<?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; Medieval</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofhistory.com/category/medieval/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>Eunuchs and Transsexuals and their political power</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eunuchs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transsexuals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You probably already know that some transgender people chose to make a transition with the help of surgery in order to live life as transexuals. Sex re-assignment surgery or gender re-assignement surgery is a phenomenon of the 20th and the 21st century. The experience is fraught with dangers at the physical and the psychological level. There is no doubt, though, that it remains largely positive when the choice is made intentionally, after serious forethought and with the help of professionals. As sexual politics evolved rapidly the past few years, most of the debates we hear are about the rights of transgender people, their status in law and how well they are integrated into society. We do not hear about their change of gender in relation to political power. Unless, of course, we want to pay emphasis on the fact that their presence in the political arena is accepted or frowned upon. Suffice to say that in some countries their presence anywhere causes derision or hate actions at a great personal and social cost. I am more interested, though, in the position of transsexual people at the highest echelons of political power in the so called civilised countries of the West. How many MPs, MEPs or Ministers do you know that are transsexual? The answer is probably none as far as I am concerned. I am deeply concerned that this part of the population is not adequately represented where it matters. I am also concerned at the deep socio political transitions that happened the last few centuries, which led to the exclusion of these people from the political arena. This was not always the case… Back in the Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire, if you which to call it that) Eunuchs held prominent positions in the government. Eunuchs are the not the same as Transsexuals but they are the closest that I can think of in terms of sexual orientation. In the first instance, eunuchs may not have had a choice in changing their sex, while transsexual always have a choice to go or not got through the transition. Furthermore, women could not change their body in ancient or medieval times, while it is possible to do so today. I can think of several more differences. Even so, the similarities between the two groups of people are strong and remain valid. They all underwent physical changes that altered their sex. Byzantine law distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: the ektomiai or ektomoi, i.e. castrati, from whom a surgical operation had removed all means of procreation, and the spadones or thladiai (Nicet. 608), whom a constitutional defect or an illness had rendered incapable of procreation or impotent. Of course, the law referred exclusively to men, never to women. Unlike modern attempts to remove transexuals from the front office, eunuchs were numerous in Byzantium they were always sought after by the Byzantine emperors. They were considered a valuable gift. In the era of the empress Irene (797-802) eunuchs formed a veritable swarm in the Grand Palace. The laws, however, severely prohibited eunuchism. The early Roman emperors during the first and the second centuries AD prohibited this practice, at least within the boundaries of the empire. Justinian I punished the perpetrators and accomplices of the operation with the penalty of retaliation. If the condemned person survived, he was sent to the mines and his property was confiscated. In spite of all that, the practice of eunuchism did not disappear, since there was no prohibition against trading in eunuchs who came from foreign countries. Specifically, in the 5th century, Leo I (457-474) prohibited the sale of eunuchs of Roman nationality within the empire, but he had to allow the trade in eunuchs of foreign nationality (Code of Justinian IV 42.2: de eunuchis). In the end, a powerful order of eunuchs was formed in Constantinople. Special titles of nobility were created for them and certain responsibilities were reserved for them. They eventually came to exercise all public functions both in the palace and in the army. There are many reasons that explain the rulers&#8217; keen interest in eunuchs. First of all, it is almost certain that the all-powerful imperial women needed the service of numerous eunuchs. Moreover, once introduced to the imperial palace, the eunuchs quickly acquired a profound influence on the emperors and empresses who used them as advisors, or treated them as protégées. Eventually, some of them were seen as members of the imperial family. Once it was noticed that being a eunuch could bring fortune, power, and honour, parents consented to the castration of one of their children. Unlike the reaction of the modern Christian churches to transsexual, transgender, gay, lesbians etc, the Byzantine Church did not reject eunuchs from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It included a large number of eunuch clergy, among them patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and monks. This is definitely another sign of the power of eunuchs in that society. What is most surprising is the great number of eunuchs whom one encounters as generals and admirals throughout the history of Byzantium, especially after Justinian I. The reason for this is that the rulers found it prudent to entrust the chief command of their armies to eunuchs. Other more experienced generals would probably accompany these eunuchs during campaigns, but in subordinate roles. The reason for allowing eunuchs to lead the army was the fact that a castrated general could not have become a usurper to the throne. Throughout the Byzantine period individuals who could not procreate and give birth to an heir could not become emperors. It is evident that the role of eunuchs in the civilian hierarchy in Byzantium was even more important than their role in the army. Surrounded by a powerful aristocracy, which could have been a threat to the throne, the rulers preferred to employ eunuchs as their most trusted assistants. Of course, this is not the case in the 21st century. Western societies are profoundly democratic and there is no hereditary monarchy that needs to be protected from potential usurpers. The power dynamics have changed profoundly over the centuries and as such the reliance on Eunuchs or transexuals. Transsexuals are stripped of their power in the political sphere and I do not see how they can regain the illustrious positions they held in the distant past.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Beginner&#8217;s Guide to Understanding a Coat of Arms</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-a-coat-of-arms/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-a-coat-of-arms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysing family crests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beginners guide to coats of arms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[how to recognise coats of arms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infographic on medieval history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medieval cats of arms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medieval family crests]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; &#160; Joe Shervell is an infographic designer with a love of medieval history and has just finished ‘A Beginner’s Guide to Understanding a Coat of Arms’. He says &#8220;I’ve always been interested in heraldry and crests, and as I was researching the topic I was overwhelmed by how much I didn’t know. For instance a ‘family crest’ is only a very small part of the overall coat of arms – a commonly misunderstood concept. There are plenty of other rules that apply to coats of arms and I was lucky enough to have an advisor from My Family Silver, who are approved by The College of Arms – so the information here should all be completely accurate.&#8221; He suggested that I upload it in my blog, so that all of you can profit from that. He is deeply grateful to www.myfamilysilver.com . They were instrumental in helping him find the right info for the graphic (they’re approved by the Royal College of Arms).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-a-coat-of-arms/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>
		<item>
		<title>Arabs and Christians in peace</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/arabs-and-christians-in-peace/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/arabs-and-christians-in-peace/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am not certain why but for the last few weeks I have been fascinated with the Arabs and their impact in European cultures. I am predominately interested in the outcome of their contact with the Byzantines in the eastern Mediterranean. Many times I wondered how did the Arabs view the Christians? It is evident in the sources that Islam respected deeply both the Arabs and the Christians. After all, the Muslims believe into the largest part of the Christian Bible, which is characterised in the Quran as the ‘books of light and wisdom’. The muslims believe that both Moses and Jesus were divine prophets. The only difference is that Jesus preceeded Muhammed who is acknowledged as the last and most important Prophet of Allah. Furthermore, according to Islam the Paradise and the Second Coming exist. Because of these basic similarities in the beliefs of the two religions, the Christians and the Jews were not persecuted in the same way as the pagan Persians. Around the Mediterranean regions, Muslims and Christians co-existed, believing in the same God, even though obvious differences were still in place. There was no need for radical conversions or aggressive military actions. Especially in the previous byzantine regions, the Arabs protected the Christian Church and its property. What was the degree of cultural contact between the Byzantium and the Arabs? It is widely accepted that Byzantium gave to the Muslims the scientific knowledge, as it was inherited from Classical Greece. After all, Byzantium is nothing less than the continuation of the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. We know that the Arabs translated the philosophical works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and the works of the Roman doctor Gallenus from Greek into the Arabic language. However, the Arabs did not accept them as doctrine. Instead, they expanded on previous knowledge, they perfected the sciences and they became quite innovative in disciplines such as mathematics, astronomy, geography and zoology. Extensive studies on the influence between the two civilisations are still in their infancy but I do hope that soon we will experience a new renaissance in this aspect of Arabic studies. Apart from the scientific exchanges the two empires experienced also a flourish of commercial exchanges. Even if monetary systems divide regions, commerce always has the tendency to break the borders and spread across large geographical areas. Commercial enterprises were favoured by religious tourism. The Arabs allowed the Christians to visit Jerusalem as pilgrims. In return, the Byzantine emperors permitted the construction of mosques across their territories. The communication between Arab and Christian artists is evident in architecture, painting and mosaics. It has been suggested that the Arabs used in their workshops Christians.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/arabs-and-christians-in-peace/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why did Islam become the undoubted ruler of the Mediterranean?</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/why-did-islam-become-the-undoubted-ruler-of-the-mediterranean/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/why-did-islam-become-the-undoubted-ruler-of-the-mediterranean/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:48:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medieval Sassanians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prophet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever thought how the Arabs, a nomadic people, managed to rule the Mediterranean and beyond? How did they expand beyond their small (by comparison) region in the Middle East and occupied areas such as North Africa, Spain and the Eastern Mediterranean? Most scholars agree that one of the main factors that allowed the Arabic conquests was the tendencies towards their political unification and centralization of power. Allah, the one and only God to whom they believed, in a way made this unification possible. It also gave them the impetus to spread the divine word to other areas and thus make their religion universal. Islam itself preached a message of social and political unification and, thus, united the Arabs. Through prayer and religious fervour the new Arabic nation knew no boundaries, by divine intervention. Islam doctrine affected deeply the political decisions of the rulers, provided guidance and gave them greater political and social authority. Religious beliefs obviously played an important role in securing the loyalty of the individuals to the new unifying state. There have been, though, also other means to give incentive to the Arabs to remain firmly loyal. One of the most powerful ones was booty that followed looting during wars. Military expeditions in the past were an excellent way to pay for the expenses of the armies. In many cases, military leaders would pay for the wages of the soldiers until after the battle, thus ensuring their participation. Booty was an added bonus that ensured the loyalty of the troops. In addition, the organization of a centrally controlled army united the Arabs and weakened their tribal links. Tribesmen started feeling that they belonged to the central state. Lines of command cut across different tribes and overcame the older tribal identities. The prophet, Muhammad, placed great emphasis on the importance of settlement (hijra) and the abandonment of the nomadic life. Although the identities of being and nomad and being a Muslim were not in conflict, one seemed to be more powerful than the other. In order to reduce the power of the tribes the reigning elite recruited nomads into the centralised army. In order to ensure the loyalty of these tribesmen to a central Muslim cause, they transported them away from their desert homes into garrison towns. Consequently, on one hand the political and military power of the tribes was reduced, while the Islamic state became even more powerful. At the same time, the Arabic rulers made certain that very few men of fighting age were left back in their homes; this way they ensured that there would be no pockets of resistance to their decisions. Apart from the internal factors that led to the rise of Islam, there have been also external factors. By the time of the Prophet, the Byzantine empire and its counterpart, the Sassanian empire, have already lost their political strength and military prowess. Both empires were facing internal political strife and insecurities when it came to the inheritance of the throne. At the same time, opposing religious factions eroded religious unification and caused widespread riots (or even wars) over several centuries. These problems were a distinct advantage for the united and powerful Islam. As if these problems were not enough, the weather has also conspired against the Sassanians. Immense floods in southern Iraq became responsible for material destructions on a very large economic scale. On the whole, the rise of Islam was the result of a combination of internal and external factors. The attempts to centralise the Arabic State, the creation of a new Arabic identity based on religious doctrine, and the timely deterioration of the political power of the Sassanians and the Byzantines were fundamental causes.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/why-did-islam-become-the-undoubted-ruler-of-the-mediterranean/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Arabic Invasion of Europe</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-arabic-invasion-of-europe/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-arabic-invasion-of-europe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 08:53:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constantinople]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medieval]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arab influence on European culture was undoubtedly important and long lasting. The Byzantines were the first people that came in direct contact with the Arabic civilisation. On 14 September 628 the byzantine emperor Heraclius returned to Constantinople victorious after his military clashes with the Persian neighbours. He brought with him the True Cross of Christ that, until then, remained in Jerusalem. The Cross had a powerful meaning for the people of Constantinople. It signified the fact that Persia would never threaten the byzantine empire again! The Persians may have stayed in the shadows for the subsequent centuries but another force made its presence known in the area. The Arabs, an islamic civilisation, moved out of Arabia in 633 AD and headed north, towards the southern provinces of the byzantine empire. The move lasted several decades during which time, they conquered Damascus, Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, the Persian empire, Afghanistan and Punjab. When they reached the limits they could afford in the east, they turned west. By 711 AD they conquered north Africa and they invaded Spain. By 732 AD they have crossed the Pyrenees and reached France. The Byzantines were certainly aware of the Arabic threat and the imminent annihilation of their world. The Arabic army camped outside their capital, Constantinople, for almost four years (674-677 AD)! The city was saved through the stubborn resistance of its inhabitants and the employment of a new ‘chemical’ weapon, the Greek Fire. The Arabs may not have conquered the byzantine empire but it certainly influenced it in other ways. The building of mosques across the byzantine empire became a common feature after some time. After all, the byzantines were not oblivious to the (mostly commercial) advantages that the Arabs could offer them. The Orthodox patriarch Nikolaos I Mysticos who lived during the 10th century said to the muslim Emir of the island of Crete: “The two Great Powers of the Universe, Byzantium and Islam, shine like the all shiny stars in the sky. So, despite our differences in religion and customs, we should always be in friendly terms, like brothers, and cooperate harmoniously’.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-arabic-invasion-of-europe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Syrian Unesco Heritage Site Falls in Battle</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/syrian-unesco-heritage-site-falls-in-battle/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/syrian-unesco-heritage-site-falls-in-battle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[archaeology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Umayyad mosque]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was devastated when I read in the Guardian about the fatal damage at Umayyad&#8217;s mosque in Aleppo, Syria. It looks like the minaret collapsed after intense fighting between the two parties. The minaret was part of the 12th century Sunni mosque in the middle of the old walled city. The video below is indicative of the damage inflicted upon the famous site. By the way, I tried to embed the video in this post but it was not working. So, I suggest that you follow the link below. Source: The Guardian]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/syrian-unesco-heritage-site-falls-in-battle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Histories in East Midlands</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/criminal-histories-in-east-midlands/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/criminal-histories-in-east-midlands/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[east midlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[folville gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nottingham riots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paul bradshaw]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week I thought I should explore further the local history of my adopted region, East Midlands. Luckily, I came across a series of youtube videos made by Paul Bradshaw, a video journalist who covers news stories for BBC East Midlands Today. His work is imaginatively produced and indicates an intense interest in history. The added bonus of violent scenes and clashes between knights or peasants will satisfy the most fierce critics! The first video is the story of the Folville Gang, a group of seven aristocratic brothers who were the terror of the region for over 20 years in the fourteenth century. Only one of them lost his head in the process, while another one got knighted. The second video includes a comparison between modern and medieval Riots in Nottingham. The modern riots are well known since BBC covered them extensively; less known are the eighteenth and nineteenth century riots, which gave Nottingham the reputation of been a violent and radical town. One of the participants who was condemned to death but survived seems to have prospered later in Australia! The third video is entitled &#8216;The Highway Woman&#8217; and focuses on the story of a prosperous young woman who marries a conman and a thief in the seventeenth century. Husband and wife partnered up to rob the travellers of the highways. After the wife is caught and her female identity is revealed to the public, she confesses to all crimes and is sentenced to death. The fourth video is on the Derby silk mill. The owner of the mill decides to steal the precious technology that made Italian (not English) silk of such exquisite quality. His adventures in Italy were successful and he returns back to England with the secrets at hand. The Italians with the help of a female agent poisoned the cheeky owner and industrial order has been restored. Or so they thought&#8230; All of them are worth watching!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/criminal-histories-in-east-midlands/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
