For all you people that expected something by Leslie Lamport, yesterday I learned something very interesting:
Apparently, after the success of the Byzantine Generals paper, his Paxos paper was written as the description of an ancient Greek democracy. Paxos is not initials as I thought but the name of the island described in the paper. His editor didn't like the humor and didn't publish, and the paper was only published years later, after it reached some other researchers and had a lot of impact on the field, in the guise of a "recently rediscovered ancient manuscript".
In a composition of some days, in a perusal of some hours, six hundred years have rolled away, and the duration of a life or reign is contracted to a fleeting moment: the grave is ever beside the throne: the success of a criminal is almost instantly followed by the loss of his prize and our immortal reason survives and disdains the sixty phantoms of kings who have passed before our eyes, and faintly dwell on our remembrance. The observation that, in every age and climate, ambition has prevailed with the same commanding energy, may abate the surprise of a philosopher: but while he condemns the vanity, he may search the motive, of this universal desire to obtain and hold the sceptre of dominion.
...I shall not descant on the vulgar topics of the misery of kings; but I may surely observe, that their condition, of all others, is the most pregnant with fear, and the least susceptible of hope.
-- Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
In just a few days of writing - a few hours of reading - six hundred years have passed, and the life or reign of a king seems but an instant. Death is ever present, and the criminal who seizes the throne immediately loses it. From our remote position we look down on the rapid passing of sixty dead kings, who together barely make an impression on us. We might be surprised at their ambition for a throne that seems to bring nothing but death. But that surprise is lessened by the fact that the ambitious turn up everywhere and always. Nonetheless we might wonder why there is this constant desire to rule.
...I won't bore you with a long discussion of how miserable it is to be king, but it's clear that they are pretty miserable.
What on earth are you talking about? I mean all of it: Republics, invidious prose, copywriters, a literary precedent, England being a republic, rent-a-kings...
Gibbon was indulging a pastime of republican apologists, which is badmouthing anything about monarchy. In this case just sneering, but it stretches to inciting assassination - 'sic semper tyrannis' has been a thing for some twenty five centuries.
Way back when, the Roman aristocrats killed their king and instituted a wildly successful senatorial republic which lasted some five centuries. Later, the English aristocrats, going with the flow of the times, had their republic based on the Magna Carta - which kept a nominal king, serving at the pleasure of Parliament.
Those kings were hired and fired at will, sometimes with loss of head, like Charles I, or just the threat of it, like James II. Long before multinational corporations, there was international recruiting for the job, which is why German aristocrats had to change names for WWI.
Copywriters write advertisements, which is how governments get picked nowadays. They put a shiny gloss on unpleasant facts, or make the audience believe claims which are hard to prove with facts. Industrial manufacture of consent, or advanced belief production, whatever, it works.
In Umberto Eco's "Baudolino" there's another darkly humorous account of a murdered Byzantine emperor. In 1185, an adviser to emperor Andronicus convinces him to kill Isaac Angelus ostensibly because of disloyalty but in actuality to satisfy some personal grudge, but Isaac ends up fighting back, becoming the new emperor and letting a mob brutally kill Andronicus. It's unclear whether Isaac even planned to become the emperor in the first place.
As an interesting aside, Ottoman tradition forbade shedding the blood of kin, so the usual route was strangulation of the emperor if he was a relative.
This tradition originates from shamanic times in Asia. According to belief, emperors were shadows of the god (which is sky) and some respect(!) was needed when an emperor was murdered. The very same tradition can be also seen in Mongols. See the death of Jamukha: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamukha
The overly simple answer is
Romans-->Byzantines-->Ottomans.
Rome is at one point divided into two empires, West and East.
West Empire collapse, but East Empire keeps going with its capital at Constantinople. East Empire becomes the Byzantine Empire now.
East Empire actually ALMOST reunites with the West,
and Justinian's top general, Belisarius, actually captures Rome in the mid 500's. He fails to hold the Italian peninsula for a variety of reasons, and Western Europe slips away.
The Turkish Empire then begins rising around the 1300's, one of many many trends driven by the Mongols and their invasions.
In the 1440s the Turkish Empire (the Ottomans basically), wipe out the kingdoms of Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe actually has a really rich history but unfortunately has had the thankless task of saving Europe over and over by being a "bullet sponge" for the powers on either side.
In 1453 the Ottomans capture Constantinople and begin their empire.
By the 1800s the empire falls into disrepair, and is now regarded as the "sick man of Europe". This is further compounded by choosing the wrong side in World War I. At the end of the war the Ottoman empire is dissolved by various treaties.
This leaves the remaining core of Turkey. Interestingly it also puts Iraq, Iran, and Palestine into the hands of the British, beginning a long road to the revolution in Iran, the various Israeli / Palestinian negotiations, and eventually, the war in Iraq.
TL;DR: Basically you can trace the fall of the Roman empire in the 500's to ISIS today somewhat simply.
Sure, I understood that. My interest was that given the knowledge that the Byzantines and Ottomans were enemies and then the Ottomans conquered the entire region, what would be the relevance of an Ottoman tradition to assassination of a Byzantine emperor? Was there some mixing of cultures at some point to the extent that strangulation was adopted in Byzantium? Now that I've re-read the great grand parent post, I assume that it was meant as an aside about Ottoman emperors.
The Holy Roman Empire. Roma. Mussolini. And they all have one thing in common. They are not Roman.
Well, actually Mussolini might be a hard one to pin, but modern day Italians who significantly developed their culture through the Renaissance are definitely not the same as Ancient Romans.
A lot of people considered themselves successors to the Romans. It doesn't change the fact that the Ottomans were a radically different culture with different traditions.
All the accounts seem to indicate the emperor's wife was involved or at least somewhat to blame.
Wonder if this is the norm in kingly assassinations, a coincidence that they were chosen or a tendency of ancient schoolers to ascribe bad events to women.
This is funny to read, but please take it with a grain of salt. For instance, medievalist.net's story of Leo's murder is based on a single source, John Skylitzes, who lived more than two centuries after the events (circa 1040-1100, when Leo's death was in 820).
Other historians have serious doubts on the veracity of this story. By crossing with other sources, though none is as detailed as Skylitzes' romantic prose, they try to distinguish the (probable) facts from the pure inventions (and the reality-inspired inventions). See "The Conspiracy of Michael Traulos and the Assassination of Leo V: History and Fiction", Dmitry Afinogenov, 2001 : the paranoia of King Leo seems more realistic than a conspiracy by Michael.
It's historians hard work to separate the fiction from the facts, and to learn even from the fiction. One can try the same today: most modern media are less emphatic than John Skylitzes, but they can't always be right and neutral. Yet it's often very hard and time-consuming to find when a reporter stated a fact and when he exaggerated or wrote what he wished or was told.
I, Fry, who drank Bont the Viscous, who drank Ungo the Moist, who guzzled Zorn the Stagnant ... who slurped Hudge the Dewy, who enjoyed a soup composed principally of Throm the Chunky, do solemnly swear to rule with honour and insanity-- Uh, integrity!
It's...okay. I think Brownworth adopts way too much of a great man model that oversimplifies the sweep of history. The podcast provides an OK outline, but the History of Byzantium is far deeper and holistic. Robin captures a lot of the drama of events like the Nika Revolt and the outbreak of the Justinian Plague with aplomb too.
Semi-related, and with all due props to GOT: Check out the first couple of episodes of Michael Wood's The Story of China on PBS. The Westeros plotters were pikers compared to the real history of Chinese dynasties.
Apparently, after the success of the Byzantine Generals paper, his Paxos paper was written as the description of an ancient Greek democracy. Paxos is not initials as I thought but the name of the island described in the paper. His editor didn't like the humor and didn't publish, and the paper was only published years later, after it reached some other researchers and had a lot of impact on the field, in the guise of a "recently rediscovered ancient manuscript".
http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/pubs.html#lamport-paxo...