I’m reading up on Leo III and see that he was born in the Umayyad Caliphate, known as “the Syrian”, fluent in Arabic, and described as being Saracen (Arab) minded (Wikipedia sources).

I couldn’t find any definitive explanation of his origin, so I was wondering if anyone here had any sources that do. Thanks

The 470s were certainly strange in the Eastern Roman Empire. A foreign Isaurian on the throne, and two child emperors between his reigns. But what's the story about Leo II, Zeno's son, not dying but being hidden by his mother and then sent to church, and that Basilisk might be that boy? The more references to this story I found, the more confused I became.

This may sound like a stupid question but after all the invasions by the Normans,is it even possible to like them?

Wanted a book that went on detail about the city and the citizens, showing architecture, daily life etc, with original illustrations, is there any such book?

I often wonder why the romans didn't or couldn't (re)integrate the bulgarians.

When the old romans claimed Greece, Gaul, Spain etc the inhabitants began to see themselves as Romans pretty fast (I think). Even post Arab conquest Egypt and N Africa deromanised to a new cultural identity relatively quickly.

Has there been any scholarship on the inability to homogenise/absorb groups of people like they used to do?

(If the facts in the question are wrong, Id be happy to hear that too)

Alexios Komnenos was probably the lover of Mary of Alania, daughter of the King of Georgia. But in 1081 Alexios when he became emperor decided to marry Irene Ducaeana to ally himself with the Ducas family. Could he have married Mary instead?

Him and basil ii ar my favorite monarchs.

Another promising book by Pen And Sword.

This one isn't available yet, and will come out in May of this year, naturally being the most recently and up-to-date dedicated biography of one of the most legendary generals and emperors of the medieval Roman Empire.

Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas: TheWhite Death of the Saracens is the first ever English-language biography of the man who broke the stranglehold of Islam over Byzantine Rome so that by the year 968 his forces could invade the Muslim lands virtually unopposed. This was the result of his military reforms and remarkable gifts as a military commander. The text provides thorough analysis of how he reformed military equipment, tactics and strategy to achieve this. The ambushes, battles and military campaigns are discussed in unprecedented detail. Special attention is also paid to the influence of the ascetic Christian lifestyle of Nikephoros on the morale of the armed forces.

In spite of his religiosity, Nikephoros was a military man through and through, and the civilian population of the Empire were constantly reminded of this. Soldiers were billeted in Constantinople and showered with favours and Nikephoros even pressured the Church to declare soldiers who died in combat as martyrs. Ilkka Syvänne meticulously explores the relationship between the Church and armed forces in the emperor’s policies. Of course Nikephoros had his human weaknesses which led to his untimely assassination. Why and how this happened is also analysed in detail. The assassination of Nikephoros deprived the Byzantine Romans of their ‘Bearer of Victory’, but his military reforms and campaigns had paved the way for Byzantine Rome to reach its apogee under his immediate successors.

The book is available on pre-order for almost 50 dollars, for those interested in purchasing it.

I see his early reign as a train wreck of choices that hurt the Empire. But can you really blame him for not foreseeing the loss of Anatolia or his grandson Andronikos III rebellion. I believe most of his choices were forced upon him.

I have to write a paper about him and want to focus on the places he visited, but I haven’t found many sources, so help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, but I have read Crawford's biography of emperor Zeno, and it was quite interesting. This book is also the only dedicated biography I can find of Leo III. It's also quite new, and was published last December. You can buy it online for about 38 dollars or you can download it from some free-sharing sites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79T3DUgYCMY&ab_channel=NapalmRecords

After all the Batushka drama, the newly named band Patriarkh released their new album called Prorok Ilija. I just found it interesting how they used the Byzantine hymn "Εξομολογείσθε τω Κυρίω, Αγιορείτικο".

WW2 involves a Germanic war machine that has taken over and occupying Western Europe, but then the allies storm the beaches of Normandy and slowly defeat them. At the end the Allies occupy part of Europe and the Soviet Union occupies more so the East of Europe. The Soviet Union then has their ideology (economic social) of communism to spread and and "iron curtain" is created seperating east and west.

The Vandalic/Gothic wars involve a Germanic war machine (visagoths, ostrogoths, vandals) taking over Western Europe and occupying these countries. The allys (Byzantium) then storm the beaches of North Africa and take back Carthage etc. pushing the Vandals (Germanic people) out. They then take back Italy and part of Spain from the Germans, however the Franks control Gaul which the Byzantines decide not to take. An "iron curtain" is created seperating Northern Europe (eventually east and west) from the South of Europe. The Franks now have their ideology of feudalism (yes feudalism is an econimic and social ideology) to spread. A schism between the churches (catholic/orthodox) is basically the iron curtain.

Italy being divided in the centuries to come could be similar to how Germany was divided between the allies after WW2. The Frankis being the Soviet Union in this case, taking more satellite states into its control (Ireland, Britain, Spain, Austria etc.), (yes they spread their ideology of feudalism to Britain, Ireland and Spain via invasion).

Do you think that whithout the Serbians, and Ottomans the Paliologi could restore the empire to the state it was under the Komnenio.

I was just thinking about how different the Empire after 1204 was and it brought up a interesting topic on how Roman these people after the recapture really were.

I see a lot of people of people praising Romanos calling him underated etc.On the other hand I believe he should get criticised a lot more for his blunders during the campaign that preceded Mantzikert.Some examples:

• "Believing that Alp Arslan was nowhere near Manzikert, he decided to divide his army.Romanos himself advanced with the main body of the army on Manzikert, which he soon recaptured. At this point his advance guard met the Seljuk army, which was rapidly approaching Manzikert. Romanos ordered the forces attacking Akhlat to rejoin the army, but their portion of the army unexpectedly came across another large Turkish army, so Romanos' troops retreated toward Mesopotamia.Already understrength, Romanos' army was further weakened when his Uzes mercenaries deserted to the Turks". Dividing the army without proper scouting ahead was a tactical mistake that could have been avoided had Romanos followed the countless military manuals that existed.
• "Arslan had no desire to take on the Byzantine army, so he proposed a peace treaty with favourable terms for Romanos".Another serious mistake.He should have taken the generous peace Alp Arslan offered him.
• He haphazardly went to battle,instead of being cautious and follow the example of the generals at Kapetron,in which they defeated the Seljuk army.
• Also Romanos army faced a serious discipling problem.He should have resolved that before marching to campaign.

Perhaps any bodies?

Imagine First Crusade never happening. Could Byzantium claw back its hold on Asia Minor without the Turks being trashed by the passing crusaders?

Question as above.

Cheers in advance for your response.