The Emperor and the Ecumenical Synods of Competitors

1. Introduction Armenia has long been of importance for the Iranian plateau because of its geographical location. The formation of the Parthian Empire on the Iranian plateau and the advance of the Roman Empire to the eastern territories has doubled the significance of this land. That's why the rivalry between Iran and Rome intensified for influence on this land. However, the rivalry between Iran and Rome for the capture of Armenia after military conflicts led to the formation of a branch of the Parthian in Armenia, but the rivalry between Iran and Rome, as a result of the Romanian dissatisfaction, did not stop, and for the past century The sequel to the main conflict between Iran and Rome. 2. Methodology This essay, based on descriptive analytical method, analyzes the formation of the Armenian Parthian dynasty by analyzing the political relations between Iran and Rome and identifying its factors and fields with the help of new sources and research. The main issue of the present article is that the influence of the Parthians on Armenia was influenced by the factors and how the Parthians, despite the intense rivalry of the Romans to dominate the region, succeeded in consolidating their dominance over Armenia in 63 AD. 3. Discussion The succession crises of Phraates IV in Iran make the Romans easily interfere in Armenia's political affairs and protect Armenia. Instead, the Romans consider Phraates V as the Parthian and Euphrates empire as the border between the imperial monarchy and Roman Empire recognize) Velleius Paterculus, 1924, II, 101-102). Abandoning Phraates V from Armenia was contrary to the policy pursued by the Parthians from the time of Mithridates II to unite Armenia and influence in this land in front of the Roman, and perhaps Phraates's silence about this was one of the reasons for the dissident dissatisfaction with Phraates V. Because the Parthian liturgy ultimately set up a rebellion against him and, after a brief strike, removed him from the kingdom and killed him(cf. Josephus, 1969, Book XXXIII, 2). It is apparent that the Parthians were well aware of the strategic and influential importance of Armenia, and it was possible that the Roman influence in Armenia and even Iran, and the silence of Phraates V, would have been dangerous. Augustus the Roman emperor, then held Armenia as a puppet kingdom, and appointed Vonon I to its kingdom (cf. Temporini & Haase, 1980, 1160). In this way, under the pressure of the imperial monarchy, the death of the emperor and Artabanus's pressure on his successor to drive Vonon from Armenia eradicated this danger from the Parthians. For the next three years, Wonon was removed from the Armenian throne by Romans(Garsoian, 1997, 64). Perhaps this was done by the Romans, following the pressure and compromise that Artabanus II had with the new Roman Emperor, because the Parthian monarchy felt the presence of one of his rivals on the throne of Armenia as a great danger, and as a result, It can take away this danger. After more than fifteen years of peaceful coexistence between the two powers of Iran and Rome, this peaceful coexistence eventually came to an end in 35 AD, after the death of Artaxes III, the king of Armenia(cf. Schippmann, 1986, 647-50). Artabanus took the opportunity and took his son Arashk on his throne and in his letter to Tiberius he inherited the owner of the Achaemenid and Selukid(cf. Tacitus, 1959, Book VI, 31). Artabanus's goal was to restore the Achaemenid frontiers. Artabanus was able to some extent rebuild his influence over the rebellious nobility in different parts of the country, and also his success in foreign policy, and in particular his continuing involvement in the affairs of Armenia, pushed Rome to deflect the Parthians into internal affairs and conflicts Engage in power. As a result, Artabanus eventually fails to take Armenia's arrogance after several attempts to overthrow Armenia, but it does not appear that Artabanus has completely hoped for Armenia. With the beginning of the second half of the first century, the first Vologases (about 51-79 AD) end tensions and conflicts within the royal dynasty and its main policy is directed towards Armenia. The classic sources confirm that the main axis of the policy was the first issue of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XV, 24). For this reason, he brings an army to Armenia and nominates his brother as the king of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XII, 50). The capture of Armenia took place without resistance and opposition from the indigenous population, indicating that the Armenians preferred the Parthians to the Romans(Garsoian,1997: 64). It seems that the Armenians were tired and sick of Romanism in Armenia, and they did not want to return to their own destiny and their country to the Romans who did not share them. Of course, Roman did not remain silent against this decision by the Armenians and the Parthian King of King, and after several occasions of fighting and defeat of the Parthians, it was finally possible to resolve the Armenian issue with peaceful and peaceful means. Therefore, after negotiations, both sides agreed with Randia's agreement that Prince Arsachd would be the king of Armenia, provided that he received the royal crown only from the emperor. With this agreement, the Parthians became the real masters of Armenia, and at the same time recognized the validity of Rome's claim to create a secular kingdom. 3. Conclusion During the Parthian period, Armenia, for each of the powers of Iran and Rome, was to exert influence over the territories of the other side and preserve the domination of the territories under their possession. The fall of the local Armenian dynasty in Armenia by the Roman Empire caused the Armenian nation's dissatisfaction with the Roman Empire and their tendency towards the Parthians. As a result, the Armenian armed forces undertook measures to overthrow the Roman influence in the area. In particular, during the Artabanus II period, which was of great importance to Armenia, and in the aftermath of the revival of the former monarchy, the Parthians, in competition with the Roman Empire, were able to slaughter Romanian kings many times from Armenia and instead put their children on the Armenian throne. But the Roman Empire, by incitement to the invading nations of Iran and the support of the Parthian princes in Rome, caused Artabanus's plight that he was unable to address in Armenia. Of course, the competition between the Romanized Greeks in Armenia and their quarrels over power sparked the Armenian hatred of the Romans and reasserted their long-standing ties to the Parthians again. As a result, the Arsacds King of King, with the support of the Armenian clans and after several fights with the Roman Empire, sacked his brother Tiridates, with the apparent confirmation of Rome, on the throne of Armenia. Although this was done by agreement between Iran and Rome, however, since the Roman Empire was forced to do so by diplomacy and by force of the Parthian Arms, it would use every chance to prevent the formation of the Arsacids of Armenia. But the support of the paratroopers from this dynasty in Armenia, because of the strategic position of this land, prevented the realization of this goal of Rome.

The Roman emperors on the rock reliefs of Shapur I at Darabgird and Bishapur are traditionally identified as Gordianus 111, Philippus Arabs and Valerianus. The foreign delegations / prisoners on the Bishapur III relief have been interpreted as a reference to both the Roman Empire and the Eastern frontiers of the Sasanian Empire (Kushan). These references are evaluated and an alternative interpretation is considered. The Bishapur III Sculpture is seen as referring to Shapur's Syrian campaign in 253 AD. A heavy object among the booty is identified as the black stone of Emesa (ancient Homs in Syria), a famous baethvl. The spoils of war", such as the large boulder (stone of Emesa, depicted twice) a cart, textiles and vessels. all relate to Its cult. The Roman emperor is identified as the Roman usurper-emperor Uranius Antoninus, the last in line of the priest-kings of Emesa. Historic Sources relate this meeting between Shapur and Uranius Antoninus (called Sampsigeramos). The Roman emperor is depicted kneeling in supplication and standing as an ally next to Shapur's horse. Bishapur 11 and Darabgird represent the same event. This dates these reliefs to 254 AD.

The Governance of the Queen Amalasuintha in Italy (526-535 AD): Description from the View of the Legal History The revival characterizes the legal history of the first half of the 6th century AD of the legal power of the Roman Empire, represented by officials of the New Rome (Constantinople). De jure, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) remained the rightful heir to the political, administrative-territorial, public property law of Imperial Rome. Besides, most Western part of the Roman Empire, created according to Emperor Theodosius's Edict (395 AD), continued to believe in the power. Despite the actual occupation by the barbarian tribes' power of the only Roman emperor - the emperor of Byzantium. Barbarian leaders understood the need for support from the people. Therefore, the kings of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Suevi etc. took their titles and signs of royal power as a formal gift from the Eastern Roman Empire's emperor. Among the barbarian kings of the early Middle Ages, the Ostrogoth Amal dynasty stands out. In this article, the study's subject was the royal power of the first legally fullfledged female ruler of Italy, Amalasuintha.

The emperor Julian and the historian Aurelius Victor were both statesmen and men of letters. Their meeting in Sirmium in the summer of 361 ce is a point of departure for considering Julian’s approach to the literary and iconographic discourse of imperial founding, in which Roman emperors are styled as new founders of the city and empire of Rome through virtues and actions resembling the models of previous founder figures such as Romulus, Numa, Augustus, and Constantine. Julian’s education in classical Greek literature and rhetoric, followed by his conversion to the Neoplatonism and radical paganism of Iamblichus, set him on a unique approach to this discourse when he became a Roman emperor and pursued a program of imperial renewal and the restoration of paganism. Understanding this approach first requires a biographical sketch of the emperor, including an overview of Iamblichean Neoplatonism, followed by an overview of this book’s argument and chapters.

Cultural Encounter, Race, and a Humanist Ideology of Empire in the Art of Trecento Venice

How was the Roman emperor viewed by his subjects? How strongly did their perception of his role shape his behaviour? Adopting a fresh approach, Panayiotis Christoforou focuses on the emperor from the perspective of his subjects across the Roman Empire. Stress lies on the imagination: the emperor was who he seemed, or was imagined, to be. Through various vignettes employing a wide range of sources, he analyses the emperor through the concerns and expectations of his subjects, which range from intercessory justice to fears of the monstrosities associated with absolute power. The book posits that mythical and fictional stories about the Roman emperor form the substance of what people thought about him, which underlines their importance for the historical and political discourse that formed around him as a figure. The emperor emerges as an ambiguous figure. Loved and hated, feared and revered, he was an object of contradiction and curiosity.

This chapter explores the legacy of emperors and the end of Roman imperial rule in the works of the sixth-century author Jordanes. It argues that Jordanes’ two contributions to historical writing, the Getica and the Romana, operate in tandem with each other to produce a narrative of Roman and Gothic history that is reflective of a contemporary discourse for both the end of the western Roman empire and the potential for crisis in the eastern empire. According to Jordanes’ narrative, Roman emperors are primarily culpable for crisis in the imperial state as agents of tyranny and civil war. In the Romana, Jordanes attributes Roman imperial success to specific political virtues and institutions, especially the republican institution of the consulship, which become eclipsed by the rise of government by emperors. The Getica provides a narrative for translatio imperii by which the Goths acquire the same political virtues lost by Roman emperors, thereby positioning the Gothic Amal family of Italy as potential sponsors for the rejuvenation of the western Roman empire. This configuration of the Roman and Gothic past is sensitive to both the outcome of the Gothic War in Italy and discourses of political decline current in Justinian’s Constantinople.

This article discusses the previously unexplored intersection of the reception of classical antiquity in extreme metal with Satanic and anti-Christian themes. It is demonstrable that the phenomenon has roots in the genesis of extreme metal itself, especially in its inheritance from biblical and literary history of the associations between Satan and Roman emperors. As extreme metal evolved over the past three decades, that theme combined with the perception that imperial Rome had undertaken widespread and sustained persecutions of Christians, including spectacular executions for the sake of popular entertainment, throughout the three-century history of the early Church. This is despite the consensus of many modern historians that the Romans were largely tolerant of Christians and persecutions were brief, isolated, more humane, and cost much fewer lives than early Christian sources suggest. It is evident that metal artists inherit, and thereby perpetuate, a tradition manufactured by Christian sources that have largely been debunked; yet these artists depart from those Christian sources by denying the appeal of martyrdom and shifting sympathies to imperial Rome and its ‘Satanic’ emperors. Like Satan himself, these emperors function as symbols of masculine aggression and liberation of the passions from contemporary political and moral systems. Such anti-establishment sentiments, especially among Italian artists, can manifest in fantasies of a Roman Empire reborn. By their artistic license, extreme metal artists continue to reshape a literary and artistic legacy of the imperial Rome and constructions of persecution narratives developed over the course of the late antique, medieval and modern periods.

This article refers to St. Justin, who was one of the Church Fathers, one of the first Christian philosophers and Greek apologists and also a martyr for the Christian faith when this was spreading throughout the Roman Empire. In the preface, it is shown that a hostile attitude existed at the time of both the Roman Empire and the Jews towards Christianity at its very beginning. Christians were being stultified and sentenced to death. Each part of the article shows Justin in a different cultural role. First, we can see the beginnings of his life. Justin lived in the second century after Christ. He was born in Samaria, which was firmly hellenised and that is why he was well prepared to live in a multinational empire in those times. As a Christian philosopher Justin was entering into relations with the Jews and pagans, always seeking the truth. The next part is about Justin – as a philosopher. He was also the most popular and the most outstanding Christian philosopher of the second century after Christ. He kept a positive attitude towards philosophy. He valued Stoics, Platonics, Socrates and Plato in some areas, so that he could notice elements of truth in the teachings of Greek philosophers. But Justin was against religious syncretism. We owe to Justin the demonstration of Christian true faith through pagan philo­sophical concepts. He was looking for dialogue between Christianity and pagan philosophy and used its terms to show others the only true wisdom which he had got to know by himself. Since the mid-second century the pastoral purpose of patristic literature was changing to become a means of defence of Christianity against attacks from out­side and inside – meaning heretics. He also started the new type of discussion with heretics. Then Justin as a theologian – he refers many times to the Old Testament and Prophets announcing the coming of Jesus – Logos, whose grain of truth Justin noticed in every ancient teaching. Justin also refers to the parallel between Socrates and Christ, something we can find everywhere in the Apology of Justin. He also left us the oldest descriptions of the sacrament of Baptism and the Eucharist. He is the person who created the dialogue between faith and intellect. Another part speaks about apologies which first of all were to demand equa­lity with other religions and philosophies. Then as an apologist – he defended Christianity from unfounded accusations by Roman emperors and cultural elites. He defended the Christian faith through the use of rational arguments. He wanted to show universal truth via rational discourse. Finally Justin as the righteous man , which we can say he was called because of his name (Lat. iustinus – righteous) and which was the way he acted in his life. He was searching for the truth in his life, the true knowledge. He founded a philosophical school in Rome in which he taught one true wisdom and as a true philosopher he did this free of charge. He was accused of being a Christian and brought before the judge, because he did not accept the pagan gods, and did not obey the Emperor. The best apology for Christians was their readiness for martyrdom. As a Christian philosopher he ended his life and sealed it by shedding his blood shed for Christ. He is regarded as one of the early Church Fathers. This early witness of Tradition became one of the first who tried to bring Christian thinking closer to Greek philosophy; Justin became a something of a keystone which linked antiquity with the novelty of Christianity. In conclusion, Justin brought Christianity closer to philosophy by explaining it using philoso­phical language.

After the decline and final downfall of the Roman Empire, western and southern Europe was a shambles.1 Teutonic tribes such as the Goths, Lombards, and Franks invaded and ransacked the erstwhile Roman provinces, founding various kingdoms in Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, most of which were, however, rather shortlived. It was only with the ascent of the Carolingian dynasty and, in particular, the reign of Charlemagne, which culminated in his coronation as Roman Emperor in Rome in 800 AD., that order, unity, and safety were restored in these ravaged countries. When Charlemagne's empire was divided under his successors and new realms began to emerge in the east as well as the west-which were to become Germany and France, respectively--his imperial heritage and, by implication, that of the Romans was assumed by the German rulers. Ever since Otto I (the Great) in mid-tenth century, Germany conceived of herself as heir to the Roman Empire, as witness the elaborate appellation Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which came into usage during the late Middle Ages and remained the official name until 1806. Images of black saints first appear in medieval German art. I will concentrate here on two iconographic examples, one a familiar part of the Christian tradition and the other virtually unknown. First let us look at the iconography of the unknown black saint.

Reviewed by: Rome's Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric. Key Conflicts in Classical Antiquity Marc Pierce Michael Kulikowski . Rome's Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric. Key Conflicts in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xii, 225. $25.00. ISBN 978-521-84633-2. This book provides an introduction to the Goths, their history, and their interaction with the Romans, focusing on two main questions: (1) "How did Gothic history develop in such a way that the unprecedented career of Alaric [the Gothic leader who sacked Rome in 410] became possible" and (2) "how do we know what we think we know about the Goths" (11). In eight thematic chapters, bookended by a prologue and an epilogue, both about Alaric, it strives to answer these questions by discussing the history of the Goths and evaluating the relevant sources of evidence. The first of the questions posed above is perhaps the easier to answer. To do so, Kulikowski traces the history of the Goths, discussing issues like early Gothic raids on Roman territory, the development of Gothic power, and the connections between various Roman emperors and the Goths in the process. Kulikowski argues that the Romans in some sense created the Goths, thanks to "the pressures of life on the Roman frontier" (185), suggesting that "the diverse small groups whom the Romans called . . . Goths because they lived in a particular place and were recruited into particular units of the Roman army eventually became . . . Goths because that was how they were described when they had political dealings with the Roman empire" (69). Thus, the Romans created the Goths and then the ways in which they interacted with them eventually put the Goths into a position to sack Rome. The second question is somewhat trickier. Traditional accounts of the Goths have relied on sources like the Getica of Jordanes, a sixth-century history that draws on a now-lost history of the Goths written by Cassiodorus. Kulikowski evaluates the motivation behind this traditional reliance and argues that that Jordanes' work is not completely reliable, for several reasons (for instance, oral transmission of the stories about Gothic origins that Jordanes presents could mean that the stories have become distorted and inaccurate). Kulikowski does conclude Jordanes's work can lend valuable insights when it is corroborated with data from other sources, but he is generally reluctant to use it. Instead, Kulikowski draws heavily on other sources of information about the Goths and their history, including archaeological evidence. Some [End Page 119] of this archaeological evidence, taken from the Sântana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture (located in what is now Romania and Ukraine), clearly shows contact between this culture and the Romans (e.g., the use of Roman construction practices in some buildings and the presence of Roman cultural artifacts). In Kulikowski's view, this culture was Gothic and supports his thesis of the Roman creation of the Goths. According to the description given in the front matter of this book, the volumes in this series are intended to summarize "the main events and key characters, the consequences of the conflict, and its reception over time," and to evaluate "the textual and archaeological sources for the conflict" critically. This book fulfills these objectives admirably. Its summary of the conflicts between the Romans and the Goths is lucid and readable and its critical evaluation of the various sources of evidence is valuable. It is engagingly written and does a nice job of synthesizing received wisdom with more debatable views. The book also contains detailed glossaries of biographies and of ancient sources, several maps, and an extensive section on suggested further readings, all of which enhance its usefulness. It should also be noted that production values are high; the maps are well produced (even though three of them are necessarily spread over two pages), the volume is sturdily bound, and typos have been kept to a minimum. The book provides a handy, accessible overview of the subject matter and can therefore be recommended to students and more experienced scholars alike. [End Page 120] Marc Pierce University of Texas at Austin Copyright © 2009 The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, Inc.

Roman technological progress in comparative context: The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe and Imperial China

I analyze the ways that animal sacrifice functioned to construct the figure of the emperor as a point of religious convergence in the Roman Empire. Two types of practice are important. First, the emperor was widely represented in visual media as the officiant at an animal sacrifice. The ideological significance of this imagery was grounded in economic aspects of animal sacrifice, which made it an effective tool for structuring socioeconomic hierarchies. Presented visually as the ideal sacrificant, the emperor became understandable to anyone in the urban culture of the empire as the apex of the sociopolitical hierarchy. Second, the emperor was himself the recipient of actual animal sacrifices. These sacrifices involved deliberate ambiguity: those in the Greek East were more often offered “on behalf of” the emperor than “to” him, while those in the Latin West were more often directed to deceased emperors or to the emperor’s genius or numen than to the living emperor. In all cases, however, the emperor was the beneficiary of offerings that created a relationship of asymmetrical reciprocity: those who offered the sacrifices provided gifts meant to benefit the emperor, while the emperor in turn provided the benefits of peace, stability, and prosper- ity. I conclude by identifying two reasons why animal sacrifice played so significant a part in constructing the figure of the emperor as a point of convergence. First, it was a universal- izing practice shared by both Greek and Roman tradition and indeed by many other tradi- tions within the Roman world. The second reason is its flexibility: the wide range of ways in which animal sacrifice was able to structure the relationship of the emperor to his subjects meant that it provided a language that virtually all the people of the empire, regardless of their particular cultural allegiances, could employ.

Alexander the Great in the Roman Empire, 150 BC to AD 600

Reviewed by: Imperial Romance: Fictions of Colonial Intimacy in Korea, 1905–1945 by Su Yun Kim David Krolikoski Su Yun Kim. Imperial Romance: Fictions of Colonial Intimacy in Korea, 1905–1945. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2020. Pp. 204. US$49.95 hardcover, US$32.99 ebook. Imperial Romance: Fictions of Colonial Intimacy in Korea, 1905–1945 by Su Yun Kim explores the contentious relationship between Korea and Japan during the colonial period through the lens of intercultural romance. The monograph is primarily a work of literary scholarship that surveys representations of heterosexual relationships between Japanese and Koreans. Readers of colonial fiction will be familiar with this trope, but no English-language studies have tackled the subject in comparable depth. The choice to frame the book around intercultural romance enables Kim to reconsider canonical texts by the likes of Yi In-jik, Yi Kwang-su, Yom Sang-sŏb, and Yi Hyo-sŏk from a fresh perspective, illuminating strands of desire and apprehension related to assimilation through marriage. [End Page 565] As one might imagine, the topic of romance between a Japanese and Korean couple in the early twentieth century is a minefield. The legacy of colonial Korean literature itself has been stained by the history of collaboration. In South Korea, literature that was written in service of the Japanese empire has been labelled ch’inil, a term that innocuously means “intimacy with Japan” but bears the stigma of national betrayal. Decolonization efforts after liberation in 1945 were cut short in the chaos that resulted in the establishment of two separate states on the peninsula. Collaborators were not punished by the new South Korean government, a state that initially relied on largely the same police apparatus that was previously employed by Japan to maintain order. Due to this fraught history, collaboration remains a sensitive subject more than 75 years later. Kim explains that depictions of relationships between Japanese and Koreans in colonial literature have been read schematically through a nationalist framework: “Narratives that end with a successful marriage are considered to be ‘pro-Japanese,’ while those that depict an unsuccessful marriage are deemed ‘resistant-nationalist’” (12). Imperial Romance will be of interest to readers who want to learn more about collaboration and assimilation in the context of colonial Korea and the Japanese empire. In this respect, the monograph serves a useful companion piece to earlier English-language studies such as Intimate Empire by Nayoung Aimee Kwon, Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea by Mark Caprio, Primitive Selves by E. Taylor Atkins, and Romance, Family, and Nation in Japanese Colonial Literature by Kimberly K. Kono, among others. Caprio and Atkins both explore the Japanese perspective, analyzing top-down policy in addition to cultural products. Kono’s study, like Kim’s book, analyzes fictional depictions of intercultural relationships, but her focus is on Japanese literature. Meanwhile, Kwon investigates collaboration in the context of Korean literature, arguing for a more nuanced approach to this sensitive issue that rejects the binary of collaboration versus resistance adopted by numerous earlier studies. She too mostly uses Japanese-language sources. In Imperial Romance, Kim combines readings of Korean fiction (and a handful of films) with historical research based on the analysis of periodicals and government-general documents. In comparison to previous studies, her monograph is tighter in focus, allowing for a more thorough investigation of a single issue throughout the colonial period. Romance (yŏnae) is certainly a subject ripe for further discussion. In Korea, the term gained currency in the early 1920s as an import from abroad. As Kwon Boduerae has argued, the emergence of romance coincided with the transformation of gender relations in Korean society. The notion that an individual could choose their own partner signalled the dawn of a new era for women in particular. No longer restricted to the household, some women took on new roles in society: working in bars, studying at foreign universities, etc. The so-called “new women” (sin yŏsŏng) became a symbol of change for progressives, but were also stigmatized by others for their embrace of Western fashion and cultural norms. These women could also fall in love on their own accord, prioritizing their...