Academic literature on the topic 'Byzantine Empire in fiction'

This paper reviews three novels by different modern authors, all published in 2020 and applying to the realities of Ancient Rome. Marik Lerner’s science fiction novel “Practical Ufology” fits within the subliterary genre of “accidental travel”, and any background information from the Roman-Byzantine life is not very appropriate in the adventure text. The new novel “The Triumphant” by Olga Eliseeva, a professional historian, can be labeled as a form of the “science novel” genre, because it has numerous references and “anchors” that only an educated person is able to understand. The main canvas of O. Eliseeva’s novel is a synthesis of the personalities and actions of Julius Caesar and Constantine the Great, so the writer used the motif of the fantasy world, in which the Roman Republic and Rome are replaced by Latium and Eternal City with the Nazarenes (i.e., Christians) playing an important role in its future. The trilogy “Divine World” by Boris Tolchinsky, a professional politologist, is the most radical inversion of the reality with its own alternative history. The world of the Amorian Empire is a synthesis of the ancient Mediterranean and the ancient Egyptian civilizations. These texts can be considered as “imperial literature” tied to the post-Soviet realities and projects aimed to find a better future.

A Byzantinist specializing in the history of the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1461), the author presents four books of different genres written in English and devoted to the medieval state on the south coast of the Black Sea. The most spectacular of them is a novel by Rose Macaulay, Towers of Trebizond. Dąbrowska wonders whether it is adequate to the Trebizondian past or whether it is a projection of the writer. She compares Macaulay’s novel with William Butler Yeats’s poems on Byzantium which excited the imagination of readers but were not meant to draw their attention to the Byzantine past. This is, obviously, the privilege of literature. As a historian, Dąbrowska juxtaposes Macaulay’s narration with the historical novel by Nicolas J. Holmes, the travelogue written by Michael Pereira and the reports of the last British Consul in Trabzon, Vorley Harris. The author of the article draws the reader’s attention to the history of a rather unknown and exotic region. The Empire of Trebizond ceased to exist in 1461, conquered by Mehmed II. At the same time the Sultan’s army attacked Wallachia and got a bitter lesson from its ruler Vlad Dracula. But this Romanian hero is remembered not because of his prowess on the battlefield but due to his cruelty which dominated literary fiction and separated historical facts from narrative reality. The contemporary reader is impressed by the image of a dreadful vampire, Dracula. The same goes for Byzantium perceived through the magic stanzas by Yeats, who never visited Istanbul. Rose Macaulay went to Trabzon but her vision of Trebizond is very close to Yeats’s images of Byzantium. In her story imagination is stronger than historical reality and it is imagination that seduces the reader.

Few, if any, rulers in twelfth-century Christendom received as much attention by contemporary chroniclers as the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–85). Even though Andronikos ruled for less than three years, his rise to power, reign of terror, downfall and gruesome death at the hands of the lynch mob of Constantinople struck contemporaries. In contrast to medieval chroniclers, modern historians have shown little interest in this emperor. While some scholarly attention has been paid to the Greek sources in order to reconstruct the historical facts of Andronikos’s reign, there has been little focus on the Greek historians’ perceptions and representations of their ruler. As to the relatively large number of Latin accounts of Andronikos’s reign, these have been either completely disregarded by historians or dismissed as ‘full of imagined conversations and romantic fictions’ and therefore as being of limited value for the reconstruction of historical events. All these accounts, however, are important, among others, in giving great insight into how a harsh and oppressive rule was viewed in both Byzantium and the Latin world in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. This article examines accusations of tyranny against Andronikos expressed uniformly across Byzantine, French, German–Austrian and English accounts, and explores their meaning and function. To gain a greater appreciation of their significance, these accusations against the Byzantine emperor are subsequently cast against the backdrop of charges of tyranny levelled against other Christian rulers in twelfth-century Christendom. Therefore, the significance of this article extends beyond Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire to the evolution of many other strands of political philosophy of rulership in medieval European history.1

Theoretically, the Byzantine Emperor was, just like in the times of the Roman Empire, chosen on the basis of his personal qualities and merits ? by the grace of God, of course. Practically, the factors which determined the ascension of a person to the throne were much more complex, the methods of gaining power being multifarious. In consequence, the political philosophy was confronted with the question of whether it is virtue (aret?) or origin (g?noz) that defines an Emperor. Independently of this rather theoretical question, however, and despite the claims that the personal qualities are decisive in the choice of the Emperor, the origin of the ruler played an important role in the consciousness of the Byzantines of all epochs. This is why great attention was paid to the creation of family trees, especially in the cases when the Emperor was of low origin (homo novus) or when it was for some reason necessary to strengthen his legitimacy. The choice of the genealogy was not random: since it carried a clear political message, it was of utmost importance with whom the Emperor in power would be associated and whose historical deeds or legendary personality would serve as a moral model. Also important is the fact that the search of a "good family" was as a rule triggered by the need to confirm one's own virtue. Thus, genealogies often reflect a certain system of values, usually emphasizing morality, courage in war, care for the welfare of the country, piety, etc. The choice of the archetype depended, of course, on the needs of the ruler for whom the genealogy was created. All this allows us to consider legendary genealogies as an expression of the imperial ideology. Notwithstanding their chronological diversity, the Byzantine imperial genealogies display very similar characteristics, i.e. they contain stereotypical elements, many of which had been established already in the first centuries of the Eastern Empire. In the early Byzantine period, when Christianity was still young, Emperors were frequently associated with pagan gods and semi gods, like Jupiter, Mars or Hercules. The Roman tradition of the eastern part of the Empire is also reflected in the fictive genealogies, so that the Emperors often chose Western Emperors or illustrious personalities and families of the Republican Era as their ancestors. The convention of establishing genealogical relations with the past rulers or their families (e.g. Claudius Gothicus, Trajan, the Flavii) served on one hand to create the impression of continuity and legitimacy, and on the other, to affirm the proclaimed system of values, since individual Roman Emperors had by that time become the prototypes of certain values (so Nerva stood for tranquility, Titus for philanthropy, Antoninus for high morality, Hadrian for justice and legality, Trajan for a successful military leader). In the same fashion, the creation of the family ties with persons from the Roman republican past, like the members of the family of the Scipios or Gnaeus Pompeius, was instrumental in the emphasizing of not only noble origin but also virtue. Interestingly enough, whereas the bonds with the Roman state are permanently evoked, the exempla from the Greek history play only a minor role in legendary genealogies (mostly Corinthians and Spartans, sometimes even mythical nations, like Homer's Pheacians). The central position of the Roman ideology is also reflected in the tendency to establish direct geographical connections between the origin of the ruler and either Rome itself or one of the Western provinces, so that the motif of migration is often found in the genealogies. On the other hand, Byzantine writers sometimes tended to boast with their knowledge of the history of the Ancient Orient, connecting famous personalities (like Artaxerxes) or dynasties (Achaemenids, Arsacids) with the Emperor whose genealogy they were composing. A special place in legendary genealogies is occupied by Constantine the Great. Almost as a rule, the genealogies postulate a kinship with him, often confirming it with the alleged physical resemblance. Depending on the purpose of the genealogy, certain purported features of Constantine's character were emphasized, so that he is alternately mentioned as a protector of the Christian faith, a triumphant military leader, or as a wise administrator of the Empire. Apart from that, the motifs of founding the new Capital and the migration of the Roman patrician families to Constantinople represent important topoi in this literary genre. The two most fascinating specimens of legendary genealogies in the Byzantine literature ? those of Basil I the Macedonian and Nikephoros III Botaneiates ? show that the choice of the elements of which the genealogy is composed (personality, family, dynasty) is at the same time a strong indication of the reason why it was composed in the first place. The genealogy of Basil the Macedonian was doubtlessly conceived by more than one person. It is quite certain that the idea to compose it originally came from Photios and was taken over by Basil's descendents ? his son Leo VI and his grandson Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. The core of Basil's legendary genealogy is the story of his origin from the Parthian-Armenian dynasty of Arsacids (an indication of the Armenian origin of the founder of the Macedonian dynasty?). Constantine Porphyrogennetos elaborated this story further, describing in some detail the fate of Arsac's descendents, to whom Basil was allegedly related on his father's side, in the Byzantine Empire. This, of course, does not mean that he forgot to create connections between his grandfather and the standard legendary ancestors, like Constantine the Great (on Basil's mother's side) and Alexander the Great (the common ancestors of both Basil's parents). This apocryphal family tree certainly has its roots in the fact that the founder of the Macedonian dynasty was a parvenu of low origin, whose ascent to the throne was maculated by the murder of his predecessor and benefactor Michael III: apart from providing Basil with the noble origin, the genealogy was supposed to strengthen his right to the crown. One should keep in mind, though, that Basil's genealogy was written in the time of "Macedonian renaissance", so that its content is doubtlessly partly a product of the erudition of the compilers. In the course of time, legendary genealogies were enriched with new elements, stemming from the Byzantine history in the narrower sense of the word. The genealogy of Nikephoros III Botaneiates, compiled by Michael Attaleiates in the second half of the 11th century, is a good illustration to this. In contrast to Basil the Macedonian's genealogy, it is interwoven with real historical data, so that it cannot be called 'legendary' in its entirety. It would probably be more appropriate to call it a genealogy of both the Phokades and the Botaneiatai, since its core is made up of an invented story of the origin of the famous Byzantine family of Phokades, from which the family of Botaneiatai purportedly stems. The genealogy is clearly divided into three parts. In the first part, Attaleiates develops a theory according to which the Phokades are descendents of the Roman patrician families of Fabii and Scipios. The second part is devoted to the elaboration of the genealogical connection between the Phokades and the Botaneiatai, a tour deforce achieved by the claim that the latter are direct descendents of Nikephoros II Phokas, who is not only the central figure of this part in his capacity as an ancestor of Nikephoros III, but also as a model of a virtuous Emperor. Comparable to the habit of other writers to single out one or another characteristic trait of Constantine the Great according to their needs, Attaleiates concentrates on Nikephoros Phokas' military qualities, which are similar to those possessed by his "descendent" Botaneiates, and emphasizes the physical resemblance between the two rulers. In all likelihood, the part on the genealogy of the Phokades, as well as the story of Nikephoros Phokas, were taken over from an earlier tradition dealing with this renowned family, which Attaleiates implicitly mentions when he says that he had used 'an old book' and some other writings. As indicated above, the last, third, part of the genealogy, devoted to the deeds of Nikephoros Botaneiates' father and grandfather, does not fit the narrow definition of a legendary genealogy, despite the exaggerations Attaleiates uses in order to satisfy the demands of the genre. The description of Nikephoros Botaneiates' family tree represents merely an excursus within Attaleiates' History, but its composition has nevertheless an internal coherence and logic. Namely, all parts of the genealogy (the histories of the Fabii/Scipios, Phokades, and Botaneiatai) have one characteristic in common: the stories of the military deeds of the members of these families are used as an illustration of the military virtues of Nikephoros III. Since the hidden intention of the panegyric for Nikephoros III Botaneiates is to justify his usurpation of the throne, it is clear that a genealogy in this form ? especially the section pertaining to Nikephoros Phokas and his kinship with the usurper's father and grandfather ? represents a good basis for a legalistic interpretation of the coup d'?tat of 1078. The permeation of legendary genealogies with the Byzantine history is not confined only to individual Emperors which, like Nikephoros II Phokas, get assigned the role of the ancestor and moral model: some aristocratic families, most often the Phokades and the Doukai, also became moral exempla, serving to prove the reputation and the nobility of the ruler. As in the case of the Phokades, there is also a legendary tradition surrounding the family of Doukai, which made them a kind of model family: Being related to them became a measure of nobility, since it allowed the less prominent families to occupy a more distinguished place on the hierarchy of the Byzantine nobility. The prominence certain family names achieved ? mostly those of the families which created a dynasty ? led from the beginning of the 12th century until the fall of the Empire to free adoption and combination of more different surnames (mostly Doukai, Komnenoi, Angeloi, Palaiologoi, Kantakouzenoi, etc.). This, in turn, led to the creation of fictitious family trees. This kind of apocryphal construction of one's own origin was characteristic not only of the Byzantine culture but rather represented a very common phenomenon in the medieval world. In the medieval Serbia, for instance, its dissemination was fostered by the translation of the writings of the Byzantine chroniclers (Georgios Monachos, John Malalas, Constantine Manasses, and John Zonaras), so that legendary genealogies, written according to the Byzantine pattern, became an expression of the wish to include one's own history into the flow of the world history. Finally, a note on the reception of this genealogical line of thought. Parallel to the fictitious genealogies, there also existed a consciousness about them: Just like the development and the functional load of genealogies reveals a lot about the attitudes of the Byzantines towards power, so do the Byzantine writers who often criticize and ridicule the genealogies of individual Emperors. .

By the middle of the eighth century, a new genre of Christian writing had developed among those Christians living within the Islamic empire, that of apologetics intended to defend Christianity against attacks from Muslims. Although the Islamic empire had come into existence a century earlier, a series of changes took place in the mid eighth century, including the rise of the Abbasid caliphal dynasty and the stabilization of the empires border with Byzantium, which led to more stable internal politics. In this new atmosphere, Christian authors began to consider, for the first time, the theological ramifications of an empire that was ruled by Muslims, but which still had a majority Christian population. The purpose of this essay is to enter into the ongoing scholarly discourse surrounding the genre of Christian apologetics produced under Islam in the eighth and ninth centuries. There are two competing perspectives on studying these works. One argues for them as historical sources authentically representing an ongoing dialogue between Christians and Muslims during a period commonly known as the Golden Age of Islam. The other argues that these texts are literary creations; at its most extreme, this school of thought asserts that these texts are purely fictional, creating a world of Christian rhetorical superiority in the face of mass conversion from Christianity to Islam.

This article examines the motives of the earliest Muslim attacks on the Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries by examining the earliest Christian (Byzantine) and Muslim sources that describe these attacks. The article assesses the strengths of these accounts and culls from them the possible religious motivations behind the first Muslim attacks on the Byzantine Empire. One question particularly addressed is the goal of the Muslim attacks: to bring down the Byzantine Empire entirely, or merely to wrest from it Palestine and the surrounding territories that were of significance to the Muslim invaders. In either case, Whealey argues that the motives were religious in nature.

After 1204, the Byzantine Empire lost control over the Eastern Mediterranean. The restoration of the Empire in 1261, however, did not recover its sea dominance. The Latins, especially the Venetians and the Genoese, who had possessions in the Aegean and the Black Seas and conducted active maritime trade there, established themselves in the region. The importance of sea routes for Byzantium increased dramatically given the territorial dispersion of the Byzantine possessions, the high activity of Europeans in the region, and the growing threat of an Ottoman conquest. This article analyses the specifics of Byzantine sea communications and their role in the fate of the Empire during the period of geopolitical changes between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Based on written sources, the author examines the condition of the Byzantine fleet, the role of foreigners in ensuring movement within and outside the Empire, and the meaning of the sea communication during the Ottoman sieges of Byzantine cities. The author reveals that the Empire could not provide stable and regular sea contacts between separate parts of its territories and external relations with the West on its own. The decline of the fleet and the lack of material resources forced the Byzantines to use foreign ships as means of transportation. The Italians, especially the Venetians, provided transport to the Byzantine emperors and diplomats who made official trips to the West, transported people and goods within the region, and provided food for the inhabitants of besieged cities. It is concluded that the transport dependence of Byzantium on the Italian maritime republics testified to its economic and political weakness. The loss of control over the sea routes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the degradation of its own transport system contributed to the decline and fall of Byzantium in 1453.

L’épigraphie byzantine est en science en construction dans le domaine de l’épigraphie médiévale. Ce travail repose sur la présentation d’un corpus de 229 inscriptions historiques comportant le nom de l’empereur byzantin, annotées et commentées, présenté par une étude globale du dossier. L’étude de la nature ainsi que de la répartition géographique et chronologique des inscriptions permet de souligner une nette domination de la capitale. En effet, la moitié du corpus est constitué des inscriptions de Constantinople, en particulier lors des périodes difficiles (VIIe-IXe siècles). La répartition chronologique est assez régulière mais avec une part assez importante des inscriptions d’époque macédonienne (867-1055). Les titulatures impériales sont à la fois stéréotypées et variées. Autour de la formule incontournable de pistos en Christos basileus autokrator, les épithètes correspondent souvent à l’idéologie impériale du moment ou du contexte, ce qui produit une assez grande variété des titres. Enfin, l’inscription est souvent incompréhensible pour des populations en majorité analphabètes. Du coup, en tant qu’objet elle est aussi un instrument idéologique qui permet de marquer le territoire de l’empreinte impériale, en particulier lors de la mise en défense d’une région, ou de la construction d’églises. En tant qu’objet présenté à la vue de tous, le texte inspire la crainte aux ennemis de l’Empire et le respect des populations locales envers leur empereur
The Byzantine epigraphy is a science under construction in the sphere of medieval epigraphy. This work is based on the presentation of a corpus of 229 historical inscriptions with the name of the Byzantine Emperor, annotated with commentary, presented by a comprehensive study of the file. The study of nature together with the geographical and chronological distribution of inscriptions allows to underline a clear domination of the capital. In fact, half of the corpus consists of Constantinople inscriptions, especially during difficult times (7th-9th centuries). The chronological distribution is fairly regular but with a sizeable part of the Macedonian inscriptions (867-1055). Imperial titulatures are both stereotypical and varied. Around the essential title pistos en Christos basileus autokrator, epithets often correspond to the imperial ideology of the moment or context, which produces a considerable variety of titles. Finally, inscription is often incomprehensible to the majority of the population, for the greater part illiterate. So, as an object, it is also an ideological instrument to mark out the territory of the imperial inprint, especially in the defense of a region, or when he building up of churches. As an object presented in plain sight, the text inflicts fear on the enemies of the Empire and generates respect of local people to their emperor

Byzantine religious manuscripts were commissioned by people from many levels of society. Several contain portraits of their commissioners, represented together with a holy figure. An analysis of these scenes, examining features such as the holy figures represented and their specific iconographic meaning, and the relation of mortal to divine, reveals many facets of Byzantine art, religion and society. This analysis indicates a major distinction between portraits representing the emperor, and those depicting all other patrons. Non-imperial portraits show deep personal devotion and piety. The manuscripts in which they occur were commissioned to honour the holy figure, and many request salvation in return. Imperial commissions, on the other hand, were not votive gifts. Their portraits stress the public, political, and occasionally religious role of the emperor as the elected of God upon earth, and head of state. These portraits are thus highly informative of several aspects of Byzantine life.

Texte remanié de: Ph. D. thesis--University of Edinburgh, 1985.
Mention parallèle de titre ou de responsabilité : Ī vasileía tou vyzantinoú autokrátora Nikīfórou A' : 802-811 m. Ch. / Paúlos E. Niavī́s. Résumé en grec. Bibliogr. p. 283-304. Index. Notice partiellement translittérée du grec (monotonique) selon la norme ISO 843 (1997).

The aim of this thesis is to gain a greater understanding of metalla, the imperially owned mining and quarrying districts of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. These extraction industries, and their products, were vital for the State to supply the army and to provide metals for coinage and marble for imperial building projects. To meet the largescale production needs of the State, the administration of these regions had to manage, supply and organise the industry. This thesis argues that the administration of metalla profoundly impacted the regional landscape and studying these landscapes can reveal the management strategies employed. To explore these issues the Faynan, a copper mining district located in southern Jordan, is used as a case study. This region has been the focus of intensive survey and presents an exceptional opportunity for studying an industrial landscape. By examining the landscape, and comparing the Faynan case study to other metalla, the specific mechanisms of management used by the administration are revealed. Some methods involved the creation of infrastructure (roads, aqueducts and administrative buildings) to facilitate production. Certain activities and resources were centralised to allow for greater control. Using GIS, it is demonstrated that the administration employed complex understanding of the ability to exert control through surveillance in its placement of structures in the landscape. It is shown that the Faynan and other metalla used multiple strategies to accomplish production. By comparing metalla from a number of regions common patterns emerge and the importance of decorative stone and metal to the imperial State is confirmed. The archaeological record reflects in general and specific ways that landscapes were managed and organised by the mining and quarrying authorities.

This thesis examines the portrayal of outsiders in Michael Psellos's Chronographia, Anna Komnene's Alexiad, and Niketas Choniates's Narrative - using sociological theories of deviancy. The twofold aim is to "treat texts seriously", localized in Jakobson's speech-event nexus of addresser, context, content, contact, code and addressee; and secondly to understand the texts as statements of the ideology of the dominant elite. Outsiders are defined (using the labelling orientation) as people successfully defined as deviants; deviant behaviour is whatever they do. The dominant elite creates cultural boundaries, and places individuals in outsider roles on the other side of those boundaries. Outsiders can be understood only in terms of who defines them as deviant; there is no material reality to deviancy. Stereotypes, which identify social categories of people by evaluative trait-characteristics, are necessary elements of human cognition; they become prejudice only when they are overgeneralized, based on too limited data, applied too widely and maintained in the face of contrary empirical evidence. The analysis of the three texts in depth allows the identification of those groups labelled as outsiders by these expositors of the dominant ideology. My conclusion is that these authors portray a picture of the Byzantine outsider, which is coherent between this limited sample group, allowing for individual variation. These authors used stereotypes to conceptualize and encode in the linguistic and lexicographical complexities of their texts the outsiders they identified in their societies. Their presentation uses stereotypes, but does not descend to prejudice.

In the 19th century, the foci of the spatial change in the capital of the Ottoman Empire were the squares dating back to the previous period. As buildings were endowed by their builders, the Byzantine forums had disappeared during the Ottoman Empire. During this period, the only place known and named as a square was the Hippodrome (Atmeydanı). To the south of Hagia Sophia, a part of the old Augustaion, whose exact boundaries cannot be determined, turned into a neighborhood. After the fire in 1913 which demolished the neighborhood, the area once more transformed into a square (Hagia Sophia Square). Today, this area is called Sultanahmet Square and is home to one of the first modern indicators of the period, the Darülfünun building, inaugurated in 1863 as university but later used as the Ministry of Justice building. In the blocks overlooking the square, a project for the Zaptieh building to replace the old Finance Administration building came to the fore in 1869, and later in 1871, the first model Central Prison was built next to the Ibrahim Pasha Palace. However, it was demolished in 1939 when the Courthouse was being built, and the prisoners were transferred to the Sultanahmet Jail, built in the “New Ottoman” style in 1918 to the east of Darülfünun. Decorated with symbols of power since the Byzantine, this square continued to be the “central square of the Empire” with different manifestations in the 19th century.

The recast of the international debt contracted by the former Ottoman Empire and the overcoming of the capitulations regime that had afflicted Turkey for centuries, are two of the most relevant sectors in which the political and diplomatic action promoted by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk has been expressed. Extremely relevant in this regard are the different disciplines established, respectively, by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and then by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. After the Ottoman Government defaulted in 1875, an agreement (the Decree of Muharrem) was concluded in 1881 between the Ottoman Government and representatives of its foreign and domestic creditors for the resumption of payments on Ottoman bonds, and a European control of a part of the Imperial revenues was instituted through the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt. At the same time, the Ottoman Empire was burdened by capitulations, conferring rights and privileges in favour of their subjects resident or trading in the Ottoman lands, following the policy towards European States of the Byzantine Empire. According to these capitulations, traders entering the Ottoman Empire were exempt from local prosecution, local taxation, local conscription, and the searching of their domicile. The capitulations were initially made during the Ottoman Empire’s military dominance, to entice and encourage commercial exchanges with Western merchants. However, after dominance shifted to Europe, significant economic and political advantages were granted to the European Powers by the Ottoman Empire. Both regimes, substantially maintained by the Treaty of Sèvres, were considered unacceptable by the Nationalist Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and therefore became the subject of negotiations during the Conference of Lausanne. The definitive overcoming of both of them, therefore represents one of the most evident examples of the reacquisition of the full sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey.

In the fifteenth century, the Mediterranean world was in turmoil. A new sultan, Mehmet II, had just inherited a vast empire stretching over two continents in the centre of which the ruins of the Byzantine Empire survived through the city of Constantinople. In order to seal his accession, he therefore undertook important preparations to conquer the “City guarded by God”. Mehmet then ordered the construction, within 4 months, of an imposing fortress nicknamed Boǧazkesen (the throat cutter). This coup de force is a testimony to the incredible military and economic power of this growing empire that masters a new war technology: artillery. The Ottomans, who were still novices in this field, had therefore had to adapt their fortifications to the use of firearms. Using local and foreign architects and engineers, the Ottoman fortifications built in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries bear witness to an architectural experimentation that seems to testify, like the work carried out in Rhodes by Pierre d’Aubusson or in Methoni by the Venetians, to a real research in terms of offensive and defensive effectiveness. In this context, the fortifications of Rumeli Hisarı and Anadolu Hisarı, built on either side of the narrowest point of the Bosporus in 1451-1452, are characterized by the presence of large coastal batteries that operate together. They were to block access to Constantinople by the Black Sea, combining sinking and dismasting fire.

This project refers to the construction of a 3D map of Thessaloniki’s historical route. The Yedi Kule Conquest – Monument Road Race took place in the old city of Thessaloniki, which was built during the Byzantine and Ottoman period. The purpose of this project is the digital recording of the castles, the monuments, the old churches, the traditional buildings, and the squares which are prime examples of the architectural beauty of the place. The methodology of the project is based on the online software Google Earth Studio and Adobe Premiere Pro. These are the tools of digitization, rendering, and building process of the animation. With this methodology, the authors achieved the documentation of land use and the architectural landscape. The animation is a credible graphic index of the historical background of Thessaloniki. The Yedi Kule area constitutes of a cultural mosaic made from different historic periods. The buildings and the neighbourhoods give the sense of transition of the narrow roads, the old Christian churches, the house of the first Turkish governor, and the byzantine castle to the modern city. In Thessaloniki, three historic periods coexist the Ancient Greek/Roman, the Byzantine, and Ottoman Empire. The responsibility of the governmental politics and of every citizen of Thessaloniki is to promote and preserve the historic background of the city. The final product offers a good opportunity for the digital storage of Thessaloniki’s old city. The animation creates an interactive environment that portrays the current image of the transition from the old to a modern city.

It was not only Turkish history to be changed when Seljuk conquered Anatolia but also the destiny of Anatolia changed. Anatolia that was the center of east – west and north – south trade since Assyria trade colonies was lost its commercial importance during the conquer by Turks, long time ago. Before Seljuk, the region was a part of the Byzantine Empire and it lost its commercial activities. It was a long time for Seljuk to revitalise the Anatolian trade. The war in Myriokephalon reduced the problems of Turkish Seljuk and enabled the establishment of a strong state in Anatolia. Myriokephalon War deeply impacted Byzantine and the Seljuk Sultan Kılıç Arslan focused on to develop the economy of the county and made very important achievements. He was the first who tried to conquer Antalya that is a port city. Kılıç Arslan and succeeding Sultans of Seljuk State followed the same path. Izeddin Keykavus conquered Sinop. Alâeddin Keykubâd conquered Alanya, so Seljuk had its third port city. The volume of domestic and international trade of Seljuk made it very powerful economy of the region. In this study, the factors which made for Seljuk to conquer these port cities in the Black Sea and Mediterranean easy, and the contribution of maritime trade to Seljuk economy, with reference to the sources form the era.

The prerequisite for the study was the spread of views in the academic literature that the category of public welfare, without accounting for concretising factors, was a void abstraction, and that in Russia, public welfare was seen as the dominant principle over the individual. The main purpose of the study is to analyse the content of the term ‘the welfare of each and everyone’ in Russian legal theory. The author uses the methods of conceptual history and intellectual history to analyse the concept of ‘the welfare of each and everyone’ in the works of pre-revolutionary authors and the relationship between the concepts of ‘the welfare of each and everyone’ and ‘the common good’. The author determined that: ‘public welfare’ can be classified as fiction, purpose, method, interest and balance, depending on the context of use and semantic scope. The term ‘the welfare of each and every one’ became theoretically meaningful (as an objective, method, and interest), and was enshrined in law in Russian Empire in the XVIII -early XX centuries. The term was understood as achieving the common good, preserving the good of everyone and the reduction of public harm. Twentyfirst century Russian legal theory uses the related notion of ‘public welfare’, understood as a fiction, a goal, a method, an interest, a balance. The main findings of the study suggest that today the ‘public welfare’ is reduced to bringing benefits to anyone and everyone (D. I. Dedov), which is close to the historical understanding of ‘the welfare of each and every one’. The public welfare theory incorporates progressive elements such as the veil of ignorance, the win-win principle, and shapes institutions, resources, practices and formulates the issue of the emergence of a new generation of human rights.