America
reveals a fundamental flaw in the tendency. The American colonies, the originally British ones (not, as it
happened, Canada), revolted against Britain. With the help of France and other enemies of Britain, the
American Revolution (1776-1783) was successful. This is usually regarded as the end of the "First"
British Empire. Just as importantly, it was a grave shock to a British thalassocracy. America ended up,
although settled and created from Britain itself, more like the unwilling "allies" of Athens in the League
of Delos.
As it happened, British naval dominance was retrieved at the end of the war by victory at the Battle of
the Saints in 1782, with which Mahan's original book ends. It did not restore the American colonies. The
subsequent French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Eras repeated the experience of the Seven Years War.
At the Congress of Vienna, Britain had its pick of strategic colonial possessions, like Malta and South
Africa. Subsequently, British dominion rapidly emerged in what were to be the principal classic
possessions of the British Empire in the 19th century: India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New

Zealand. To most at the time, and

many since, these possessions, and
the Royal Navy that united and/or
protected them, were the source of
the great power of Britain. Marxists
even came to think that British
Imperialism was the means by
which Britain had derailed history
and fended off the revolution of the
proletariat against capitalism. But
Britain was not wealthy because of
its empire; and the way in which the
empire might have enabled Britain
to contend on more equal terms with
the rising superpowers of the 20th
century was undermined by a
characteristic of thalassocracy that
had already been revealed in the
American Revolution.
Britain was powerful mainly

because of (1) commercial culture,
though which Britain had risen with
the Netherlands, (2) banking, which Britain took over from Amsterdam, creating modern governmental
finance through the Bank of England in 1694, and (3) the Industrial Revolution. British colonial
possessions often began simply by securing (or building) a safe trading
station. Cities like Bombay, Singapore, and Hong Kong began in this way.
Whether this grew into something more depended on the local conditions,
usually whether the hinterland was politically organized enough to control
the area and whether this organization was hostile or receptive to British
trade and the security of British traders. Thus, African possessions, with
small and poorly organized native states in the background, grew into
large colonies, while the British presence in China remained confined to a
few small outright possessions together with trading privileges, usually
extorted by force, from China itself. India fell somewhere in between, as
many of the small successor states of the Moghuls were successively
acquired, while many other states (the "Princely States") were domesticated with subordinating treaties
and close supervision.
Both Imperialist and Marxist opinion was that, since India was a very large and rich place, this is what
made Britain rich. There are more and less sophisticated versions of this view. One would be that Britain
simply took the wealth of India and transferred it to Britain. Since there weren't exactly cotton mills and
battleships in India, this view doesn't hold up too well. Such things were created in Britain, not in India.

Nevertheless, even today such a perspective, a sort of Cargo Cult version of economics, is the subtext of
many political debates about "natural resources." Marxism itself (as opposed to what Robert Hughes
calls recent "lumpen" Marxism, which is of the Cargo Cult sort, what I would call "English Department
Marxism") was more sophisticated: Lenin said that Britain needed India as a place to sell production
that the British proletariat was too poor to buy, and as an outlet for the "excess capital" that had to be
invested somewhere but for which no use could be found in Britain. Unfortunately, as a theory of how
the British proletariat became unnaturally content with capitalism, this wasn't very good, since it did not
mean, with overproduction sent to India, that the wealth of the British proletariat would increase. The
British proletariat would be just as impoverished as before. Also, if British production was being sold to
India rather than to domestic consumers, where did Indians get the money to buy it? India, after all, was
being "exploited," which should mean that it would become poorer, not richer. Soaking up production
from Britain would make it richer. If Lenin's theory of imperialism is going to make any sense, it would
have to be that wealth from India is used to enrich and so pacify the proletariat -- but that would not
have been consistent with Marxist principles about overproduction and excess capital. There is also the
little problem of the matter of fact about where British production and investment actually went. As
examined elsewhere, it happens that most British production and investment was either absorbed
domestically or exported to (1) other capitalist countries or (2) British immigrant consumers in places
like Australia. The largest British trade and investment partner was thus the United States, which had
nothing to do with the British Empire and, before World War I, conducted a foreign policy that was
often hostile to Britain (strongly encouraged by Anglophobe Irish immigrants).
Britain, therefore, was not rich because of India; and this became painfully evident after Indian
independence in 1947, when India failed to develop much economically (with Nehru applying Stalinist
economic planning) all the way up through the 1980's and Britain, after the folly of Labour post-war
nationalizations and regulation, went on to become richer than ever (although eventually falling behind
its own exploited Chinese colony, Hong Kong, in per capita income). More importantly, however,
Britain had by then long fallen behind the United States, which covered a continental sized state with
immigrant settlement, grew into the largest economy in the world, and saved Britain (and France) from
European enemies (i.e. Germany) in World War I and World War II. The American paradigm was, of
course, derived from Britain herself. The American colonies of 1776 had simply continued doing, on a
larger and larger scale, what they were already doing then. The "Second" British Empire, of the 19th
century, continued this kind of thing itself, and also had other continental sized areas, Canada and
Australia, to do it in. Why was Britain then not able to keep up?
One problem was simply that other British immigrant colonies never got anywhere near as big as the
United States. Even as recently as 2000, the population of the United States was 283 million, the United
Kingdom, 59 million, Canada, 31 million, Australia, 19 million, and New Zealand, 4 million. Much of
Canada and Australia was simply not as inviting as most of the United States. The other British self-
governing "Dominion," South Africa (43 million in 2000), largely consisted of culturally and
economically unassimilated Africans. The successful immigrant states, from the United States on, were
areas of predominantly thin paleolithic or neolithic tribal settlement. Where British settlement was
attempted in areas of larger, more organized, and more advanced (usually iron age) populations, as in

South Africa or Rhodesia, a demographic and cultural predominance of immigrants was not achieved.
Nothing of the sort could even be attempted in India, where the entire population of Britain could have
been lost among the natives -- whose own memories were easily of the firearms and Empire of the
Moghuls.
A large population, of course, does not translate directly into wealth or power, or India and China never
would have been poor or weak. What counts is a population that is culturally entrepreneurial and
industrious. Immigrants to the United States were preferentially of such populations. With such people,
production increases, which means that 283 million Americans are going to vastly outproduce 113
million Britons, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders. Indeed, the Gross Domestic Product of
the United States in 2000, adjusted for purchasing power, was 9.8 trillion dollars, while that of the others
combined was 2.5 trillion -- 25.8% (with China just at a trillion and India less than half that). The day of
reckoning for the difference came in World War I, when Britain simply ran out of money for the war --
something that had been unthinkable at least since the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1713).
[note]
More than just relative size, however, was the problem peculiar to a thalassocracy. British possessions
were never politically integrated into the home country and saw themselves increasingly as distinct --
politically, economically, and culturally -- from the Mother Country. The lesson that Britain took from
the American Revolution was not that colonies should be given political power commensurate with their
importance in a central government, but that they should be allowed enough self-rule to keep them
happy. This gradually became complete self-rule for the Dominions, and finally virtual independence,
confirmed with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. This division not only sometimes created conflicting
political purposes but also introduced commercial diseconomies, since territories with self-rule began
even in the 19th century to prefer protective tariffs. With the Depression, even Britain abandoned free
trade. Since protective tariffs are a negative sum game, i.e. total value decreases rather than increases,
the British Commonwealth ended up as an economic organization much worse off than the United
States, which contained within itself what was in effect a colossal free trade zone.
The physical detachment of British possessions from Britain created a centrifugal tendency towards
distinct identity and interest that was fatal to British thalassocracy all the way from the American
Revolution to World War II. Unlike Athens, Britain did not need to rely on "allies" forcefully
incorporated into its system. Unlike Rome, Britain did not need to create a super-identity overlaying
older historically and culturally distinct communities that it had conquered (though something of the sort
was tried in India and other purely imperial acquisitions). No, in America and elsewhere, it had its worst
problems with English speaking immigrants who became divided in identity and interest from the
Mother Country. When Britain lost its predominance at sea, in World War I and World War II, albeit to
a fraternal ally, the United States, the British "Empire" was a bubble that burst as decisively as did that
of Athens -- although leaving a symbolic and sentimental structure, the British Commonwealth, behind.
The symbolic and sentimental, however, does not translate into geopolitical force, and Britain lapsed
into the second rank of Powers. A key year in that respect was 1967, when Britain withdrew from all its
traditional strategic commitments East of Suez. It was on the verge of retiring the aircraft carriers that

gave the Royal Navy any remote strike capability when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982. If the
Argentines had just waited a couple of years, Britain would have had grave difficulty mounting an
effective naval response.
Meanwhile, the Age of the Superpowers had arrived, initially meaning the United States and the Soviet
Union. The power of the Soviet Union, although credibly based on a continental mass and a large
population, turned out to be largely founded on bluff. The regime actively suppressed the commercial
culture and economic institutions that could have made it a real competitor with the United States and
the European democracies. While the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the European Community was
trying, through economic integration, to achieve equality with the United States -- a project extended in
the 90's into an actual "European Union." But it is handicapped by a controlling and bureaucratic
mentality, with socialist purposes, that sometimes rises nearly to Sovietizing levels. China, although
allowing hardly a spark of democracy, nevertheless seems rather more aware of what it needs to do
economically.
Ideological objections to the United States, as a "neo-colonialist" or "neo-imperialist" power, still rest on
the Cargo Cult or Marxist misconceptions already mentioned. The United States uses its sea power in
one of the ways that Britain did, to secure the seas for shipping and to promote the political stability that
is favorable to trade. Objections to this, if not mere envy, will usually dismiss trade as either
unnecessary or a positive evil. The poverty of the countries presumptively "exploited" by the United
States is attributed, if not by standard Marxist analysis to alienated labor, etc., then most commonly by
the Cargo Cult explanation to the notion that in international trade countries are denied the true value
(the Mediaeval "just price") of their own "natural resources." Hence, African countries are poor because
they don't get paid enough for the materials they mine and export.
Unfortunately for these views, there has been an international oil cartel for many years now, OPEC (the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), whose entire purpose is to drive up oil prices through
price fixing and other monopoly practices that are usually regarded as diabolical when used by private
businesses in any country. OPEC has been relatively ineffective for two reasons: (1) The natural
working of supply and demand, which determines free market prices, tends to overcome price fixing,
since OPEC members are tempted to cheat on each other, and OPEC has no enforcement powers to
prevent this. (2) Even the monopoly rents sought by OPEC members, like Spanish silver, do not
translate into genuine economic development in their countries, something that requires the
entrepreneurial population and legal and financial institutions that those with oil wealth tend to regard as
unnecessary or undesirable. Thus, even the wealthiest of the oil states, like Saudi Arabia, have high
unemployment [note] and the sort of restless and ideologized malcontents, with not much to do, who
figure that they are just not getting paid "enough" for what is rightfully theirs. Even worse, we find the
phenomenon of someone like the millionaire Osama ben Laden, who apparently would like to force
everyone to live in Mediaeval ascetic poverty, while using his wealth to destroy, with some of its own
weapons, the religious enemy manifest in the power of the West.
The dynamic of world history, consequently, has left behind the last thalassocracy. But this may not be

the end of the phenomenon. It is hard to imagine that human colonization will not someday extend out
into the solar system, although so far it is has been surprisingly delayed well beyond the introduction of
space travel. When such colonization does develop, the conditions characteristic of thalassocracy will
return. Communication, indeed, will be no problem between extraterrestrial human colonies, but travel
will be another matter. Getting to Mars by spaceship for some time to come will be not unlike getting to
Australia by sailing ship. It took Columbus a month to get across the Atlantic, but that is not enough to
get anywhere in the solar system beyond the Moon. Indeed, technological innovations can make such
travel easier. Mars may be weeks rather than months away with ion engines. But all this does is move
outward the boundary of what is conveniently accessible. Even communication will become problematic
in one sense, because the limitation of the velocity of light will render convenient dialogue impossible.
Out at Jupiter or Saturn, the round trip for a message to Earth will be measured, not in seconds or even
minutes, but in hours. Distance and awkwardness, at least, of communication will render remote
colonies, once they become populous and self-sustaining, liable to the same dynamic of distinct identity
and interest, not to mention the same limitations of military control, that inevitably fragmented the
British thalassocracy. An exploration of this theme in science fiction, with a human colony as close as
the Moon, can be found in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [1966], where the Moon in
2076 successfully revolts against the Earth. As the Earth itself seems to be moving towards ever more
centralized political control, even in the democracies, with devices of police state control expanding, it
may prove to be the greatest hope for human freedom and flourishing that there will be Americas and
Australias of the future beyond effective political control on all the thousands of hunks of rock in the
Solar System, if not beyond. Light speed or instantaneous transportation might overcome that barrier,
but, again, all it will do is push out the boundary. The stars, if not the asteroids, will always be there,
with refuge for any future Mayflower. The fragility of a thalassocracy thus, as it happens, may be the
very best thing about it.
Home Page
The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Note 1
World War I also revealed the fragility of thalassocracy in another way. The British Navy was fully
aware that while Germany would not lose the war even with a devastating naval defeat, it could win the
war with a devastating victory. The Battle of Jutland in 1916 was something that could easily have been
the British Aegospotami. If the British Grand Fleet were crippled or destroyed, the German Navy could
have cut off Britian from food and arms imports, stranded the British Army in France, and devastated

British cities. This being the case, German actions show extreme ignorance and foolishness. It it is as
though the Germans hadn't quite thought through what their Navy was for, or what the strategic situation
was. Except for Jutland, from which the German fleet only tried to escape, there was no other general
fleet action in the War, even though the Germans had nothing to lose (except face, and a few thousand
men -- no more lives than were thrown away every few days in the trenches) and everything to gain.
After Jutland, the Germans even knew from direct experience that their ships were very well built,
tough, and could take tremendous punishment (British 15-inch shells) without sinking -- while three
British battlecruisers had simply blown up and sunk with all hands. This didn't make any difference.
When the War was obviously lost in 1918, the Kaiser finally instructed the High Seas Fleet to sail out in
a final, desperate attack. It was way too late. The British fleet by then was not only larger by its own
construction, but was reinforced with American battleships. But the attack never happened because the
German sailors mutinied. They were not going to throw away their lives in a lost cause.
By the way, although the British thought they had a pretty good idea why their ships had sunk so
catastrophically, there is no certainty that they had found all the problems. A new class of battlecruisers
was designed with the "lessons of Jutland" in mind. Of the new ships, only the great Hood was
completed. As it happened, the Hood, like its Jutland predecessors, blew up and sank with all hands
when hit by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941. Exactly why the Hood sank is still a mystery,
though now it has become possible to locate sunken ships in the deep ocean (like the Bismarck itself)
and minutely examine the wrecks.
Return to Text
The Fragility of Thalassocracy, Note 2
I notice that The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2003 doesn't even give an unemployment figure
for Saudi Arabia [p.194]. It does, however, list Saudi Arabia with one of the lowest "labor force
participation" figures in the world. Only 32.9% of the Saudi population is even in the labor force. This
contrasts with 50.1% in the United Kingdom, 51.4% in the United States, 53.8% in Japan, and 60.0% in
China.
The Los Angeles Times of 16 May 2003 [p.A11] does give unemployment figures for the Kingdom:
Officially, unemployment is about 8%. Private economists put the figure closer to 13%,
and some Saudi political scientists have said it may be about 25%, if one considers the
large number of young adults still living at home with their parents.

The last figure may include "discouraged" workers, who have dropped out of the workforce, since they
can't find work. This contributes to the low labor force participation number. The 8% unemployment
figure would be better than France and Germany, but 13% is really a Depression level -- 25% would be
a Great Depression level of unemployment.
Return to Text

History - Rome and Romania, 27 BC - 1453 Ad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History - Rome and Romania, 27 BC - 1453 Ad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc.

ROME AND ROMANIA,

Emperors of the Roman and the so-called Byzantine Empires;

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (1 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

● I. First Empire, "Rome," 27 BC-284

■ 2. The Bosporan Kingdom

■ 3. Armenia, 401 BC-428 AD

■ The Patriarchs of Armenia

■ 6. FLAVIANS & ANTONINES

❍ B. CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284, 49 Years

■ Crisis of the Third Century Chart

● II. Second Empire, Early "Romania," 284-610

■ Chart of the Tetrarchy

■ Late Roman Capitals

■ The Approaches and Environs of Constantinople

■ The Theodosian Walls of Constantinople

■ Cross Section of the Walls

■ The Patriarchs of Jerusalem

■ The Patriarchs of Antioch

■ The Patriarchs of Constantinople

❍ B. CRISIS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, 379-476, 97 Years

■ Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon

■ Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (2 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

■ Western Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD

■ Eastern Provinces of the Notitia Dignitatum, c.400 AD

■ The Roman Army, c. 408 AD

■ 2. LAST WESTERN EMPERORS

❍ C. THE EAST ALONE, 476-518, 42 Years

❍ D. RETURNING TO THE WEST, 518-610, 92 years

■ Provinces at the Death of Justinian, 565 AD

● III. Third Empire, Middle "Romania," Early "Byzantium," 610-1059

■ Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem

■ 4. Doges (Dukes) of Venice, 727-1797

❍ B. REVIVAL AND ASCENDENCY, 802-1059, 257 years

■ 3. Bulgaria before Roman Conquest

● IV. Fourth Empire, Late "Romania/Byzantium," 1059-1453

■ 2. Seljuk Sult.âns of Rûm

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (3 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

5. Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1099-1489

■ Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem

■ Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem

■ Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon

❍ B. THE LATIN EMPIRE, 1185-1261, 76 years

■ Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople

❍ C. THE LAST DAYS, 1261-1453, 192 years

■ 4. Begs (Beys) of Aydïn

■ The Flag of ROMANIA

● V. Fifth Empire, Ottomans, Islamic Byzantium, 1453-1922, 469 years

❍ Animated History of Turkiya

❍ The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD

❍ The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

● Modern Romania, Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans

■ 1834, after Greek Independence

■ 1858, after the Crimean War

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (4 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

■Congress of Berlin, 1878

❍ Serbia & Yugoslavia, 1817-present

■ 1947, after World War II

❍ Armenia & Georgia, 1991-present

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm (5 of 95)1/15/2005 8:37:10 AM

Rome and Romania Index