Im planning on making my own byzantine gambeson/bambakion and im struggling to find any information and how the arm slits that allowed for the arm to be free(seen in the photo).

Early/Justinian Byzantines/Eastern Roman Empire- Armoured Skutatoi and Toxatoi:

More work from my Early/Justinian Byzantines/Eastern Roman Empire; this time a unit of Armoured Skutatoi and Toxatoi:

https://justaddwater-bedford.blogspot.com/2020/08/aventine-byzantine-heavy.html

anyone have a map of byzantine tunisia? or any other information?

Some of the replies to my last post, lurking around here for years and recently seeing ideal Byzantium post maps with no Italy has me wondering why the Italian part of Byzantium is so overlooked. And being real about it Posts on Byz Italy also tend to have the most uninformed replies and comments on this reddit or none at all unless it is Justinian Related. Even Youtube videos and online maps are 30 years behind the times on the region. That 1000AD Italy map is the bane of my existence btw lol.

And that is kind of insane to me because

1. Byzantine Italy in some form or another lasted 555 years (making room for Ancona Vassal and Failed Invasion under Manuel).
2. It is the most 1st hand sourced part of Byzantine territory with tons of modern books, papers and research on it still going through major revisions and into new discoveries in areas like Sardinia.
3. It is during the most Byzantine era of Byzantine Rome, during the Macedonian golden age and creation under the Isaurians with foundations in Late Rome and a small arc in the Komnenian era.
4. It is the original homeland of our glorious Empire
5. Sicily, 3/4s of Calabria, Salento and Basilicata were all Hellenized and populated by Romans when they fell out of Byz hands, since when do we abandon Romans so we can conquer Bulgars because it looks good on a map.
6. It is pretty cool, ignoring the Ostrogoths you have the Romans fighting the Lombard Kingdom and Principalities, HRE, Arabs and Berbers with the Aghlabids and Fatimids, the evil Normans all the way to that menace Charles of Anjou while also at some point allied or aligned with all of them. The most unique and Ecumenical/tolerant form of Byzantine governance in their history that is radically different between Romagna, Calabria, Apulia and Sicily throughout the periods. Byzantium leading a Italian proto 1st crusade at Garigliano against the Arabs, Byzantine Naval attack on Muslim Pirate base Fraxinetum in Provence as part of a joint Frank-Byz Expedition, Otto II getting cooked By Arabs while trying to attack Byz Italy only to by chance be saved by Byzantine Merchants, A small Byz employed Norman garrison holding off the entire HRE Imperial army of Henry II at newly fortified Troia. There was Latin Catholic Bishops in Apulia fighting aad dying for Byzantium alongside Lombard Scholae Palatinae against the Normans under the Katapanate.

Like how many people here know that the Byzantines reconquered Benevento itself, the heart of the Lombards in 892 and held it for 5 years. Even more obscure ball, that for a couple months in 1157 due to Alexios Axouch, Ravenna returned it's fealty to the Empire (bought and paid for though smh) until Frederick crashed out over it.

So why is this part of Byzantium so commonly underappreciated and not deemed equal to the other parts?

For me its Konstantinos VII Porphyrogenitos.

He was Born a Bastard and lost his father at a young age, was semi-usurped by his Uncle Alexandros (essentially Caligula reborn), then by Romanos I Lekapenos, both of whom heavily flirted with the idea of ousting him completely (although in Romanos' case it was more due to political stability rather than personal ambition, as evident by the fact Romanos made him co Emperor when he realized his sons were not as suited to it), yet he managed to outlive them both and establish himself as the sole emperor. He married Romanos' daugher Helene Lekapene, who was supportive of him whenever her brothers and father overstepped his rights and authority and bore him the son who would in turn father the Empire's savior Basileios II. He also promoted learning, wrote multiple manuals on statecraft and was surprisingly succesful in his campaigns despite being a scholar emperor.

Absolutely worth the effort of the Tetragamy scandal to father him on Leon's part

I know the one positioned immediately to the right of Justinian is usually attributed as being Belisarius, so for him I’m actually more curious for a source. The other man on Justinians right standing next to the soldiers is who Im most intrigued by—I remember hearing it’s supposed to be John the Cappadocian, but he would have already been exiled by Theodora by the time this mosaic was commissioned so that doesn’t make much sense unless there is something I’m missing.

I read that the sources estimate income, taxes and wages in coins but actually most of it was barter or value of harvest and animals. This was also the case in the earlier Roman period.

So there were actually no millions of gold and silver coins. What do you think?

Also most of the recorded figures in the historic sources could be exaggerated estimates.

Edit: There were perhaps in total 1-2 million gold coins in the entire Eastern Roman Empire however most of these did not circulate among the population or local economy but remained among the elite, the capital and used as reserve.

Mine is "The ruler of a thousand, let him regard each of his subjects as the caretaker of a thousand." - Justinian, Novellae

Medieval World Magazine issue 23 was released recently. Has some cool art from Jose Moran.

www.bilibili.com/video/BV1i7zLBeEXt

Vibe for this room (living/dining room) will be a romanesque taberna. I was in one in spain, of which I don't have any pics

m curious about film representation.

Are there almost no high-investment, large-scale films set in the Eastern Roman era made by Greek official institutions or the local Greek film industry?

Does this suggest limited public interest in these topics inside Greece, or are there complicated practical reasons behind it?

I cannot find any public proposals or industry efforts to develop large film projects covering Eastern Roman history.

Sometimes, through this passage, I think about the story of Pedro de Candia; a son of the city of Candia, which centuries prior had been liberated by Emperor Nikephoros Phokas, sowing the seed from which a son of that city would be born.

Even though the New Rome had fallen, its children, led by this Pedro de Candia, set out on the conquest of a New World

and sometimes I wonder what was going through his mind did he consider himself a Roman? Because let's remember that some Greeks under foreign occupation still maintained their Roman identity... if this Pedro de Candia, when he landed in the New World in what is now Peru, viewed himself as a roman??idf

The New Rome had fallen, but its children were conquering the New World or taking part in a much grander civilizing process.

Evermain ..am crazy hehehe

Light Purple: Take and hold under favorable Geopolitical Conditions
Yes it is a CK3 Barony map. Did not include potential vassals except Vassal Venice

My Ideal Great Power Byzantium with the fat cut off

Link to my post in "What I consider the "true" Borders of Rhomania. What do you think?" that fully explains the context
https://www.reddit.com/r/byzantium/comments/1x2jbl1/comment/pf3eely/?context=3

Additional Context Regardless:

1. Balkans: Border Stops at the Haimos and Sar Mountains and goes to the Mat River.

Nah, the Danube border is very nice looking but defacto is a worse border than the Haimos mountains and we see repeatedly that the real defensive line fallback was the Haimos. A Flat plain that needs mountain access from the south with numerous crossings for nomads just isn't worth directly holding imo and too many Slavs. 800, 1190, 1280 we see Byzantium always wanted to hit these Balkan borders bare minimum and its quite feasible. Danube is not worth overextension its nomad bait.
 Dyyrachium< Kruje<Ohrid<Debar<Skopje<Serdica<Philippopolis<Beroe<Mesembria

Theme of Dalmatia and a Vassal Venice as light purple aka do it if the regional Slavs can be kept chill to dominate lucrative Adriatic trade with the west and good pr with latin subjects but otherwise pull out. Only Byz Purple if Italy cant be held aka the Manuel Komnenos way but Italy trumps this and will keep Venice loyal anyway.

1. Asia: Eastern Border Axis of Antioch, Melitene and Theodosioupolis. All mountain range and river borders (not naming all that) that doesn't put the empire on the Mesopotamian or Armenian plains. Removes all the enemy forward operating bases and keeps vital Islamic mint sources under imperial control. The rich Cilician and Northern Syrian Coastal plains are under control and protected. Antioch is restored as the empire's Asian and silk road capital with another Pentarch while not moving the eastern commands too far. I have Tripoli as light purple on the map but I actually changed my mind and do think it is vital to hold as it provides Antioch a far better fortified city barrier against an Egyptian power, is still highly Melkite, further protects and has access to Cyprus, has another mountain line and keeps the Arab jihadists out of the mountains while crippling Egyptian ability to contest northern Syria. Basil II and John I wanted it for a reason.

2. Italy: Same as the others, border at the Fortore River and Lucanian/Campanian mountain ranges. Originally I had it at 840 borders plus Cosenza aka Greek areas but you need all of 1025 Italia plus Sicily to be integrated so the regions can be self sufficient and properly integrated as full administrative provinces to repel the Lombard princes, Arab invasions or worst of all, Norman adventurers. Having substantial Lombard latin citizens is actually great pr with the west and for the empires universal claims. Need Otranto for Control of the straits and Sicily for a tradition of monopoly on Imperial coffers and grain in the Emperor's hand to maintain these borders, need the rest integrated to defend them and a firm likeable hold in western affairs. Calabria not being integrated on the level of Apulia due to the lost of Sicily screwed the empire hard against the Normans as Feudal adjacent Roman Greeks are worse and more traitorous subjects than Administrative lombard Latins

The Lombard Princes as light Purple as they are a constant border nuisance unless awed and Extreme Norman bait due to being a fractured mess for hundreds of years. Full Direct annexation is preferable if possible but noted very bad PR and conflict with the HRE. A loyal United Lombard Vassal state like the empire tried to do in the 1020s with Capua is highly ideal and should be maintained if possible but the rest of italy secured means this is bluntable now if the worst comes to pass.

1. Crimea: Hold Cherson, this is vital. Need a secure base to monitor and influence the nomadic confederations on the steppe. The goths are easily starved if needed and open to Byzantine culture but are occasionally traitorous( more loyal than slavs or Greeks though smh). If good diplomacy can be maintained, secure the rest of the Coastal Cities to dominate the Black sea Trade routes like Manuel did.
   

And that's my ideal Byzantium that will never fall off Hegemony of the Mediterranean status...until they try to expand and mess it all up blowing up in their faces with overextension. But if they tank Manzikert, Mongols and Timur it can be maintained imo lol.

Some Ian Mladjov maps from Kaldellis for geographical context

So, Basiliscus was the brother-in-law of the mid-5th-century emperor, Leo the Thracian.

Leo aimed to retake Tunisia from the Vandals and build a gigantic armada of 1,000 ships, allegedly carrying 100,000 troops. Leo gave Basiliscus the command, but Basiliscus sank most of the fleet, and the Vandals began raiding the Greek coast, forcing Leo to pay tribute.

So, a few years later, Leo died, and his son-in-law Zeno took over. Because Zeno was an Isaurian, he was hated. The people eventually drove him out of Constantinople. There was a plot to install a certain person as the emperor, but Basiliscus instead usurped the throne with little support.

Basiliscus immediately became even more hated than Zeno by botching a religious council. Meanwhile, Zeno raised an army in Isauria and prepared to retake his throne. So, Basiliscus sent his nephew to squash Zeno; however, Zeno bought him. Basiliscus sent more generals to stop Zeno from marching forward, but they all defected or refused to fight him. When Zeno reached Constantinople, its citizens opened the door to the deposed emperor while Basiliscus hid in a church.

There is a ton of misinformation about how the Union of Florence played out in Constantinople in the lead up to the fall of the city. The worst ones are that Emperor Constantine XI Paeologous died a unionist and that there was some kind of joint liturgy where everyone forgot their differences and happily accepted the union and commemorated the Pope. I find that the primary sources do not bare this out.

Doukas

The Greek historian Doukas who spent his life working for the Italian rulers of Lesbos and was a pro-unionist but specifically says the Emperor was an insincere unionists. In this extract he is talking about a union liturgy held by Cardinal Isidore on the 12th of November 1452. "2. After the emperor had received them with the courtesy and honor befitting their station, they came to the topic of Union. The emperor and several representatives of the Church assented to the Union. However, the greater portion of the sacerdotal and monastic orders, abbots, archimandrites, nuns-why do I say the greater portion? It was the nuns who urged me to speak and to write. Not one among them assented to the Union. Even the emperor only pretended to do so. Nonetheless, they who appeared to be in favor of the Union came to the Great Church." Doukas (trans. Harry Magoulias), Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Section XXXVI.2. Wayne State University, 1975, page 204.

This is what Doukas says about the church service held on the arrival of Cardinal Isidore (a Greek Unionist) with a boatload of mercenaries paid for by the Pope. "5. When the Christians who had assembled in the Great
Church had offered an extended prayer to God and had listened to the cardinal's words, they agreed to the Article of Union with the understanding that, once the Turkish threat had passed and peace was restored, a number of scholars would gather to study the articles and correct whatever was not in complete accordance with the true faith. With this understanding, therefore, they consented to hold a combined liturgy in the Great Church to be celebrated by both Italians and Greeks. After both Pope Nicholas and the exiled Patriarch Gregory were commemorated in the diptychs, the Divine Liturgy was concluded on the twelfth day of December in the year 6961. There were many who did not receive the offering of antidoron because it represented an abominable sacrifice celebrated in the Unionist Liturgy. Every heart and every intent of the Greeks was examined, and their trickeries and deceptions did not escape the cardinal's detection. Since he belonged to the same nation, he needed little prompting to offer the City his help. He was content, therefore, to report to the pope only what had taken place. The rest he entrusted to God Who administers all things for the good." Doukas (trans. Harry Magoulias), Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Section XXXVI.5. Wayne State University, 1975, page 205. Notice how Doukas doesn't even bother talking about how many got communion from Isidore as he says many didn't even accept the innocuous antidoron. And these were the Greeks who were supposed to be supporters of the union.

This bit has Doukas venting against the anti-unionists population of Constantinople "6. But the populace, cruel and hating the good, the root of arrogance, the branch of vainglory, the flower of haughtiness, the dregs of the Hellenic nation, wholly disdaining the nations of men, regarded all the events that had taken place as though they had not occurred at all. In conversation the Unionists would say to the schismatics, "Let us see if God will remove this enemy who opposes us, the great dragon who boasts that he will swallow the City whole, and then you will see if we will unite with the Azymites." In saying these things, the wretches did not know that the many oaths sworn in the name of the Holy Trinity on pain of indissoluble excommunication to up- hold the union and concord of Christians, that is, of the Churches, which had been sanctioned at the Council of Lyons in the days of the first Palaiologos [Michael VIII, 1274 A.D.] and in the Council of Florence in the days of the last Palaiologan Emperor [John VIII, 1439 A.D.), and now in this Divine and Sacred Liturgy, would remove their commemoration from the earth, and with them, the commemoration of the City. O wretches, why do you reflect upon such vanities in your hearts? Behold your priests and your nuns and your monks, your male and female sacristans! They refused to communicate the Immaculate Body and Blood from the hands of those Greek priests who administer the Blessed Sacraments according to the ecclesiastical tradition of the East, contending that they are polluted and that "they are not Christian sacraments." Moreover, they avoided the blessing of those priests and called the churches pagan altars. Tomorrow they will be corrupted and defiled in both body and soul. I saw with my own eyes a nun who had taken sacred vows not only eating meat and covering her body with barbarian dress but also making an offering to the false prophet and shamelessly confessing his unholy faith. But what has made me jump ahead five months in time? Tomorrow these things will be upon us and they will be recounted with lamentations. Doukas (trans. Harry Magoulias), Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Section XXXVI.6. Wayne State University, 1975, page 205-6.

In another section Doukas explains how anti-unionists shunned the Eucharist from the Church of Hagia Sophia due to its unionist clergy and simply left the church before communion. "9. From that day on which the Union had supposedly taken place in the Great Church, the Constantinopolitans shunned it as though it were a synagogue of Jews, and neither oblation nor burnt offering nor censing took place inside. If one of the priests offered the Divine Liturgy to God on a feast day, the worshipers would remain to the time of the oblation and then they would all depart, women as well as men and monks as well as nuns. What need be said? They looked upon the church as a pagan altar and the sacrifice as offered to Apollo. For this reason, Isaiah, as from the mouth of God, says, "Behold, I will proceed to remove this people and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent. Woe to them that deepen their counsel, and not by the Lord. Woe to them that take secret counsel, and whose works are in darkness, and they say, Who has seen us? And who shall know us or what we do?" Therefore, saith the Lord, "Woe to the apostate children! Ye have framed counselnot by me, and covenants not by my Spirit, to add sins to sins.'" Doukas (trans. Harry Magoulias), Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Section XXXVlI.9. Wayne State University, 1975, page 209.

In this extract Doukas mocks the Constantinoplians for hiding in Hagia Sophia as the Turks poured into the city after previously shunning the church. "18. Why were they all seeking refuge in the Great Church? Many years before they had heard from some false prophets that the City was fated to be surrendered to the Turks who would enter with great force, and that the Romans would be cut down by them as far as the Column of Constantine the Great. Afterwards, however, an angel, descending and holding a sword, would deliver the empire and the sword to an unknown man, extremely plain and poor, standing at the Column. "Take
this sword," the angel would say, "and avenge the people of the Lord." Then the Turks would take flight and the Romans would follow hard upon them, cutting them down. They would drive them from the City and from the West, and from the East as far as the borders of Persia, to a place called Monodendrion. Because they fully expected these prophecies to be realized, some ran and advised others to run also. This was the conviction
of the Romans who long ago had contemplated what their present action would be, contending, "If we leave the Column of the Cross behind us, we will avoid future wrath." This was the cause then of the flight into the Great Church. In one hour's time that enormous temple was filled with men and women.There was a throng too many to count, above and below, in the courtyards and everywhere. They bolted the doors and waited, hoping to be rescued by the anonymous savior. 19. 0 miserable Romans! 0 wretches! The temple which only yesterday you called a cave and altar of heretics, and not one of you would enter so as not to be defiled because the liturgy was offered by clerics who had embraced Church Union, and now, because of the impending wrath you push your way inside, seeking to be saved. But not even the impending just wrath could move your hearts to peace. And even if, in such a calamity, an angel were to descend from heaven and say to you, "If you will accept the Union and a state of peace in the Church, I will expel the enemy from the City," even then you would not assent. And if you did assent, it would only be a lie! They who but a few days before had said, "It would be better to fall into the hands of the Turks than into the clutches of the Franks," knew this was true." Doukas (trans. Harry Magoulias), Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Section XXXIX.18-19. Wayne State University, 1975, page 225-6.

This evidence doesn't sound like the huggy and kissy version of events that often circulate around the internet. The anti-unionist participation in joint religious services seems very conditional and limited. There is no hint of widespread acceptance of communion from the populace of Constantinople from unionists or even the antiodoron (if you know what that is). Please note that this is coming from a pro-unionist and this is his best spin.

Leonard of Chios

Leonard of Chios was Latin bishop of Chios and a typical anti-Orthodox bigot. He went to Constantinople with Cardinal Isidore and survived. He later wrote a letter to Pope Nicholas on the fall of the city.

On arriving in Constantinople Leonard of Chios makes it clear that amost nobody supported the union. I find it striking that he doesn't include Emperor Constantine Paeologous as a supporter of the union. "I soon realised that except for the learned Argyropulus, Theophilus Palaeologus and a few monks and lay theologians, almost all the Greeks were seized by an excessive partiality; and that there was none who could be moved by zeal for the Faith or for his own salvation to be the first to express contempt for their obstinate opinions..., it was arranged by the industry and probity of the aforementioned Cardinal that the Holy Union should be confirmed, with the agreement (if it was not feigned) of the Emperor and his Senate, and celebrated on the second day before the Ides of December, the holy day of the Bishop Spiridion." English translation from J.R. Melville Jones, The Siege of Constantinople, 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 12-13.

"The Greeks celebrated the Union in words, but denied it in fact. Some of their leaders, whose blood now waters the earth, spilt by enemy swords, said, 'Let the High Pontiff be given the honour of being commemorated in the service, but let the decree of the Synod of Florence be not read.' Why this, hypocrite ? 'In order,' they replied, 'that the section of the decree which claims that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father may be blotted out.' Again why, hypocrite ? 'So that the Greeks may not appear to be in error, if it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two sources.' Why again,
pray, hypocrite ? 'To prevent the glory from accruing to the one who desires to win it all, by virtue of his office.' Scholarius on the one hand, and Notaras on the other, intended at some time to present themselves before the Apostolic Presence, claiming that they alone had understood the matter, and should be praised as the leading figures in making the Union; for many were secretly tortured with jealousy of the Papal legate [= Cardinal Isidore]." English translation from J.R. Melville Jones, The Siege of Constantinople, 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 19.

This is what Leonard of Chios says about the Turks massacring the Byzantines sheltering in Hagia Sophia. "Their soldiers ran eagerly through it, putting to the sword all who resisted, slaughtering the aged and the feeble-minded, the lepers and the infirm, while they spared those of the rest who surrendered to them. The heathen infidels entered Sancta Sophia, the wonderful
shrine of the Holy Wisdom, which not even the temple of Solomon could equal, and showed no respect for the sacred altars or holy images, but destroyed them, and gouged the eyes from the saints. They broke and scattered their holy relics too, and then their sacrilegious hands reached out for the sacred vessels of God, and they stuffed their pouches with gold and silver taken from the holy images and from the sacred vessels. Screams and cries rose to the heavens, and sseveryone of both sexes, and all the precious metal and property of all kinds in the city, were subject to their pillage. With axes they broke open our store-chests, and dug in the earth in their search for valuables, which they found, both new and old, in such abundance, that no city in this age could show the like for wealth. All that had been hidden away now passed into their hands." English translation from J.R. Melville Jones, The Siege of Constantinople, 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 38.

George Sphrantzes

Sphrantzes was a loyal friend and courtier of Emperor Constantine. He as present throughout the siege and survived. He wrote a short chronicle in his old age. He says "My late emperor, the martyr, lived forty-nine years, three months and twenty days. His reign lasted four years, four months and twenty-four days. He had been the eighth emperor of the Palaeologian Dynasty. " XXXV.10. Marios Philippides (Translator)The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401–1477, University of Massachusetts Press, 1980. Page 70.

"The emperor consented to have the Pope's name commorated in our services, by necessity, as we hoped to receive some aid... Six months later we had received as much aid from Rome as had been sent to us by the Sultan of Cairo." XXXVI.6. Marios Philippides (Translator)The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401–1477, University of Massachusetts Press, 1980. Page 72.

Sphrantzes was a staunch anti-unionist yet he considers Constantine Palaeologus a martyrs. This confirms Constantine Paeologous's lack of real support for the union. If anyone knew it would have been Sphrantzes. The Greek Orthodox tradition is universal in considering Constantine Paeologous an Orthodox martyr. The fact that his Megadux was the notoriously anti-unionists Lucas Notaras and that George Scholarius maintained a correspondence with him also confirms Sphrantzes view.

Rather than rejoicing at the Union of Florence, Roman Catholics should be embarrassed that they imposed impossible conditions on the desperate Byzantines.