Global ETD Search

1	Lochos and Ariston Bauschatz, John 03 1900 (has links) Nine documents from the Duke Papyrus Archive reveal much about the careers of two high-ranking officials and their activities in the Herakleopolite nome during the late second century B.C.: Ariston, ton proton philon, strategos, nomarches and epi ton prosodon, and Lochos, ton proton philon and possibly the well-known strategos of the Thebaid. Lochos Ariston strategos prosodon Herakleopolite nomarch proton philon
2	Dall'Axios all'Hebrus: una periferia dimenticata / From the Axios to the Hebrus: a Forgotten (Border)Land MAINARDI, MARIA 15 April 2013 (has links) La storia tracia occupa spesso una posizione marginale sia nelle fonti antiche sia negli studi moderni. La presente indagine intende ricostruire le vicende della regione attorno alla metà del IV secolo a.C., dalla morte del sovrano odrisio Kotys (intorno al 360 a.C.) all’insurrezione di Seuthes III (dopo il 326 a.C.). Le fonti letterarie antiche forniscono informazioni lacunose e frammentarie, perché si dedicarono agli avvenimenti traci soltanto quando questi interferirono con la coeva storia ateniese o macedone. Dati aggiuntivi si ricavano dalla documentazione epigrafica, numismatica e archeologica. La presente ricerca ripercorre le complesse dinamiche che portarono alla conquista della Tracia da parte di Filippo II, a costo di numerose e impegnative campagne, e analizza le difficoltà sorte nel mantenere il controllo macedone sulla regione: la pacificazione, tentata da Filippo II negli ultimi anni di regno, non resistette a lungo e l’età di Alessandro fu caratterizzata da una continua tensione tra le spinte autonomistiche delle popolazioni locali e i tentativi di sottomissione condotti dai Macedoni. Una serie di rivolte e il progressivo aumento dell’autonomia locale fecero sì che, alla fine del regno di Alessandro, le tribù tracie riuscissero a tornare "de facto" all’indipendenza originaria. / Thracian history is very often left in a secondary place in ancient sources and in modern studies. This research wants to investigate the Thracian history around the half of IV century B.C., from the death of the Odrisian king Kotys (in about 360 B.C.) to the Seuthes III’s revolt (after 326 B.C.). The ancient literary sources are scanty and give fragmentary or incomplete data: they tell about Thrace only when this region is involved in Athenian or Macedonian history. Epigraphic, numismatic and archeological evidence can sometimes be added. This study demonstrates that the conquest of Thrace by Philip II wasn’t easy and it took a lot of time and many expeditions; the Macedonian control of the region was even harder, because the Thracian people always fought for their independence. The peace of the last years of Philip II’s reign couldn’t go on and, in Alexander’s time, many insurrections arose one after the other. Quintus Curtius Rufus tells that Thrace was almost lost in the end of Alexander’s reign: Seuthes III led the most important rising and local autonomy increased too. Thracian tribes returned "de facto" to their original independence. L-ANT/02: STORIA GRECA
3	La Romanie orientale : l'empire de Constantinople et ses avatars au Levant à l'époque des Croisades / Oriental Romania : the empire of Constantinople and his avatars in the Levant during the Crusades Baraton, Édouard 11 June 2018 (has links) L’empire de Constantinople, après un siècle (969-1085) de domination sur de vastes portions de l’Orient (Cilicie, Chypre, Syrie du Nord et Djézireh), et de rayonnement au-delà jusqu’à Jérusalem, dut reconstituer sa présence dans cet espace à partir de la fin du XIe siècle. L’arrivée de nouveaux acteurs chrétiens autonomes, Francs et Arméniens, compliqua l’équation politique de l’Empire, qui ne devait plus uniquement reconstruire sa domination sur ses anciens sujets, mais aussi compter avec ces forces. L’empire de Romanie vécut en Orient, parallèlement aux Croisades, une intense phase de redéfinition de sa réalité régionale, de ses modalités de fonctionnement et de son rôle politique. Cependant, cette expérience, qui se prolongea sur près de deux siècles, ne saurait se limiter à une simple projection de puissance de Constantinople sur cette périphérie. Malgré les bouleversements qui frappèrent le cœur de l’Empire de 1081 à 1289, la référence impériale se maintint en Orient sous les Comnènes, les empereurs latins et nicéens, puis sous les premiers Paléologues. Le processus ne fut durable que grâce à la redéfinition progressive de l’identité impériale locale. Ses contours varièrent par l’adjonction d’éléments hétérogènes, contribuant à complexifier l’empreinte de l’empire de Romanie en Orient. La Romanie orientale fut une solution à l’équation politique des pouvoirs locaux (la principauté d’Antioche, le comté de Tripoli et les royaumes de Chypre et d’Arménie principalement) pour réussir leur intégration régionale en la conjuguant avec un héritage impérial constantinopolitain, incluant l’Orient helléno-arabe. / The empire of Constantinople, after a century (969-1085) of domination over large part of oriental territories (Cilicia, Cyprus, North Syria and Djezireh) during which it exerted its influence over Jerusalem, had to restore its influence in this space from the end of the eleventh century. The arrival of new autonomous Christian players, Francs and Armenians, complicated the empire’s political equation, which had not just to rebuild his domination over its old subjects, but also had to allow for these forces.The empire of Romanie lived in the East, at the same time of the Crusades, an intense period of redefinition of its regional reality, of its modes of running and of its political role. However, this experience, which lasted for two centuries, can’t be confined to a simple projection of Constantinople’s powerful onto this periphery.Despite the disruptions which hit the heart of the empire, from 1081 to 1289, the imperial reference persisted in the East under the Comneni, the Latin and Nicene emperors, and under the firsts Paleologues.The process was lasting because of the gradual redefinition of regional imperial identity. Its contours were varied by the addition of heterogenic elements, which contributed to complicate the imperial mark in the East.Oriental Romania was a solution to the political equation of local authorities (Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia mainly) to succeed in their regional integration, combined with an imperial Constantinopolitan heir, including the Hellenic and Arabic East. Principauté d'Antioche Patriarcat orthodoxe d'Antioche Stratège autocrator pour l'Orient Patrices du Rûm Duché de Cilicie Royaume d'Arménie Royaume de Chypre Comté de Tripoli Empereurs francs de Constantinople Alexis Comnène Bohémond de Tarente Raymond de Saint Gilles Jean II Comnène Raymond de Poitiers Manuel Comnène Bohémond III Andronic Comnène Isaac Doukas Comnène Bohémond IV Simeon d'Antioche Henri de Constantinople Michel VIII Paléologue Bohémond VI Euthyme d'Antioche Théodose d'Antioche Principality of Antioch Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Strategos autokrator for the Crusades Patricians of Rûm Duchy of Cilicia Armenian kingdom Kingdom of Chyprus County of Tripoli Frankish emperors of Constantinople Alexios Komnenos Bohemond of Taranto Raymond of Saint-Gilles John II Komnenos Raymond of Poitiers Manuel Komnenos Bohemond III Andronic Komnenos Isaac Doukas Komnenos Bohemond IV SImeon of Antioch Henry of Constantinople Michael VIII Palaigos Bohemond VI Euthymios of Antioch Theodosius of Antioch 949.503

1

Page generated in 0.0368 seconds