<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Love of History &#187; Leaders in History</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofhistory.com/category/leaders-in-history/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://loveofhistory.com</link>
	<description>A historical perspective of current events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 15:32:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>What do Vladimir Putin and Constantine the Great have in common?</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leaders in History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical tradition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constantine the Great]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roman empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the surface, there is no connection between today’s autocrat of Russia and the emperor of ancient Rome. A little bit of digging, though, reveals direct links between the two political figures; links that should not be ignored. As we are about to see, the study of classical traditions in New Russia and a comparison between the two figures is essential for the interpretation of modern politics. As you probably know, Vladimir Putin has been acting president, president and prime minister of Russia since the fall of Boris Yeltsin in 1999. Since then he ruled over the country with an iron fist, causing both consternation and admiration in almost equal measure, depending on which side you take. During his presidency, we testified to the consistent growth of the economy and the restoration of some of Russia’s previously help political and military power. But the recovery from the collapse of Communism has not been straightforward; in fact, it was long and arduous. Putin seems to have helped turn a corner in the constant decline we witnessed during the 1970s and 1980s; and, thus, spearheaded a new era in Russian politics. On the other hand, Constantine the Great is the celebrated emperor of the fourth century AD and Equal to the Apostles according to the Christian Church. His religious title is an acknowledgement of his outstanding services to the church as the ‘First Christian Emperor’. As for his political achievements, he will always be remember as the emperor that reunited the Roman empire and moved its capital to the little known eastern city of Byzantium, which was renamed into Constantinople. Some historians consider him the Founder of the Byzantine Empire. Similarly to Putin, he paid special emphasis to the restoration of the monetary economy and introduced the markets with the gold solidus, the coin that would be characterised as the ‘dollar of the Mediterranean’. The solidus circulated for many centuries in the regions surrounding the Corrupting Sea and empowered Roman emperors across the centuries. Before we move towards a comparison between the two ‘emperors’, it would be interesting to explore the possibility of direct links between them. I am well aware that they ‘reigned’ almost two millennia apart from each other. And yet, a series of direct connections cannot be ignored! The most intimate link they share is Byzantium itself. Constantinople, as the capital of the Roman empire, was seen as the “Second Rome”. The fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire in 1453 left a political vacuum in Eastern Europe. Ivan the III of Russia, who eventually took the title of Czar (Caesar), spotted the opportunity and jumped in it with both feet! He married Sophia Paleologos, the niece of Constantine IX, the last of the Roman emperors in order to put a claim on the Byzantine throne (whatever that may have meant at the time). By 1510, Moscow was already ‘sold’ to the public as the Third Rome. A panegyric written by the Russian monk Philotheos during that year proclaimed “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!” Despite the controversy, whether the Third Rome he refers to is the city of Moscow or the entirety of the Russian lands (Muscovy), the attempt to create a link to the fallen Roman empire is undeniable. Photo: Sophia Paleolog (Palaiologos). Forensic facial reconstruction by S.Nikitin, 1994 (https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:S.paleolog_reconstruction01.jpg) Vladimir Putin is also keen to build on the pre-existing tradition. He clearly attempts to recreate the notion of the Third Rome! His propaganda machine aims at building cultural and political connections with the previous tsarist regimes as well as the Eastern Roman-Byzantine empire. I am guilty of watching several historical series produced in modern Russia that exemplify the continuation of the Roman empire into the Russian one. The most relevant I can think of is the dramatic series of Sophia, a historical drama about the aforementioned Sophia Palaiologina, the Grand Duchess of Moscow. Another relevant manifestation of the adoption of Roman traditions, is the usage of the Roman/ Byzantine double headed eagle on the Olympic Russian team’s hockey jerseys in the Vancouver 2010 and Sochi 2014 Games ( https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/nike-unveils-jerseys-for-2018-olympics-who-will-look-best-in-pyeongchang ). The Roman emperors used the single headed eagle. The double headed one became popular in culture only after the 10th century AD, while the Byzantine emperors adopted it in their symbolic language probably the following century. The two heads symbolised the rule of the empire over East and West, an aspiration that seems to be prevalent also in Russia. More importantly, the allusions to the Grand Tradition of the Byzantine Empire have been kept alive with the resurrection of the Russian Orthodox Church. This religious organisation, which has been persecuted under the Communist regime, now enjoys a special place in Putin’s political agenda.  Putin himself played an unquestionable role in the recent religious schism between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (15 October 2018). The schism followed the decision of Constantinople to grant autocephaly (independence) to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. At this point, I would not like to go through the minutiae of the events. Suffice to say that given the explosive political and military situation between Moscow and Kiev, the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew assumed unprecedented importance in Russian politics. On 12 October 2018, Vladimir Putin, &#8220;held an operational meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council&#8221; that discussed &#8220;a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the situation around the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine&#8220;, according to Putin&#8217;s press secretary Dmitry Peskov. On 31 January 2019, concerning Ukraine Putin gives a hand to the Moscow Patriarchate  &#8220;We have respected and will respect the independence of church affairs, especially in a neighbouring sovereign country. And yet we reserve the right to respond and do all we can to protect human rights, including the right to freedom of religion”. (Quotations and relevant references to be found in Wikipedia, “2018 Moscow &#8211; Constantinople Schism). Similarly, Constantine the Great was rather supportive of the developments of the early Christian Church. He lent his gravitas to stabilise its formation and survival. As early as February 313 in a meeting with Licinius in Milan the state assumed a neutral position and the emperors agreed to allow all citizens to follow their faith (including Christians) without persecuting them for their beliefs. Later the emperor presided in Christian Councils in order to influence the decisions of the Church. We know that he participated actively and supported regulations that, in turn, supported his own agenda. Eusebius in his Life of Constantine III.v-x describes Constantine’s presence in the council of Nicaea: “Constantine summoned a general synod, inviting the bishops in all parts with honorary letters to be present as soon as possible…From all the churches which had filled all Europe, Africa and Asia, those who held the chief place among the servants of God assembled at the same time…Present among the body were more than 250 bishops…After the entire synod had seated itself with seeming modesty, all at first fell silent, awaiting the coming of the emperor (Notice the building of the tension here). Soon one of those closest to the emperor, then a second and a third entered… And when the signal was given which announced the entry of the emperor, all rose, and finally he himself approached proceeding down the centre… dazzling the eyes of all with the splendour of his purple robe and sparkling with fiery rays, as it were, adorned for the occasion as he was with an extraordinary splendour of gold and jewels.” (N Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilisation, II, The Empire, pp. 580-1) Photo: Emperor Constantine I, presenting a model of the Constantinople basilica Hagia Sophia to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Detail of the southwestern entrance mosaic in Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey). (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constantine_I_Hagia_Sophia.jpg) Frankly, I do not expect Vladimir Putin to enter one of the Russian Church’s meeting with equal splendour. In fact, I do not expect him to enter one at all. After all, his style seems to be one that celebrates simplicity and frugality over extravagance and luxury. His wealth was estimated in 2017 to less than 150000 dollars in cash plus a modest flat in Saint Petersburg. Nevertheless, his influence is probably keenly felt and his help is probably eagerly sought out. His aim is the acquisition of power instead of wealth. Another area, where the two emperors differ the most, is their approach to succession. Vladimir Putin has two daughters from his marriage to Lyudmila Shkrebneva but none of them seem to play a prominent role in Russian political life. His views of the restoration of Russian monarchy do not seem to include hereditary succession. On the other hand, the story of Constantine the Great makes a fascinating read. He kept a very firm grip of power by creating a solid hereditary system. After a power struggle that saw the execution of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, the empire was eventually divided among his other three sons from Fausta, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans. Even though Putin and Constantine differed in dynastic politics, they were very similar in their tactics to hold on to power. As I already mentioned, Constantine the Great and Equal to the Apostles did not hesitate to execute his eldest son Crispus, and later his wife Fausta (by throwing her in overheated baths!). There are conflicting theories about the reasons behind their deaths. However, there is no doubt in my mind that they were both part of the political games of power in the Roman Empire. Similarly, in the past few years there have been several scandals, gruesome murders, and alleged suicides associated with Putin’s regime strive for power. Who can forget the spy games in the UK that saw the death of Russian spies and British civilians from poisonous materials in the city of Salisbury? It looks like absolute power can only be sustained, if an expected level of violence is inflicted; whether this happened in antiquity or the 21st century. Of course, I do not believe that Putin tries to copy Constantine the Great! And I seriously doubt that he would insist that Russia becomes the inheritor of the Byzantine Empire. These is a tactic that the Tsars followed several centuries ago. However, there is a distinct possibility that  manipulates the connection with the Eastern Roman Empire and its potent symbols for personal political gain. The gamers of power across time and space find such symbolic connections very useful. *The image has been borrowed from this site http://shoebat.com/2015/10/01/make-no-mistake-about-it-russias-invasion-of-syria-is-a-holy-christian-crusade-done-to-protect-christianity-russia-is-truly-a-christian-nation-and-may-god-aid-her-in-the-war-against-evil-and-isl/)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alexius Comnenus&#8217; not so radical reforms</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenuss-not-so-radical-reforms/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenuss-not-so-radical-reforms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leaders in History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the comnenoi dynasty in the byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the finances of the byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the military reforms of alexius comnenus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the tax reforms of the byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the wars of the byzantine empire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alexius Comenus, whom I mentioned in previous blog posts, was not only interested in external danger.  He also managed to reform a large part of the Byzantine society, despite the widespread opposition. Alexius initially was mainly interested in promoting his own family; therefore, he created a new hierarchy of court titles for its members.  This action turned the imperial family into a new order imposed at the top of the Byzantine society. The titles distributed to his family were, of course, accompanied by material support.  They received the administration of different parts of the empire and drew the revenues that would otherwise have gone to the state.  These were temporary imperial grants and were called pronoia.  These grants marked a break with one of the oldest Byzantine principles, namely that the public lands should be directly administered through the imperial administration. Army With regard to the military organization of the empire, Alexius managed to make a reasonably effective army.  There were some Guards regiments, there were troops recruited in the Balkans, there were native regiments raised in Macedonia and Thessaly, there were also various foreign mercenaries. However, after Alexius lost most of his army in 1081, he made as much use as he was able of foreign mercenaries. The Turks, for example, provided him with reservoir troops and the Flemings with 500 knights.  Often, though, he rounded up peasants from the Balkans. After 1081, the emperor would be positioned in the centre of the army surrounded by his personal bodyguard and various friends.  By 1091, Alexius’s army looked more like a feudal army with a strong mixture of mercenaries gathered from all the known world. Taxes The system of taxation was also reformed during Alexius’s reign. Taxes until then were oppressive, while the system was completely chaotic. Outside Greece it must have been impossible to keep the tax registers up to date, but the problem went far deeper than this. The existing tax assessments were calculated according to the old full-value coinage, but now with the continuous debasement of the coinage a vast number of different issues of widely varying fineness were in circulation.  In what coins was tax to be paid? How were the devalued coins to be related to the old full-value coins? There were plenty opportunities for tax evasion or for the tax collectors to take advantage of the situation. In 1091 Alexius had the opportunity reformed both the monetary and taxation system.  In 1092 he minted a full-value gold coin, the nomisma.  He did not have the resources to restore the old currency. But he created a new monetary system based on the a) gold nomisma, b) the hyperpyron, a coin of silver-gold alloy and c) a billon coin of base alloy.  However, the old debased coins continued to circulate in profusion.  The new coinage created a monetary stability gradually, until in 1109 there was a satisfactory basis for the collection of taxes.  The basic taxation was to be collected in a combination of new nomismata and the electrum coinage.  Any fractions of the nomisma were paid in a copper currency.  It has been calculated that as a result the basic tax was almost quadrupled. Alexius also exploited fiscal uncertainties in order to confiscate large tracts of land.  The basic taxes remained the same: peasants without holdings paid a hearth tax; those with holdings paid a combined hearth- and land-tax, which varied with the size of property and the number of plough teams. There is no point in talking about a Comnenian ‘revolution in government’.  By and large, Alexius remained true to the system of government he inherited. He patched it up and made it work; in particular, he made it work for himself and his family.  He tried to root the aristocracy in the foundations of the state and thus transform it.  But this aristocracy coincided with the family of the Comnenoi.  The civil service elite was demoted to a position of second rank. &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenuss-not-so-radical-reforms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alexius Comnenus, the defender of the Byzantine empire</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenus-the-defender-of-the-byzantine-empire/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenus-the-defender-of-the-byzantine-empire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leaders in History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alexius comnenus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the byzantine emperors and the crusades]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the defence of the byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the end of the byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the great emperors of the byzantine empire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; At this point in my life I am infatuated with Byzantine History. So I thought to deal for a while with one of my favourite emperors Alexius Comnenus. When the byzantine empire was thought to be at its needs, he restored it and defended it successfully again and again and again. That was a combination of political acumen and military intelligence. In the following paragraphs I describe some of the events that raised his profile in my eyes. In a previous post I described how Alexius have succeeded in rescuing the Greek lands. Even so, the remainder of the Balkans was in turmoil.  In his search for troops he recruited a force of nearly 3000 from the heretical Paulicians that settled around Philipopolis.  This Paulicians were situated very close to Constantinople and at any given time they could cut its communications.  So, Alexius arrested a large number of them, exiled their chiefs and scattered the rest of the community. His attempts, though, caused the reaction of the Petcheneks, who thought that Alexius aimed at the restoration of Byzantine rule in the northern Balkans.  The war between the two powers lasted for years, until April 1091 when the Byzantines won a decisive victory.  The Petcheneks were overwhelmed.  The Byzantines allowed their remnants to settle in the Vardar valley (Macedonia), guarding the approaches to Thessalonika (the largest city in Macedonia).  A second decisive victory over some of the Petcheneks allies, the Cumans, took place in 1094.  That was the turning point for the establishment of Byzantine rule over the Balkans as far north as the Danube.  Even the Serbs came to terms with Alexius. But the Byzantine rule in the Balkans was harsh and it had most of the characteristics of a military occupation.  The imperial administration caused the fleeing of peasants to the forests in order to escape tax farmers.  The peasants who did not manage to leave were rounded up to serve in the Byzantine armies. Now that the Balkans were coming under Byzantine administration Alexius was free to turn to the problem of Asia Minor. Large parts of the land had already fallen in the hands of the Turks.  Although the emperor started preparing for a war in the East, his plans had to be shelved, when news arrived at Constantinople that hordes of westerners were making their towards Byzantium.  For the year 1096 and beyond Alexius’ energies would be devoted to supervising the passage of the first crusade through his territories. By the spring of 1097 the crusaders were ready to cross over to Anatolia.  Alexius tried to use the opportunity as best he could, so he persuaded their leaders to lay siege to the city of Nicaea, the seljuq capital of Anatolia.  At the same time he provided the crusades with a small force under his commander Tatikios.  This commander was supposed to guide the crusaders across Anatolia and to see that they fulfilled their promise to return the conquered Byzantine territories. Alexius was probably hoping to use the crusaders to recover control over the Euphrates frontier.  But the key to a permanent restoration of Byzantine authority in this region was Antioch.  The crusaders won a series of victories in Anatolia and managed to lay siege to Antioch.  By that time, the promises they gave to the emperor faded away and there was no question of returning the cities of Edessa or even Antioch under Byzantine control.  Once the crusaders secured the city of Antioch they turned towards Jerusalem.  But this time they had to cooperate with the Byzantine forces operating along the Syrian coast. By the year 1100 reinforces from the West arrived at Constantinople and from there they headed towards the south.  However, close to Amaseia they got severely mauled and they had to return to the Black Sea coast.  Alexius became the scapegoat for this failure, since he did not manage to help the crusaders.  So, the westerners came to regard the Byzantines as enemies rather than allies. The emperor, since he was militarily in an inferior position, used his diplomatic skills in order to take control over the newly acquired lands.  He gathered around him many Norman princes who opposed Bohemund, one of the leaders of the crusade, while he used the meager Byzantine army in order to cut off the communications with southern Italy. Finally, peace was made at Devol in 1108.  Bohemund was to keep Antioch, but only on condition that he remained the emperor’s liegeman.  Bohemund also promised to provide Alexius with military help whenever he requested it. It seems that Alexius’s perseverance restored Byzantine prestige and power. Byzantium was again the dominant power in the Near East and the Balkans.  However, the foundations of this power were very different from those of the Empire in previous years.  Outside the restricted lands around the Aegean, Alexius’s authority was personal in character. The crusaders were his lieges; the Sepjuq emirs his federates; the Venetians his servants.  This gave him some claim to moral authority but it was no substitute for the strong administrative system which had held together the empire under the previous emperor.  Even in those areas where a regular provincial administration existed, it was increasingly permeated by private interests.  But, if Alexius had restored the appearance of power, his work gave his heirs hope that a full restoration of Byzantine authority was still possible.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/alexius-comnenus-the-defender-of-the-byzantine-empire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crusaders against Christians</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/crusaders-against-christians/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/crusaders-against-christians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leaders in History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alexius comnenus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine emperor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine empire conquered by crusaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crusaders against byzantium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crusades in the eastern mediterranean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eastern roman empire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did you know that the Crusades against Islam actually affected also the Eastern Roman Empire? The crusaders in their quest for political power and economic supremacy did not always distinguish between muslims and christians. The results of their actions were evident in their behaviour against the emperor of Byzantium and his subjects. Alexius, the first emperor of the dynasty, was in power when the first Crusade took place. In the autumn of 1096, when the Crusaders started gathering outside the walls of Constantinople, the empire was already in a much healthier state than 5-6 years ago. It seems that the empire already hit bottom in 1090/91. At the time, the Patriarch of Antioch claimed that “the frontiers of the Byzantine empire had been reduced in the East to the Acropolis of Byzantium and in the West to the Golden Gate”; this way, suggesting that the empire was limited to Constantinople alone. Alexius had to thank a close-knit network of relatives for his survival during the difficult first years of his reign. The family of Comnenoi, to which he belonged, may have seen a series of political failures; however, these did not result in the defeat of the emperor. Even after Alexius rose to the throne the internal condition of the empire continued to deteriorate and a general discontent became widespread. In order to master this discontent he produced an unjust regime. It was observed that he ruled not as a trustee for his people but as the head of an aristocratic family. His chief duty was to his family and not to his people. Alexius’s priority was probably to protect the empire from the external danger. During that time, Anatolia was lost to the Turks, the northern Balkans were in the hands of the Petcheneks and other local leaders. This is when Robert Guiscard, the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, was preparing to invade the Illyrian provinces of the Byzantine empire. The first and foremost concern of Alexius were, indeed, the Normans, mainly because they presented a threat to the imperial office, since they claimed to support the rights of the previous emperor. Alexius thought that a victory against Guiscard would, in fact, unite the Byzantine society behind the current emperor and it would have been easier for him to win victories also against the Petcheneks and the Turks. A series of encounters were not enough to decide for the war. At least, though, by 1083 Alexius had prevented the Normans from penetrating the plains of Macedonia and Thessaly in northern Greece, the richest provinces of the empire. When in 1084 Guiscard was ready to invade the empire once more, the Byzantines used the Venetians to try to prevent his crossing over to Albania. Nevertheless, the Normans managed to prevail in a series of sea battles and gained control of the sea. Only luck could save the Byzantines. In fact, in 1085 Guiscard died and the Normans evacuated the Byzantine soil. After this war the strategy of Alexius seemed to be justified, and his prestige was immeasurably increased. Source image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexius_I.jpg]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/crusaders-against-christians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
