Search

Search Results

• When Was Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos Born?

  147–155.

  István Kovács

  Views:

  47

  This paper investigates the  birth date of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, analyzing conflicting accounts of historical sources. The sources provide two primary narratives: the eulogies of Theodore Prodromos and Michael Italikos, which align Manuel's birth with his father John II Komnenos’ ascension in 1118, and the account of John Kinnamos, who suggests a birth year around 1122, based on Manuel's age during the Battle of Neokaisareia. This analysis is further enriched by examining the feast days of several saints named Stephen, as referenced by Prodromos. The paper seeks to reconcile these divergent perspectives, exploring the implications of each for our understanding of Manuel's life and reign. The study underscores the challenges in Byzantine historiography, where historical facts intertwine with literary motifs.

• The Hero, the Realpolitiker and the Careerist: A Historiographical Approach to the Early Foreign Policies of Demosthenes

  37-52

  Dániel Seres

  Views:

  140

  The study explores the difficulties research has experienced in distancing itself from the 19th-century view of Demosthenes, rooted in the romantic cult of genius. The approach offers a retrospective view of the young Demosthenes and his early political activities. Assessment of his work – and in some cases, the excuses created for its shortcomings – is influenced by the image of the later leader of anti-Macedonian politics and the speeches On the False Embassy and On the Crown. Based on Demosthenes’s speeches For the Megalopolitans and On the Liberty of the Rhodians, the study will argue – building on statements made by Badian and Wooten – in favour of redefining the typical image of the young politician and, by extension, not looking for consistent political aspirations where none were to be found.

• Velleius Paterculus and the Roman Senate at the Beginning of the Principate

  259-269

  Andrei Y. Markelov

  Views:

  170

  The “Roman history” by Velleius Paterculus is the sole historiographical work written by a contemporary of Augustus and Tiberius. The paper deals with representation of the Roman Senate of Velleius’ time in his work. I argue that in his compendium the historian reflected the ambivalent position of the Senate under the first two Roman Emperors. He depicts the institution as more passive in comparison with its description in the previous period and as depending on the Princeps. At the same time this Roman author characterizes the Senate as having maiestas, the notion which was not connected with this authority under the Republic. Assigning of maiestas to the Senate by Velleius reflects a deep change in the position of the curia due to decline of the popular assemblies’ significance at the beginning of the Principate.