What happened to Byzantium?

Greek city states.

I imagine the first thing that most people think of when they hear or read that is Athens and Sparta. Similarly, Ancient Rome easily evokes a whole host of well-known images and characters (Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Caligula etc).

If you mention the Middle Ages, people will think of the Black Prince, Henry V, Agincourt, knights and, perhaps above all else, English longbows.

But there’s a thousand years or more between the pomp and glory of Rome’s power and the premature death of Edward of Woodstock. Hastings and Vikings fill a bit of the gap, but the rest of it seems to be almost a black hole of history.

The Byzantine Empire is the obvious superpower that fills the gap, yet it’s remarkably unknown. I’m not a historian, but I’d also not describe myself as historically ignorant, and I knew sod all about Byzantium until quite recently.

It lasted for over a thousand years and mingled Greek mysticism with Roman power, and acted as a long term bulwark for Europe against the Persians and, latterly, the Ottoman Empire.

In acts that now read as little more than insanity, the Catholic Christians of the West organised a Crusade against Greek Orthodox Byzantium, leading to a period of exile for the rulers (though they did regain the city in time). Byzantium was, by turns, assisted, despised and ignored as the Emperor desperately sought aid to see off the Ottomans.

Sadly, this didn’t happen. Byzantium fell in the most tragic circumstances possible and the city’s unique position within the world of culture and religion was lost. Now, Byzantium/Constantinople is better known as Istanbul.

The history is as fascinating as the Roman period (although more topsy-turvy, as Byzantium’s power waxed and waned regularly whereas the Rome’s power expanded for ages and then slowly collapsed), and it’s baffling as to why it isn’t better known.

Maybe it’s because Byzantium never ruled over Britain (it sort of overlapped a bit with the unified empire but when the West/East split happened Blighty was always Western) and was rather further away than Rome. Plus, the destruction of Byzantium as a religious rival to Rome will have decreased its spiritual status. (There are still many churches in Istanbul, but the city itself is mostly Muslim, obviously).

It might also be because the writers of history might have been reluctant to dwell on the fact that the Christian West alternated between ignoring Byzantine pleas for help and actively harming the city state as it tried to defend itself from the expanding Ottoman Empire.

Thaddeus

The strange parallels of Alexander and Caesar

There are perhaps three generals of antiquity who stand head and shoulders above all the rest. Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca (my personal favourite) and Julius Caesar.

All three have fantastic biographies/military histories by Theodore Ayrault Dodge, and it was reading these that I first came across the almost eerie parallels between Alexander and Caesar.

Both men were born into good families (in Macedon the kingdom was theoretically hereditary but it was pretty common for an uncle of a king to take over, as Alexander’s own father did). Alexander played an instrumental role in the Battle of Chaeronea at 17, slaughtering the elite Theban Sacred Band, and became king at 19 until his death just over a decade later. Caesar was a slower starter (it is scarcely possible to be faster) but he too rose to become the undoubted leader of his armies and effectively became a king.

The two generals led elite military forces that grew accustomed to unprecedented success under their leaders. Alexander clearly had the greater achievement, in my view. After centuries of fearing the overwhelming power of Persia he led the Hellenistic armies to total victory, scoring staggering victories and reducing every city that dared defy him by expert siegecraft (Tyre being particularly impressive). However, Caesar also had a great military record, finally exorcising the ghost of the Gauls who had ravaged Rome centuries earlier.

Neither man truly knew defeat on the battlefield. Caesar did not enjoy unmitigated success, but his record is nevertheless excellent. Alexander’s feats almost defy belief and he was a legend even in his own lifetime.

However, both men died premature deaths. Alexander probably died of a fever, although there is a suggestion that Antipater (who ran Macedon in Alexander’s absence) had Iollas, his son and the king’s wine-pourer, poison him. Caesar, rather famously, got stabbed to death by a large number of people.

Sadly, there’s a rather more gruesome coincidence between the two. Caesar’s son was called Ptolemy Caesarion, and was executed by Octavian (who became Augustus) before his 18^th birthday. Alexander’s son was officially king, but regents ruled in his stead. He was killed by Cassander, ruler of Macedon, when some claimed a 13 year old could rule on his own.

Ironically, both men, who barely knew defeat in their military careers, died younger than Hannibal (who lost the Second Punic War). Neither of their sons succeeded them and both defeated a great foe (admittedly, Caesar did slaughter his own side).

Both chaps also had epilepsy, which is a rather strange coincidence. [Hannibal was also disabled, but he had one eye, having lost one to exposure during the perilous march through the Arnus Marshes].

There were some rumours that Caesar was also friendly with fellows, as Alexander famously was, but there’s some doubt about that.

So, unusually, both chaps had epilepsy, both died prematurely, and neither were succeeded by their sons (both of whom were murdered). It is possible both were murdered and partial to man-on-man action, but the former is uncertain regarding Alexander and the latter regarding Caesar.

Thaddeus

Dr Who Preview and Trailer

Yes, I’ve resorted to stealing ideas from Mr. Burdett, not unlike Davros stealing the Hand of Omega (only without the dreams of universal domination, genocide and unlimited rice pudding). Obviously, there are spoilers in the trailer itself and the bit below it.

Rather a good trailer, with plenty of interesting hints and some more obvious shots of various villains. I love the Weeping Angels, but I hope they don’t get overused.

River Song appears to either be the creepy eye-patch lady or plan to impersonate her.

The cybermen (still the New Who ones rather than the Mondas ones, alas) make a reappearance. Hopefully this is for a reason beyond getting massacred, as happened in the last episode.

The Silence are back.

The strange beast creature reminds me a bit of the description of the Royal Beast of Peladon in The Curse of Peladon. It was an old serial (Jon Pertwee was the Doctor). I never actually saw it, but did have the book.

As has been widely trailed, Adolf Hitler (whose life is apparently saved the Doctor et al.) features. I wonder if they’ll end up making a Downfall spoof of the meeting on Youtube.

There are quite a few creepy doll-like/automaton creatures, reminiscent of (but distinct to) the clockwork robots.

Guest stars include James Corden, and Daniel Mays (I think) who played the diabolical Keats in the final Ashes to Ashes series.

So, it looks pretty good, and is due to return in a little over a month. The psycho-dolls, Silence and Weeping Angels suggest (to me anyway) that we might see some darker episodes, like the excellent two-parter that opened the series.

Thaddeus

Review: Gladiator: The Roman Fighter’s (Unofficial) Manual, by Philip Matyszak

I must admit I was a bit hesitant about buying this. I’d already got a good book on gladiators (Gladiators: History’s Most Deadly Sport, by Fik Meijer) and was uncertain whether this would have anything extra. As it turns out, it’s the best book in a small but growing series of excellence.

Mr. Matyszak brilliantly blends wittiness with an easy-to-read but informative style. Some of the captions (typically to mosaics) are quite hilarious and the dry wit the author employs helps add some comic relief to a topic that is actually rather horrific.

The book takes a concise look at the rise of gladiatorial popularity, from funeral games to pre-election bribes for the masses to saturating the Colosseum with blood during the reigns of Commodus and Trajan.

Different gladiator types are briefly explained, along with the daily routine of the men (and, occasionally, women) in question. There’s a slightly paradoxical view of them held by the Romans, in that gladiator games are hugely popular yet gladiators are shunned socially.

In addition to gladiatorial combats there’s a quick look at similar/alternative events, such as the beast hunts (a kind of morning matinee for Ancient Rome); the bizarre practice of blindfolding condemned prisoners, giving them swords, pushing them into the arena and telling them to kill each other; and shows involving dwarves and women fighting one another.

The author’s also made good use of the Ludus Nemesis, a German re-enactment group who have, through practical exploration of gladiator armour/weapons, discovered some cunning tricks their bloody forebears might have employed.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic.

For those wondering about getting this or Fik Meijer’s book, I’d say that Meijer’s is more sober and in-depth, but Matyszak’s is more entertaining (without becoming low-brow).

Thaddeus