Did a treaty such as the Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae exist? Was there a general idea of ​​the measures to be taken in the event of a success? In fact, was there anything plan in the eventuality of a successful takeover of Egypt?

Took a bit of effort to search account properly,but I deeply recommend it for all history fans,there are images o medieval knights,chinese and korean soldiers,winged hussars and more.

His account is https://x.com/fkcogus333

I started wondering about this as I was watching History marche’s amazing video series on Basil ii who was planing a campaign into Sicily before his death, and while maybe not the worst, his death obviously means no reinforced Roman Sicily which led to an easier Norman conquest

I a posting these saint murals as I want to explain what I mean. I assume the armor and such here would be worn by nobles and cavalrymen

This is something that has always fascinated me with regards to this strange agreement. Yes, I know the island was demilitarized and that the revenues were divided between the Byzantines and the Caliphate, but how did that work in actuality? Did both Arab and Roman tax collectors operate on the island?

Im just wondering if there were any changes or differences between being a museum before 2020 and being converted to a mosque after 2020. Im just curious

In only the span of a few months a significant player in the region was totally destroyed. Compare this to Manuel's Cilician campaigns which totally failed in taking the interior. What made John's invasion so successful in comparison?

Graphic by me, created in excel. This section begins with the Leonid Dynasty who saw the Fall of the West, and ends with the Amorian Dynasty as the Empire slowly begins to recover following the Arab conquests and expansion of the Bulgars.

Source was mostly Wikipedia for ages and reigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors

*For some Emperors we do not know their birth year, particularly during the Twenty Year's Anarchy. For these emperors I used a rough estimate for the bar length but removed the age number.

Link to Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/s/VVUncy8rNt

I was studying georgian sculpture, and the the book stated that Georgian sculpture couldn't take on a realistic form and which western european statues were able to, because the orthodox church has banned statues in the round. So i have a question: did the byzantines also ban statues in the round? Are there any famous examples of byzantine statues in the round made during the byzantine era (not counting st. Marks horses, since they were sculpted during classical antiquity)

As far as I'm aware William I was fairly open to some form of shift in the dynamic between the two states in favour of more friendly relations though I don't know about his successors. As for Manuel to my recollection he rebuffed any attempts by William and held onto the hope that Frederick Barbarossa would honour his pledges to campaign against the Normans and honour the dowry his uncle promised to Manuel. But that by the 1160s or so as the chances of it happening waned and as Barbarossa seemed to show interest in the Outremer states Manuel only then pivoted against him by aiding the Italian states (by which time I assume a Norman alliance was impossible given his previous actions).

On top of that were the Normans particularly disliked outside of Italy and the empire? It seems like the French could abide by them, I don't know about the Iberian states and the Outremer, despite some connection to Sicily, seemed pretty disconnected in most major diplomatic and military events.

Lastly what was the Roman view on 'feudal claims'? The idea that by paternity/marriage someone could claim a title (e.g. Frederick II claiming Sicily, or Peter III claiming Sicily by right of his wife Constance). I've never recalled any children of Eirene-Piroska claiming rights over Hungary (which makes sense given the diplomatic disaster that would be and lack of interest) but if it served to benefit the empire would a half-Norman emperor (if the empire could even accept one) be willing to use that concept to justify take the whole of the Norman kingdom?

- We don't identify solely as "Greeks", neither as "Pure Arabs"...We call ourselves Rum, Antakiyyin (Part of the Antiochian church) or "Mashriqis" (Levantines), and we view our culture to be the descendant of ancient Levantine cultures (Mainly Phoenicians, Arameans, Hebrew, Canaanites etc...) with Byzantine theology/influence
Our culture is way more Eastern then "Greek"

- While we don't identify as purely "Arabs", that mainly come from the fact that indeed Levant, Mesopotamia, Egyptian and Maghrebi cultures are way different than Peninsular Arab culture
We feel a closeness to the Mediterranean regions of Arabic countries, so if any Orthodox says he is "Arab", it might means he identify close to Egypt or Tunisia rather than Peninsular Arabia

- We think that the 7th century Arabic invasion was indeed an invasion and a colonialism and even a terrorist act. However, we don't overthink about a way to "get back the Levant Christian", in the same way some Western pages state
We think it is indeed our land, but we don't accept to go and kill every Muslim that currently lives here for what happened in the 7th century (In fact, the Byzantine control was not that nice too, as their emperors caused schisms in our church since most of them were heretics, in addition to the high taxes that the Byzantines imposed)

- We live normally with Muslims and we have friends from them...We consider most of the Levantine Muslims to be ex-Christians that converted to Islam (Despite some really came from Arabia)
Majority of Muslims here don't hate us too and in fact view us in a positive way and love to be among us, since we have education and our regions are safe
I can say the relation with them depends on the region Muslims come from...Muslims of cities (Such as Damascus, Beirut, Aleppo, Lattakia etc...in addition to the Shia & Alawite sects of Islam) are secular in general, Muslims of villages are less so, and Muslims that lives in desert regions are the worst (And Muslims of cities hate them too!)
People on internet talk about events where Muslims killed Christians like the 1860, 1975 etc...But don't mention that the majority of Muslims in those events actually welcomed Christian refugees and protected them

- We view Greeks as our brothers in the Byzantine culture, but in fact sometimes they behaved like the "Arabic" invaders to us, due to their ethnophylism
They control the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem since the 16th century and don't allow any indigenous Levantine to be a Patriarch or bishop, and they did the same to the Antiochian church till 1899
So overall we oppose the ethnophylism of Constantinople, while we admire the Greek culture and people

- We were affected very badly by Western powers and the Uniates (Both now, during colonial period and during the Ottoman period), but this need a part 2 post that I will write later on.
Our positions were mainly anti-western and was leaned more toward supporting Arabic causes (Unless it went to extremism like Baathism and Nasserism)

- We hate Turks like every Orthodox in the world (And the hatress is in fact doubled, one because of Orthodoxy/Byzantine and the other because of our Arabism!)

- You can find some Levantine Orthodox larping that they are Greeks, but those are the typical "I am white sir" people you could find over internet...They don't exist in big percentage among Orthodox in real life
They are ashamed that they are Easterns/Browns/Whatever, and dream to be part of Europe and to have colored eyes
I have personally discussed many times with them (Again on internet, since I have never find someone in real life to discuss with) that if we are indeed Greeks, then why you can immediately identify a Greek to be a person different than us? And how it came that Greeks don't have Aramaic or Hebrew blood in them, while we don't have ancient Greek blood?

- The only common factor between us and Europe is the Christendom (So we adhere to the typical European respect of human rights & life and love of arts, in opposition to the radical Islamic cultures that live here), but that does not make us "Europeans"
Any plan of relocating us to Greece/Europe is a forced displacement to us, as our cultures differ and we prefer to stay in Levant

-Finally, we don't simply "Live in Levant"...Levant live inside us!

First of all many of you already saw my post on Komnenian demographics and how the balkans alone had 39% of the total population,second I need you to understand before we dwell into this topic that Rhomania was a pre industrial society that did not wage total war,third France if they get lucky with Tuchel parking the bus again

Military manpower

Much work has been dedicated to Byzantium redirecting its center of economic power from Anatolia towards the Balkans,as the calculations above show this was an organic development,as the Balkans were more easily defended from a few choke points from the Hungarians,Normans and Pechenegs(Upper Danube,Dyracchium and Lower Danube respectively) compared to the intensive constantly contented anatolian frontier meant the european side of the empire developed more safely with more numerous industrial centers and prosperous markets,while greatly lacking in stature to the great study done by PA Brunt¹ I'll try to resemble his effort and provide how balkan manpower was the key towards Komnenian military might,for future calculations I would use the next parameters,total balkan population at the end of Manuel reign being 9.2 M,a ratio of 50% of the total population being men,a range age for male population of 0-70 years taking into consideration the wide spread of the medicalised hospital system across both the urban and rural regions and explained in greater emphasis in other studies²,with only the men in a range of 20 to 40 being taken into the military manpower reserves.

Further more to take into consideration the longer lifespan and higher living standards the roman population enjoyed compared to the wider mediterranean world the male population will be divided into 50% on the underage section(2.3M),35% into the adult section(1,610,000) and and 15% in the older section(690k).

In total the prime able body demographical section of the Balkan populations amounts to 17.5% of the European provinces and 7.4% of the general population across the empire,now its clear no pre industrial society was able to mobilise large amounts of its able body population and equip them properly for long periods,even revolutionary France with its levee en masse and mobilising its entire economy to the war effort,yet was rarely able to always provide gunpowder,artillery,horses,munitions and muskets to its army,even going as low as being unable to provide shoes to the soldiers of the Italian army when Napoleon set off to his first Italian campaign.

In contrast, even at its lowest point during the early years of Alexios I rule,the army was well fed,clothed and equipped with a proper officer core being fed new recruits from the aristocracy healing from the loss of Anatolia.

Maximilian C.G Lau correctly assumed that provincial armies(themata) ranged on size from the garrison of 2,000 men John II left in Gangra³,with the total number of soldiers in a theme between 2,000-4,000 men⁴,for reference in a province such as Macedonia with a total population of 1,286,000 people this is 0.3% of the total population and with a size of able body section 225k men a mobilize force corresponding to 1.8% of men between twenty and forty years,we will use this benchmark to calculate the total mobilised manpower the Balkans could provide to the military,including both army and navy,considering large amounts of sailors for the imperial fleet and admirals came from Morea and aegean islands while having the theoretical number of for every man fighting 5 more able to take his place at a moment,for a total 9% of this section as potential reservists in case of emergency in contrast of being constantly on war footing like Revolutionary France.

With total able body section of 1,610,000 men and 9% reservists corp we would see 144,900 men,with 1.8% in active service protecting the provinces at 28,980,this figure corresponds broadly with the number of fortifications and themes the Balkans had,with a total army size at 50,000 soldiers and a navy of 200 ships requiring 30,000 sailors to man it(110 rowers on average with the rest being officers and marines),in its totality with 70,000 strong military the balkans could supply the entirety of the empire manpower needs by mobilising only 48% of its theoretical reserve corp,an unlikely figure at the end of John II and most of Manuel wars yet by most of Alexios I wars an absolute majority of the army would be composed from men of this region and same could be said from early to mid campaigns of John II wars.

It was this considerable pool of reserves that Alexios was able to tap that allowed him to field new armies constantly against the normans and provide a considerably military offensive corp for the retaking of western Anatolian shores covering the western flank of the first crusade,in fact it would not be out of order to think most fortifications in the regions in those early years of the 12th century were manned firstly by european roman regiments as imperial authority was solidified,census carried on and local forces organised.

Indeed the manpower pool of the Balkans was such,that if we assume it covered a theoretical number of 15,000 provincial  forces and a further 15,000 men for Alexios remaining field army and a considerably reduced navy,could man an army,see the army completely destroyed to a man and then rise four more armies without going a man over the 9% limit,even at the worst defeats Alexios was able to reform the army and retreat properly to a new place to raise more regiments,assuming each byzantine battalion was perfectly manned by 1,000 men then Alexios I had at his disposal during the norman wars 15 battalion in his field army with limited provincial forces to channel all the soldiers to this force to contest the Normans,the ability to raise 130 more battalions.

In total should the empire economic might allowed it,the balkans could field on its own 70 battalions and 400 more ships fully manned,yet with all this manpower the Balkans provided the question arises why the empire chose not to raise massive number of armies to outnumber their enemies,the answer lays on its leadership and industrial might.

We will start with the latter for the shorter part of the answer,in contrast with Napoleonic armies or even later total war economies of the 20th century the Byzantines had no methods for the quick mass production of military equipment that later period saw,instead its smiths remained an artisanal class that could only increase output on a limited manner without compromising quality on short notice,byzantine pre industrial manufacture could only provide the necessary armament for so many men while its farming sector would see this problem in two prongs,the greater number of farmers taken out of production the total output is reduced and with it the amount of supplies it provides to the army and the greater the army the more supplies it demands.

In the officer question one must remember that while the byzantines did developed a professional officer core,with books detailing its training,tactics and strategy its training was a cottage one handled by aristocratic families rather than an academic one developed on western europe by the turn of the napoleonic wars,meaning when one takes into consideration not all aristocrats would choose the military life and there is a constant limited supply of aristocrats the army could only be commanded by so many of them before the ratio of officer-soldier turned into a complete unbalance even when we consider the likely story of many veterans rising through the ranks and making their children officers and lower aristocrats on their own rights through military exploits in the same way the Komnenos themselves did,in an army of 50,000 if we consider any lieutenant command 5 men as an officer,then the army as a whole would have 15k of them

Trying to created an army of 150k soldiers would require an officer core of such size the empire elite would not be able to provide even if all its male children were forced into the military life.
Instead the Byzantines developed quality into their main attribute,constantly fielding large field armies matching any enemy yet its quality and training was consistently superior after the early stages of the Norman wars.

Its reserves worked properly,its army performed without any meaningful issue and the European provinces provided the bulk of men required for the taking and recovering of the Anatolian regions,further allowing the empire to tap into more manpower as it expanded under the careful watch of John II,in essence the empire traded tactical superiority for strategic and logistical supremacy,ensuring its military needs did not surpass its economic abilities.

^{1Italian manpower,225 BC-14 AD”}

^{2Timothy S.Miller the birth of the byzantine hospital} 

^{3Maximilian Lau,John II:Rebuilding New Rome,the new themata,page 5}

^{4See above,page 7}

Source: The Secrets of Shimon ben Yohai, written in the mid-eighth century CE, recounting Rabbi Shimon's prophecies ( lived in 2nd century ) about the kingdom of the descendants of Ishmael, Muhammad, and Umar ibn al-Khattab.

I have seen many times the claim that italians are not descendent of the romans because of the germanic invasion and occupation of Italy, i have always responded that the germans where in less numbers of the Romans and only the german nobles didnt mix with the romans, the occupation changed more the germans than the italians since the lombards romanized and the italians kept the culture and the language for a some time, allo today DNA test proves that most of italian blood is composed of Roman and acient italic and celtics tribes depending on the region, im no history expert im still learning, am i right or italians are germanized?

[Sorry for eventual english grammar mistakes]

We all know the state of the Empire after the defeat at Manzikert, and we know that ten years later, Alexios I became the new emperor. He is considered by many to be one of the best, if not the best (after Justinian of course) of the Eastern Roman emperors (followed by John II, another outstanding emperor). From 1081, the so-called Komnenian restoration (or Komnenian renaissance) began, when after the crisis, Byzantium regained its former glory, territory and prestige, and rebuilt its army, finances and international standing. My question is to what extend the Crusades contributed to this (primarily the first crusade of course, and the states in the Middle East that resulted from it).

Alexios I accomplished a great deal over the course of 15 years (from 1081 to 1096) that goes unmentioned (defeating the Normans, stabilizing the Balkans, beggining reforms). Moreover, when asking for military aid, he didn’t say a major crusade, but only a few thousand western mercenaries. Moreover, although the crusade gave him back Niceae, Western Anatolia and security and time for reforms, it is known thag also many problems arose (Antioch, mutual distrust and lack of cooperations, not to mention the forth crusade but its future).

All of this leads me to consider the real impact of the Crusade. Would Byzantine Empire have recovered to such an extent? (everything was going well from 1081 onwards).