Split (1)

train · 367k rows

text stringlengths 9 2.4k
Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less "vivacious" than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas. Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations that produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are "compounding" (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); "transposing" (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); "augmenting" (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and "diminishing" (as with Lilliputians, whose size has been diminished). (Hume 1974:317) In a later chapter, he also mentions the operations of "mixing", "separating", and "dividing". (Hume 1974:340)
However, Hume admits that there is one objection to his account: the problem of "The Missing Shade of Blue". In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one (see Fig. 1). He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case by stating that one may experience a novel idea that itself is derived from combinations of previous impressions. (Hume 1974:319) 3. Of the association of ideas. In this chapter, Hume discusses how thoughts tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought. He explains that there are at least three kinds of associations between ideas: "resemblance", "contiguity" in space-time, and "cause-and-effect". He argues that there must be some "universal principle" that must account for the various sorts of connections that exist between ideas. However, he does not immediately show what this principle might be. (Hume 1974:320-321) 4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts).
In the first part, Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. (Hume 1974:322) In explaining how matters of fact are entirely a product of experience, he dismisses the notion that they may be arrived at through "a priori" reasoning. For Hume, every effect only follows its cause arbitrarily—they are entirely distinct from one another. (Hume 1974:324) In part two, Hume inquires into how anyone can justifiably believe that experience yields any conclusions about the world: He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). (Hume 1974:330-332) Here he is describing what would become known as the problem of induction. 5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts).
According to Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of "habit or custom", which human nature forces us to take seriously. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. Indeed, one of the many famous passages of the "Enquiry" is on the topic of the incorrigibility of human custom. In Section XII, "Of the academical or sceptical philosophy", Hume will argue, In the second part, he provides an account of beliefs. He explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't. (Hume 1974:340) 6. Of probability. This short chapter begins with the notions of probability and chance. For him, "probability" means a "higher chance" of occurring, and brings about a higher degree of subjective expectation in the viewer. By "chance", he means all those particular comprehensible events which the viewer considers possible in accord with the viewer's experience. However, further experience takes these equal chances, and forces the imagination to observe that certain chances arise more frequently than others. These gentle forces upon the imagination cause the viewer to have strong beliefs in outcomes. This effect may be understood as another case of "custom or habit" taking past experience and using it to predict the future. (Hume 1974:346-348) 7. Of the idea of necessary connection (in two parts).
By "necessary connection", Hume means the power or force which necessarily ties one idea to another. He rejects the notion that any sensible qualities are necessarily conjoined, since that would mean we could know something prior to experience. Unlike his predecessors, Berkeley and Locke, Hume rejects the idea that volitions or impulses of the will may be inferred to necessarily connect to the actions they produce by way of some sense of the power of the will. He reasons that, 1. if we knew the nature of this power, then the mind-body divide would seem totally unmysterious to us; 2. if we had immediate knowledge of this mysterious power, then we would be able to intuitively explain why it is that we can control some parts of our bodies (e.g., our hands or tongues), and not others (e.g., the liver or heart); 3. we have no immediate knowledge of the powers which allow an impulse of volition to create an action (e.g., of the "muscles, and nerves, and animal spirits" which are the immediate cause of an action). (Hume 1974:353-354) He produces like arguments against the notion that we have knowledge of these powers as they affect the mind alone. (Hume 1974:355-356) He also argues in brief against the idea that causes are mere occasions of the will of some god(s), a view associated with the philosopher Nicolas Malebranche. (Hume 1974:356-359)
Having dispensed with these alternative explanations, he identifies the source of our knowledge of necessary connections as arising out of "observation of constant conjunction of certain impressions across many instances". In this way, people know of necessity through rigorous custom or habit, and not from any immediate knowledge of the powers of the will. (Hume 1974:361) 8. Of liberty and necessity (in two parts). Here Hume tackles the problem of how liberty may be reconciled with metaphysical necessity (otherwise known as a compatibilist formulation of free will). Hume believes that all disputes on the subject have been merely verbal arguments—that is to say, arguments which are based on a lack of prior agreement on definitions. He first shows that it is clear that most events are deterministic, but human actions are more controversial. However, he thinks that these too occur out of necessity since an outside observer can see the same regularity that he would in a purely physical system. To show the compatibility of necessity and liberty, Hume defines liberty as the ability to act on the basis of one's will e.g. the capacity to will one's actions but not to will one's will. He then shows (quite briefly) how determinism and free will are compatible notions, and have no bad consequences on ethics or moral life. 9. Of the reason of animals.
Hume insists that the conclusions of the Enquiry will be very powerful if they can be shown to apply to animals and not just humans. He believed that animals were able to infer the relation between cause and effect in the same way that humans do: through learned expectations. (Hume 1974:384) He also notes that this "inferential" ability that animals have is not through reason, but custom alone. Hume concludes that there is an innate faculty of instincts which both beasts and humans share, namely, the ability to reason experimentally (through custom). Nevertheless, he admits, humans and animals differ in mental faculties in a number of ways, including: differences in memory and attention, inferential abilities, ability to make deductions in a long chain, ability to grasp ideas more or less clearly, the human capacity to worry about conflating unrelated circumstances, a sagely prudence which arrests generalizations, a capacity for a greater inner library of analogies to reason with, an ability to detach oneself and scrap one's own biases, and an ability to converse through language (and thus gain from the experience of others' testimonies). (Hume 1974:385, footnote 17.) 10. Of miracles (in two parts).
The next topic which Hume strives to give treatment is that of the reliability of human testimony, and of the role that testimony plays a part in epistemology. This was not an idle concern for Hume. Depending on its outcome, the entire treatment would give the epistemologist a degree of certitude in the treatment of miracles. True to his empirical thesis, Hume tells the reader that, though testimony does have some force, it is never quite as powerful as the direct evidence of the senses. That said, he provides some reasons why we may have a basis for trust in the testimony of persons: because a) human memory can be relatively tenacious; and b) because people are inclined to tell the truth, and ashamed of telling falsities. Needless to say, these reasons are only to be trusted to the extent that they conform to experience. (Hume 1974:389) And there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of human testimony, also based on experience. If a) testimonies conflict one another, b) there are a small number of witnesses, c) the speaker has no integrity, d) the speaker is overly hesitant or bold, or e) the speaker is known to have motives for lying, then the epistemologist has reason to be skeptical of the speaker's claims. (Hume 1974:390)
There is one final criterion that Hume thinks gives us warrant to doubt any given testimony, and that is f) if the propositions being communicated are miraculous. Hume understands a miracle to be any event which contradicts the laws of nature. He argues that the laws of nature have an overwhelming body of evidence behind them, and are so well demonstrated to everyone's experience, that any deviation from those laws necessarily flies in the face of all evidence. (Hume 1974:391-392) Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating. (Hume 1974:393-398)
Still, Hume takes care to warn that historians are generally to be trusted with confidence, so long as their reports on facts are extensive and uniform. However, he seems to suggest that historians are as fallible at interpreting the facts as the rest of humanity. Thus, if every historian were to claim that there was a solar eclipse in the year 1600, then though we might at first naively regard that as in violation of natural laws, we'd come to accept it as a fact. But if every historian were to assert that Queen Elizabeth was observed walking around happy and healthy after her funeral, and then interpreted that to mean that they had risen from the dead, then we'd have reason to appeal to natural laws in order to dispute their interpretation. (Hume 1974:400-402) 11. Of a particular providence and of a future state. Hume continues his application of epistemology to theology by an extended discussion on heaven and hell. The brunt of this chapter allegedly narrates the opinions, not of Hume, but of one of Hume's anonymous friends, who again presents them in an imagined speech by the philosopher Epicurus. His friend argues that, though it is possible to trace a cause from an effect, it is not possible to infer unseen effects from a cause thus traced. The friend insists, then, that even though we might postulate that there is a first cause behind all things—God—we can't infer anything about the afterlife, because we don't know anything of the afterlife from experience, and we can't infer it from the existence of God. (Hume 1974:408)
Hume offers his friend an objection: if we see an unfinished building, then can't we infer that it has been created by humans with certain intentions, and that it will be finished in the future? His friend concurs, but indicates that there is a relevant disanalogy that we can't pretend to know the contents of the mind of God, while we can know the designs of other humans. Hume seems essentially persuaded by his friend's reasoning. (Hume 1974:412-414) 12. Of the academical or skeptical philosophy (in three parts). The first section of the last chapter is well organized as an outline of various skeptical arguments. The treatment includes the arguments of atheism, Cartesian skepticism, "light" skepticism, and rationalist critiques of empiricism. Hume shows that even light skepticism leads to crushing doubts about the world which - while they ultimately are philosophically justifiable - may only be combated through the non-philosophical adherence to custom or habit. He ends the section with his own reservations towards Cartesian and Lockean epistemologies.
In the second section he returns to the topic of hard skepticism by sharply denouncing it. He concludes the volume by setting out the limits of knowledge once and for all. ""When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."" Critiques and rejoinders. The criteria Hume lists in his examination of the validity of human testimony are roughly upheld in modern social psychology, under the rubric of the communication-persuasion paradigm. Supporting literature includes: the work of social impact theory, which discusses persuasion in part through the number of persons engaging in influence; as well as studies made on the relative influence of communicator credibility in different kinds of persuasion; and examinations of the trustworthiness of the speaker.
The "custom" view of learning can in many ways be likened to associationist psychology. This point of view has been subject to severe criticism in the research of the 20th century. Still, testing on the subject has been somewhat divided. Testing on certain animals like cats have concluded that they do not possess any faculty which allow their minds to grasp an insight into cause and effect. However, it has been shown that some animals, like chimpanzees, were able to generate creative plans of action to achieve their goals, and thus would seem to have a causal insight which transcends mere custom. Legacy. Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Hume and remarked in a letter to Moritz Schlick that he had read Hume's book and the works of Ernst Mach "with eagerness and admiration shortly before finding relativity theory" and that "very possibly, I wouldn't have come to the solution without those philosophical studies".
André de Longjumeau André de Longjumeau (also known as Andrew of Longjumeau in English) was a French diplomat and Dominican missionary and one of the most active Occidental diplomats in the East in the 13th century. He led two embassies to the Mongols: the first carried letters from Pope Innocent IV and the second bore gifts and letters from Louis IX of France to Güyük Khan. Well acquainted with the Middle East, he spoke Arabic and "Chaldean" (thought to be either Syriac or Persian). Mission for the holy Crown of Thorns. André's first mission to the East was when he was asked by the French king Louis IX to go to Constantinople to obtain the crown of thorns that had been sold to him by the Latin emperor Baldwin II in 1238, who was anxious to obtain support for his empire. André was accompanied on this mission by a Dominican friar, brother Jacques. Papal mission to the Mongols (1245–1247). André of Longjumeau led one of four missions dispatched to the Mongols by Pope Innocent IV. He left Lyon in the spring of 1245 for the Levant.
He visited Muslim principalities in Syria and representatives of the Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church in Seljuk Persia, finally delivering the papal correspondence to a Mongol general near Tabriz. In Tabriz, André de Longjumeau met with a monk from the Far East named Simeon Rabban Ata, who had been put in charge by the Khan of protecting Christians in the Middle East. Second mission to the Mongols (1249–1251). At the Mongol camp near Kars, André had met a certain David, who in December 1248 appeared at the court of King Louis IX of France, who was preparing his armies in the allied Kingdom of Cyprus. André, who was now with the French King, interpreted David's words as a real or pretended offer of alliance from the Mongol general Eljigidei, and a proposal of a joint attack on Ayyubid Syria. In reply to this, the French sovereign dispatched André as his ambassador to Güyük Khan. Longjumeau went with his brother Jacques (also a Dominican) and several others – John Goderiche, John of Carcassonne, Herbert "Le Sommelier", Gerbert of Sens, Robert (a clerk), a certain William, and an unnamed clerk of Poissy.
The party set out on 16 February 1249, with letters from King Louis and the papal legate, and lavish presents, including a chapel tent lined with scarlet cloth and embroidered with sacred pictures. From Cyprus they went to the port of Antioch in Syria, and thence traveled for a year to the Khan's court, going ten leagues (55.56 kilometers) per day. Their route led them through Persia, along the southern and eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, and certainly through Taraz, north-east of Tashkent. Upon arrival at the supreme Mongol court – either that on the Emil River (near Lake Alakol and the present Russo-Chinese frontier in the Altai Mountains), or more probably at or near Karakorum itself, southwest of Lake Baikal – André found Güyük Khan dead, poisoned, as the envoy supposed, by Batu Khan's agents. The regent Oghul Qaimish, Güyük Khan's widow (the "Camus" of William of Rubruck), seems to have received him with presents and a dismissive letter for Louis IX. It is certain that before the friar had left "Tartary", Möngke, Güyük's successor, had been elected khagan.
André's report to his sovereign, whom he rejoined in 1251 at Caesarea Palaestina, appears to have been a mixture of history and fable; the latter affects his narrative of the Mongols' rise to greatness, and the struggles of their leader Genghis Khan with the mythical Prester John, and in the supposed location of the Mongols' homeland, close to the prison of Gog and Magog. On the other hand, the envoy's account of Mongol customs is fairly accurate, and his statements about Mongol Christianity and its prosperity, though perhaps exaggerated (e.g. as to the 800 chapels on wheels in the nomadic host) are likely factual. Mounds of bones marked his road, witnesses of devastations that other historians record in detail. He found Christian prisoners from Germany in the heart of "Tartary" at Taraz and was compelled to observe the ceremony of passing between two fires, as a bringer of gifts to a dead Genghis Khan, gifts which were treated by the Mongols as evidence of submission. This insulting behavior, and the language of the letter with which André reappeared, marked the mission a failure: King Louis, says Jean de Joinville, "se repenti fort" ("felt very sorry").
Death. The date and location of André's death is unknown. We only know of André through references in other writers: see especially William of Rubruck's in "Recueil de voyages", iv. (Paris, 1839), pp. 261, 265, 279, 296, 310, 353, 363, 370; Joinville, ed. Francisque Michel (1858, etc.), pp. 142, etc.; Jean Pierre Sarrasin, in same vol., pp. 254–235; William of Nangis in "Recueil des historiens des Gaules", xx. 359–367; Rémusat, "Mémoires sur les relations politiques des princes chrétiens… avec les… Mongols" (1822, etc.), p. 52.
Andriscus Andriscus (, "Andrískos"; 154/153 BC – 146 BC), also often referenced as Pseudo-Philip, was a Greek pretender who became the last independent king of Macedon in 149 BC as Philip VI (, "Philipos"), based on his claim of being Philip, a now-obscure son of the last legitimate Macedonian king, Perseus. His reign lasted just one year and was toppled by the Roman Republic during the Fourth Macedonian War. Ancient sources generally agree that he was originally a fuller from Adramyttium in Aeolis in western Anatolia. Around 153 BC, his ancestry was supposedly revealed to him, upon which he travelled to the court of his claimed uncle, the Seleucid monarch Demetrius I Soter, to request assistance in claiming his throne. Demetrius refused and had him sent to Rome, where he was judged harmless and exiled to a city in Italy; he managed to escape, and after gathering support, primarily from Thrace, he launched an invasion of Macedon, defeating Rome's clients and establishing his rule as king. The Romans naturally reacted militarily, triggering war; after some initial successes, Andriscus was defeated and captured by the praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, who subdued Macedon once again.
He was imprisoned for two years before being paraded in Metellus' triumph in 146 BC, after which he was executed. In the aftermath of his revolt, the Romans established the Roman province of Macedonia, ending Macedonian independence and establishing a permanent presence in the region. Origins and early life. Details of his origins are vague and sometimes conflicting, though it is generally believed that he was a fuller from Adramyttium in Aeolis in western Anatolia. His exact date of birth is unknown, though according to his own story, he was "of maturity" when he made his claims of royalty in 154 BC, and had been raised by a Cretan in Adramyttium. By his own claims, he was educated at Adramyttium until adolescence, until the Cretan died, after which he was raised with his foster mother. Upon reaching maturity, his mother (or foster mother, according to his claim) gave him a sealed parchment that was supposedly written by Perseus himself, along with the knowledge of the location of two hidden treasures, at Amphipolis and Thessalonica; he would later use these to advance his claims. Ancient sources are unanimous in calling him an impostor and dismiss the story as false; Niese suggests that there is a possibility of his claims being true, but generally agrees that he was a pretender; his main advantage in his claims was his close resemblance to Perseus.
Around 154/153 BC, he left Pergamon for Syria, where he declared his claim to be the illegitimate son of Perseus by a concubine. According to his own account, it was due to his mother (or foster mother) urging him to leave Pergamon to avoid the wrath of the pro-Roman Eumenes II. Claiming the throne. In Syria. He first staked his claim in Syria. Livy and Cassius Dio write that he simply went from Pergamon to Syria and directly staked his claim before the Seleucid monarch, Demetrius I Soter. Diodorus Siculus offers a different account. According to him, Andriscus was already a mercenary in Demetrius' army. Due to his resemblance to the former Macedonian king, his comrades started jokingly calling him "son of Perseus"; these jokes soon began becoming serious suspicions, and at one point, Andriscus himself decided to seize the opportunity and claimed that he was indeed the son of Perseus. Niese attempts to reconcile both accounts, suggesting that he might have travelled to Syria and then enlisted as a mercenary before staking his claim.
He appealed to the king to help him win back his "ancestral" throne, and found great popular support among the Seleucid populace, to the extent that there were riots in the capital, Antioch. Large segments of the Seleucid population were of Macedonian descent, nurturing strong anti-Roman sentiment since the Roman conquest of Macedon in the Third Macedonian War; they were eager to help the claimant. They proceeded to such an extent that there were even calls for deposing the king if he did not help the pretender. Unmoved, or perhaps frightened, Demetrius had Andriscus arrested and sent to Rome. In Rome. In Rome, he was brought before the Senate, where Dio writes that he stood "in general contempt" due to what was perceived to be his ordinary nature and transparently false claim. The Romans believed his claim to be fake, because the real Philip had died at Alba Fucens two years after his father Perseus. Considering him harmless, they simply exiled him to an Italian city, but he managed to escape; fleeing Italy, he went to the Greek world, to the city of Miletus.
Gaining support. In Miletus, he tried to advance his claims further, attracting significant attention and sympathy. When the leaders of Miletus learned about this, they arrested him and sought advice from visiting Roman envoys on what to do with him; the envoys were contemptuous of the pretender and told the Miletans he was safe to release. He continued his travels through Ionia, meeting former acquaintances of Perseus and gaining an audience with Kallipa, a former concubine of Perseus who was now married to Athenaios, brother of the Pergamene king Attalus II Philadelphus. Being a Macedonian by birth, and due to her former connections to the Antigonids, she accepted his claim and agreed to help him, giving him money and slaves, and probably recommending that he travel to Thrace, where he would find a following. He was also received favourably in Byzantium. He finally arrived in Thrace, where he met Teres III, who had married the granddaughter of Perseus and was the son of Cotys IV, who had once been an ally of Perseus. Teres and the other Thracian chieftains, especially a certain Barsabas, received him enthusiastically; he held a coronation ceremony at Teres' court, was given a few hundred Thracian troops, and set off on his campaign.
Conquest of Macedon. His first attempt to invade was unsuccessful, and he initially did not inspire much enthusiasm among the Macedonians; this made the Romans complacent about the pretender. However, he soon managed to encounter a force of Rome's Macedonian client republics, defeating them in Odomantice; he then invaded Macedon proper, defeating Rome's clients on the banks of the Strymon river. Amidst popular acclaim, he crowned himself king at the old Macedonian capital of Pella in 150/149 BC. Popular support. Although the Macedonians' initial attitude had been lukewarm, his successes won him popularity and widespread support in Macedon. Anti-Roman sentiment was common in Macedon; the populace was obliging in overthrowing the old regime. Support for Andriscus was not uniform — there was significantly more hesitation among the gentry and upper classes, and somewhat more enthusiasm among the lower classes — but the popular mood was largely in his favour. His claims were bolstered by his correct prediction of the locations of two treasures, which he claimed were specified in the "sealed writing" that had been handed to his caretakers by Perseus, and had later been given to him. Even if there were apprehensions about the veracity of his claim, Niese notes that "one liked to believe what one wished; the re-establishment of Macedonia enabled liberation from the burden of Roman rule. The longer these burdens had been borne, the happier they [the Macedonians] were at the prospect of Macedonia under a king restored from the old lineage."
However, it has also been suggested that the extent of his support may not have been as widespread as often believed, and that a significant amount of the Macedonian populace remained pro-republican and pro-Roman. The relative lack of reprisals towards Macedon after his defeat, as compared to the destructions of Corinth and Carthage in the same period, has been suggested as evidence for this theory. Reign. Military campaigns. Andriscus' reign was defined to a significant degree by his military campaigns, due to his being in a constant state of war with Rome. After his conquest of the Kingdom, he enlarged the army and began campaigns to conquer Thessaly, a key part of the realm of the old Antigonids. Initial resistance to him were from "ad hoc" forces of Roman allies in Greece, a few Roman units and legates in the region and some resistance from the remnants of Rome's client republics in Macedon, some elements of which seem to have survived for some time into his reign. Soon, however, the Romans sent a legion under the praetor Publius Juventius Thalna to defeat the pretender.
Thalna, however, appears to have underestimated Andriscus' strength, not taking into account the fact that the king's army had grown dramatically since his enthronement. Andriscus attacked and fought him at an unspecified location in Thessaly (Dio gives it as "near the borders of Macedon"); details of the engagement are scarce, but Thalna was killed and his forces almost annihilated. It was the worst defeat Rome would suffer at the hands of the Macedonians; Florus remarks on the irony of how "they that were invincible against real kings, were defeated by this imaginary and pretended king". The victory greatly increased the king's prestige; he obtained an alliance with Carthage, and his domestic popularity was increased dramatically, allowing him to stamp out republican resistance and conquer Thessaly. Foreign policy. At first, Andriscus attempted to negotiate his position with Rome, but when it became clear that they would not recognize his throne, he embarked on a strongly anti-Roman policy, He continued to cultivate his relations with his Thracian allies, to whom he owed his throne; they would continue to provide significant forces for him during his reign.
Foreign interest in relations with him increased dramatically after his victory over Thalna; as mentioned before, Carthage, which was under attack from Rome in the Third Punic War, allied itself to him and promised him money and ships, though these could not be sent before his ultimate defeat. Significant sympathy, possibly cultivated to a degree by him, arose in Greece; however, the Achaean League remained pro-Roman and continued to resist and fight him. King Attalus II Philadelphus of Pergamon remained staunchly pro-Roman; the Pergamenes were terrified of the prospect of a revived and strong Macedonia on their doorstep. Domestic policy. Domestically, Andriscus implemented a strongly anti-Roman and anti-Republican policy. Ancient historians interpreted this as his cruelty and tyranny; it has been suggested that these were simply manifestations of his anti-Roman policy and his persecutions of his opponents, including pro-Roman republicans. At the same time, it is also possible that he was indeed tyrannical. His persecutions increased significantly after his victory over Thalna, costing him significant popularity; this would have dire consequences for him later.
Coinage. The extent and nature of Andriscus' coinage is a matter of debate. It has been suggested that many of his coins were overstrikes of previous Antigonid, republican and Roman coinage. He issued a very small amount of silver drachmae, on which he pictured himself as a Hellenistic king, and added Herakles on the reverse. Only three coins of Andriscus are known, two of which are overstruck, one on a drachm of the Thessalian League, the other on a Roman denarius. It is therefore possible that he also used the denarii he seized as booty after his victory against Thalna to mint his own coins. The coins are also of poor quality, due to the short duration of his reign, the need to reuse old dies and the need to quickly produce wartime coinage. Some non-royal coinage has also been discovered and dated to the period of his reign, possibly struck by the remnants of the pro-Roman republics. It has also been suggested that the king was more liberal than implied by the sources, and allowed some degree of independent coinage.
Downfall and death. Thalna's defeat shook Roman prestige in the East, and made the Senate realize the full significance of the revolt. They organized a full consular army of two legions under praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus, to defeat Andriscus and check, if not quell, his uprising. Arriving in Greece in 148 BC, Metellus marched along the Thessalian coast in a combined land and sea advance, while the allied Pergamene fleet threatened the coastal district of northern Macedonia. To protect himself against both offensives, Andriscus took up a defensive position with his main army at Pydna, where Metellus engaged him in battle. In the ensuing Battle of Pydna, Andrisus was decisively defeated. His harsh persecutions during his reign now showed their consequences; this single battle was enough to make him lose control of Macedon, as the people submitted to Metellus. He was forced to flee to Thrace, his original base of support, and began organizing a new army; however, Metellus pursued him swiftly and routed his forces before he could prepare them. Andriscus then fled to the Thracian princeling Byzes; however, Metellus managed to persuade the latter into becoming a Roman ally and handing Andriscus over as a prisoner, ending his reign.
He remained a prisoner over the next two years, while Metellus subdued any remaining Macedonian resistance, organized Macedon as a province and settled the Achaean War of 146 BC. When Metellus returned to Rome in 146 BC, he received the agnomen "Macedonicus" for his victory and was granted a triumph. Andriscus was brought in chains and paraded in the triumph, and later executed — the last king to reign over Macedon. Assessment and legacy. Ancient sources are extremely hostile, not only to the origins and claims, but also of the character of Andriscus — Diodorus calls him "shot through with cruelty, greed and every base quality"; Dio and Livy call him "a man of the lowest kind". They also describe him as cruel and tyrannical; accusations of tyranny probably reflect his harsh persecutions of pro-Roman and pro-republican elements in Macedon. At the same time, it is possible that he was indeed tyrannical, especially after his victory over Thalna, and perpetrated acts of terrorism and repression against his subjects.
His main legacy was that in the aftermath of his revolt, the Romans understood the strength of anti-Roman feeling that had arisen in Macedon, and realized that the old administration could not be sustained — a thorough reorganization was necessary. Another reason why reorganization was necessary was that Andriscus' persecutions had killed many pro-Roman republicans and thoroughly disrupted the old administrative structure; it would be difficult to re-establish it. Therefore, the Senate made Macedon a Roman province, with Metellus as its first governor.
Andronikos III Palaiologos Andronikos III Palaiologos (; 25 March 1297 – 15 June 1341), commonly Latinized as Andronicus III Palaeologus, was the Byzantine emperor from 1328 to 1341. He was the son of Michael IX Palaiologos and Rita of Armenia. He was proclaimed co-emperor in his youth, before 1313, and in April 1321 he rebelled against his grandfather, Andronikos II Palaiologos. He was formally crowned co-emperor in February 1325, before ousting his grandfather outright and becoming sole emperor on 24 May 1328. His reign included the last failed attempts to hold back the Ottoman Turks in Bithynia and the defeat at Rusokastro against the Bulgarians, but also the successful recovery of Chios, Lesbos, Phocaea, Thessaly, and Epirus. His early death left a power vacuum that resulted in the disastrous civil war between his widow, Anna of Savoy, and his closest friend and supporter, John VI Kantakouzenos, leading to the establishment of the Serbian Empire and the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the Balkans. Life.
Andronikos was born in Constantinople on 25 March 1297. His father, Michael IX Palaiologos, began reigning in full imperial style as co-emperor . In March 1318, Andronikos married Irene of Brunswick, daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Grubenhagen. In she gave birth to a son, who died in infancy. In 1320, Andronikos accidentally caused the death of his brother Manuel, after which their father, co-emperor Michael IX Palaiologos, died in his grief. The homicide and the general dissolute behavior of Andronikos III and his coterie, mostly the young scions of the great aristocratic clans of the Empire, resulted in a deep rift in the relations between young Andronikos and his grandfather, still reigning as Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos. Emperor Andronikos II disowned his grandson Andronikos, who fled the capital, rallied his supporters in Thrace, and began to reign as rival emperor in 1321. A few months after the rebellion began, Andronikos II relented and named Andronikos III his co-emperor. The concession was not enough to prevent intermittent civil war between the two monarchs in the years 1321 to 1328.
Empress Irene died on 16/17 August 1324 with no surviving child. Theodora Palaiologina, sister of Andronikos III, married the new tsar Michael Shishman of Bulgaria in 1324. Andronikos III, then a widower, married Anna of Savoy in October 1326. In 1327 she gave birth to Maria (renamed Irene) Palaiologina. Andronikos III concluded the Treaty of Chernomen of 1327, an alliance with tsar Michael Shishman of Bulgaria against Stephen Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia. In 1328 the Byzantine civil war ended with the deposition of Emperor Andronikos II, who retired to a monastery. Reign. Military history. Ottoman Turks besieged Nicaea in Asia Minor, historically the provisional capital of the Byzantine Empire from the Fourth Crusade until the Byzantine recapture of Constantinople. Andronikos III launched a relief attempt, which Ottoman sultan Orhan defeated at the Battle of Pelekanon on 10 or 15 June 1329. Also in 1329, Andronikos III sent a naval expedition against Martino Zaccaria, Genoese ruler of the Lordship of Chios (which also included Samos and Cos). The expedition deposed Zaccaria, and regained Byzantine control of the islands.
An alliance with Bulgaria failed to secure any gains for the Byzantine empire. On 28 July 1330, the Serbians decisively defeated the Bulgarians in the Battle of Velbazhd (modern Kyustendil, Bulgaria) without significant Byzantine participation. The Ottomans continued to advance in 1331, finally taking Nicaea (İznik). Andronikos III wanted Nicomedia and the other few Byzantine forts in Anatolia not to suffer the same fate and sought to pay off the Ottomans with tribute. Andronikos III reorganized and attempted to strengthen the weakened Byzantine navy, which comprised only 10 ships by 1332; in emergencies, he still could muster a hundred extra merchant ships. Having failed to gain anything against Serbia, Andronikos III attempted to annex Bulgarian Thrace, but the new tsar Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria defeated Byzantine forces at the Battle of Rusokastro on 18 July 1332. Andronikos III secured peace with Bulgaria by territorial concessions and the marriage of his daughter Maria (renamed Irene) to Ivan Alexander's son, the future Michael Asen IV of Bulgaria.
The Muslim traveler Ibn Battuta visited Constantinople towards the end of 1332 and mentions meeting Andronikos III in his memoirs. Byzantine sources do not attest to the meeting. Stephen Gabrielopoulos, ruler over Thessaly, died circa 1333; taking advantage of the secession crisis, Andronikos III extended Byzantine control over the region. Syrgiannes Palaiologos, entrusted with the governorship of Thessalonica, deserted to the side of king Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia and aided their advance in Macedonia. Serbs soon found themselves in possession of Ohrid, Prilep and Srumitsa. Syrgiannes then directed capture of Kastoria, after this Serbs marched down towards Thessaloniki, soon reaching the city's walls. Byzantines responded with a well-conceived plot. Byzantine general Sphrantzes Palaiologos, posing as a deserter, entered the Serbian camp and killed Syrgiannes Palaiologos. Dušan's plans were seriously upset, for his successes until then had been chiefly owing to Syrgiannes' strategic abilities, knowledge of Byzantine position and his allies who had surrendered fortresses to Serbs. Furthering Dušan's willingness to negotiate was intelligence that Byzantines just repelled a major Turkish raiding party, enabling more Byzantine troops to aid Thessaloniki front and the report that Hungarians were mobilizing to attack Serbia in the north. Serbs agreed to peace on 26 August 1334. Byzantines recognized Serbian gains in Ohrid, Prilep, Strumitsa, Siderokastron, Chermen and Prosek.
Andronikos III meanwhile effected the recovery of Phocaea in 1334 from the last Genoese governor, Domenico Cattaneo. However, this victory failed to stem significantly the Ottoman advance in Asia Minor. Byzantine rule gradually vanished from Anatolia as tribute failed to appease Ottoman sultan Orhan, who took Nicomedia in 1337, leaving only Philadelphia and a handful of ports under Byzantine control. Despite these troubles, Andronikos III took advantage of a secession crisis in the Despotate of Epirus in 1337, regaining Byzantine control from Nikephoros II Orsini. Thessaly was also reconquered by Andronikos III during this period. In 1340, Dušan fell seriously ill. At this critical time, one of Dušan's leading commanders, Hrelja deserted to Byzantines. He could do this because he had possessed holdings right on Byzantine-Serbian border that included region of the middle of Struma river, with Strumitsa and other two other strongly fortified castles near-by. In 1341, the Latin lords of the Peloponnese sent a delegation to Constantinople, seeking to swear allegiance to the Byzantine crown. An ailing Andronikos III then received the Latin delegation on one occasion, shortly before succumbing to an illness on 15 June 1341.
Domestic policy. John Kantakouzenos, "megas domestikos" of Andronikos III and later emperor, wielded effective administrative authority during the reign, while the Emperor personally enjoyed hunting and waging war. Andronikos III also reformed the judiciary through his creation of a panel of four judges, designated "Universal Justices of the Romans". Family. Andronikos III was first married in 1318 with Irene of Brunswick, daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg; she died in 1324. They had an unnamed son, who died shortly after birth in 1321. In 1326, Andronikos III married as his second wife Anna of Savoy, daughter of Amadeus V, Count of Savoy and of his second wife Marie of Brabant, Countess of Savoy. Their marriage produced several children, including: According to the contemporary Byzantine historian Nicephorus Gregoras (–1360), Andronikos also had an illegitimate daughter, Irene Palaiologina of Trebizond, who married emperor Basil of Trebizond and took over the throne of the Empire of Trebizond from 1340 to 1341. The contemporary traveller Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69) also records in his "Rihla" the existence of another daughter, who had been married to Öz Beg Khan of the Golden Horde, and taken the name Bayalun. Ibn Battuta claims to have accompanied her to Constantinople from her husband's court in late 1332 or 1334.
Succession and legacy. Andronikos III died at Constantinople, aged 44, on 15 June 1341, possibly due to chronic malaria, and was buried in the Hodegon Monastery after lying in state at the Hagia Sophia. Historians contend that his reign ended with the Byzantine Empire in a still-tenable situation and generally do not implicate deficiencies in his leadership in its later demise. John V Palaiologos succeeded his father as Byzantine emperor, but at only nine years of age, he required a regent. The energetic campaigns of emperor Andronikos III simply lacked sufficient strength to defeat the imperial enemies and led to several significant Byzantine reverses at the hands of Bulgarians, Serbians, and Ottomans. Andronikos III nevertheless provided active leadership and cooperated with able administrators. Under him, the empire came closest to regaining a position of power in the Balkans and the Greek peninsula after the Fourth Crusade. The loss of a few imperial territories in Anatolia, however, left the Ottoman Turks poised to expand into Europe.
Within a few months after the death of Andronikos III, controversy over the right to exercise the regency over the new emperor John V Palaiologos and the position of John Kantakouzenos as all-powerful chief minister and friend of Andronikos led to the outbreak of the destructive Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, which consumed the resources of the empire and left it in an untenable position. The weakened Byzantine Empire failed to prevent the formation of the Serbian Empire and, more ominously, the Ottoman invasion of Europe.
Andronikos II Palaiologos Andronikos II Palaiologos (; 25 March 1259 – 13 February 1332), Latinized as Andronicus II Palaeologus, reigned as Byzantine emperor from 1282 to 1328. His reign marked the beginning of the recently restored empire's final decline. The Turks conquered most of Byzantium's remaining Anatolian territories, and Andronikos spent the last years of his reign fighting his own grandson in the First Palaiologan Civil War. The war ended in Andronikos' forced abdication in 1328, after which he retired to a monastery for the remainder of his life. Life. Early life. Andronikos was born on 25 March 1259, at Nicaea. He was the eldest surviving son of Michael VIII Palaiologos and Theodora Palaiologina, grandniece of John III Doukas Vatatzes. Andronikos was acclaimed co-emperor in 1261, after his father Michael VIII recovered Constantinople from the Latin Empire, but he was not crowned until 8 November 1272. During their joint rule, he was compelled to support his father's unpopular Church union with the Papacy. Made sole emperor by Michael's death in 1282, Andronikos immediately repudiated the union, but was unable to resolve the related schism within the Orthodox clergy until 1310.
Military campaigns. In 1283, the first military action of Andronikos II's reign occurred, against the town of Demetrias in Thessaly. At the time, Thessaly was ruled by John Doukas, and this attempt was another of many by the Byzantines in an effort to reclaim the region. The protovestiarios Michael Tarchaneiotes led a force to the town where they were met by the fleet under the command of Alexios Raoul and the "megas stratopedarches" John Synadenos. The siege was successful, however an epidemic spread which killed Michael Tarchaneiotes and much of the force. The remaining army had no choice but to abandon the town and withdraw from Thessaly. Upon his ascension to the throne, Andronikos II faced numerous challenges on every front. Financially, his fathers policies were unsustainable, and in 1285 he was forced to dismantle the imperial fleet. This action increased the Empire's maritime dependence on Genoa, which was obligated to aid the Empire as per the Treaty of Nymphaeum. In an effort to improve the treasury's position, Andronikos II devalued the Byzantine "hyperpyron", while the state treasury accumulated less than one seventh the revenue (in nominal coins) that it had previously. Seeking to increase revenue, Andronikos II raised taxes and reduced tax exemptions, exacerbating the economies already precarious positions.
In 1291, Charles II, son of Charles of Anjou, entered into an alliance with the Despot of Epirus Nikephoros I Komnenos Doukas. This alliance reawakened Byzantine fears which had been dormant since the Sicilian Vespers. A Byzantine army was dispatched to Epirus, and in 1292 sieged Ioannina. Simultaneously, a Genoese fleet accompanied by Byzantine soldiers approached the capital of the Despotate, Arta. The army at Ioannina retreated north at the approach of the prince of Achaia, Florent of Hainault. The fleet departed after some raiding in the area. Like the campaign in Thessaly, the war further stretched imperial resources with little to show for it. As a result of its alliance with Genoa, the empire was drawn into a pointless war with Venice between 1296 and 1302. While the Genoese settled with the Venetians in 1299, Andronikos II continued the war in hopes of gaining something from it. By the end of the war in 1302, virtually nothing was changed except the loss of resources desperately needed on other fronts.
Asia Minor. Andronikos II Palaiologos sought to resolve some of the problems facing the Byzantine Empire through diplomacy. After the death of his first wife, Anne of Hungary, he married Yolanda (renamed Irene) of Montferrat, putting an end to the Montferrat claim to the Kingdom of Thessalonica. Andronikos II also attempted to marry off his son and co-emperor Michael IX Palaiologos to the Latin Empress Catherine I of Courtenay, thus seeking to eliminate Western agitation for a restoration of the Latin Empire. Another marriage alliance attempted to resolve the potential conflict with Serbia in Macedonia, as Andronikos II married off his five-year-old daughter Simonis to King Stefan Milutin in 1298. In spite of the resolution of problems in Europe, Andronikos II was faced with the collapse of the Byzantine frontier in Asia Minor, despite the successful, but short, governorships of Alexios Philanthropenos and John Tarchaneiotes. The military victories of Philanthropenos and Tarchaneiotes against the Turks were largely dependent on a considerable contingent of Cretan escapees, or exiles from Venetian-occupied Crete, headed by Hortatzis, whom Michael VIII had repatriated to Byzantium through a treaty agreement with the Venetians ratified in 1277. Andronikos II had resettled those Cretans in the region of Meander river, the southeastern Asia Minor frontier of Byzantium with the Turks.
After the failure of the co-emperor Michael IX to stem the Turkish advance in Asia Minor in 1302 and the disastrous Battle of Bapheus, the Byzantine government hired the Catalan Company of Almogavars (adventurers from Catalonia) led by Roger de Flor to clear Byzantine Asia Minor of the enemy. In spite of some successes, the Catalans were unable to secure lasting gains. Being more ruthless and savage than the enemy they intended to subdue, they quarreled with Michael IX and eventually turned on their Byzantine employers after the murder of Roger de Flor in 1305. Together with a party of willing Turks they devastated Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly on their road to Latin occupied southern Greece. There they conquered the Duchy of Athens and Thebes. Meanwhile, the Anatolian beyliks continued to penetrate Byzantine territory. Prusa fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1326, and by the end of Andronikos II's reign much of Bithynia was in the hands of Osman I and his son and heir Orhan. Karasids conquered Mysia-region with Paleokastron after 1296, Germiyan conquered Simav in 1328, Saruhan captured Magnesia in 1313, and Aydinids captured Smyrna in 1310.
Dethronement and death. The Empire's problems were exploited by Theodore Svetoslav of Bulgaria, who defeated Michael IX and conquered much of northeastern Thrace in . The conflict ended with yet another dynastic marriage, between Michael IX's daughter Theodora and the Bulgarian emperor. The dissolute behavior of Michael IX's son Andronikos III Palaiologos led to a rift in the family, and after Michael IX's death in 1320, Andronikos II disowned his grandson, prompting a civil war that raged, with interruptions, until 1328. The conflict precipitated Bulgarian involvement, and Michael Asen III of Bulgaria attempted to capture Andronikos II under the guise of sending him military support. In 1328 Andronikos III entered Constantinople in triumph and Andronikos II was forced to abdicate. Andronikos II died as a monk at Constantinople in 1332, and was buried in the Lips Monastery (now the Fenari Isa Mosque). He is the only Emperor to have been found still in his tomb. Military policy. The military policy of Andronikos II was fundamentally shaped by the financial constraints of the empire he inherited from Michael VIII. The treasury was empty, and the grand designs of Michael were simply no longer achievable. Nonetheless, Andronikos attempted to continue his father's military policies to the best of his abilities.
Serbia. The Serbian frontier of the empire was said to have been embroiled in intermittent war for over a decade since 1282. Andronikos sent an army there in 1298, though its inability to fight a "guerrilla war" made the Emperor sign a peace with Serbia in the following year, sending his five-year-old daughter Simonis as a bride to Stefan Milutin. Alexios Philanthropenos. The empire's Anatolian holdings, under attack since the 1260s, became the foremost concern of Andronikos; his attention would shift largely away from the west and towards the east. Andronikos frequently toured Anatolia to raise the population's morale and restored many fortresses there, yet this could not stem the massive flows of refugees coming into the empire's European holdings. In 1293, Alexios Philanthropenos was appointed to command and govern all armies in Anatolia, barring the Ionian coast. He was an effective general and would score a series of victories in 1294 and 1295 against the Meander Valley Turks. It was said that so many prisoners were taken as to lower the price of a Turkish slave beneath even that of a sheep.
It was said that so many prisoners were taken as to lower the price of a Turkish slave beneath even that of a sheep. Other Turks surrendered and formed a part of Philanthropenos's army. The victories of Alexios Philanthropenos, in comparison to the central government's otherwise ineffective handling of the Turkish threat combined with high taxation, meant that Alexios would become regarded as the foremost leader, with particular loyalty stemming from his Cretan soldiers. The soldiers from Crete received a salary, but being "settled" in Anatolia probably also held land. It is not known, though, on what conditions they would have received this land. Reluctantly, amid massive popular support, Philanthropenos, in late 1295, accepted the challenge towards Andronikos II. Frightened, Andronikos offered Philanthropenos to become Caesar, though Alexios acted too slowly, and soon his support waned. Libadarios, the Governor of Neokastra and a loyalist of Andronikos, bribed the Cretans to blind and capture Alexios. The Cretans would never be heard of again—though John VI mentions a mysterious village in Thrace said to have been settled by an "army from Crete" before he arrived on the political scene in 1320.
John Tarchaneiotes. Following Philanthropenos, John Tarchaneiotes, a first cousin of Andronikos and an Arsenite, was sent to Anatolia. John was a general, but he was meant not to achieve quick victories but reform the military and economy of the region. It is said that many soldiers had lost their "Pronoia" holdings, while others had increased theirs through bribery of their superiors and stopped serving as soldiers. John sought to end this corruption and would reassess property holdings around the Meander Valley—a process known as "exisosis." John's reforms in Anatolia were marked by success, revitalizing the army and even constructing a small fleet. However he faced opposition from the large landowners of Anatolia who his policies were principally aimed against as well as the Church who condemned him for being a supporter of the deposed Patriarch Arsenios. The enmity faced by Tarchaneiotes boiled over when a small number of "Pronoia" soldiers laid accusations of rebellion against John before the anti-Arsenite bishop of Philadelphia. With these treason charges pending in around 1300, Tarchaneiotes fled to Thessaloniki and joined Andronikos II there. Tarchaneiotes's reforms would be swiftly abandoned under the combined pressure of high clerical and landowner opposition.
The Alans. In late 1301, a group of Alans (a Christian Iranic people) crossed the empire's northern frontier. The Alans, last having fought for the empire in the late 11th century, were fleeing from the Mongol hordes and sought employment in the imperial army. Andronikos seized on this opportunity and hired them as supplemental mercenaries for two planned campaigns into Anatolia. In the spring of 1302, they were supplied with money, provisions, and horses. They would be divided into three groups: One led by the "Megas Hetaireiarches" Theodore Mouzalon to fight the Turks near Nicomedia, another under Michael IX would march south to Magnesia, and the third group being the wives and children of the warriors remained in Thrace. The first group under Mouzalon deserted almost as soon as it crossed into Anatolia — the deserters indiscriminately plundering Byzantine holdings — such that by July 1302, Mouzalon would only have under him a troop of 2,000 soldiers, perhaps half of which were Alans. Soon, a 5,000 strong army of light cavalry appeared between Nicaea and Nikomedia.
The first group under Mouzalon deserted almost as soon as it crossed into Anatolia — the deserters indiscriminately plundering Byzantine holdings — such that by July 1302, Mouzalon would only have under him a troop of 2,000 soldiers, perhaps half of which were Alans. Soon, a 5,000 strong army of light cavalry appeared between Nicaea and Nikomedia. These were led by Osman, the Turkish emir of Bithynia and founder of the Ottoman Empire. Mouzalon would meet Osman on the plains near Mount Bapheus. Mouzalon was defeated and the empire's northwestern Anatolian holdings were ravaged only accelerating the already severe refugee crisis. In April 1302, Michael IX departed for Anatolia with a mixed army of Alans and other troops. His army remained intact until it reached Magnesia on the Hermos. But once there, without fighting a battle, the native Byzantine divisions would begin to desert and the Alans would likewise request permission to abandon the campaign. Michael convinced them to stay another 3 months and sent a request to Constantinople for more funds.
But once there, without fighting a battle, the native Byzantine divisions would begin to desert and the Alans would likewise request permission to abandon the campaign. Michael convinced them to stay another 3 months and sent a request to Constantinople for more funds. After the three months, the Alans refused to stay any longer and departed for Thracian Kallipolis. Michael was left in a dangerous position and fled in secrecy to Pergamon. Once this came out, his army and many of Magnesia's inhabitants followed suit in a scramble for safety. The Alans were eventually convinced to return their horses and weapons to Andronikos and left the empire. Desperation. In 1303, the situation in Anatolia worsened to a point that Andronikos considered the most drastic of reforms that being to take all the lands from churches, monasteries, single monks and the imperial entourage and assign it to soldiers. This would have created more soldiers with more reasons not to desert, and even though there was no notable opposition to this plan the decrepit imperial administration in Anatolia and the ever worsening population flight prevented this from ever being realized.
This would have created more soldiers with more reasons not to desert, and even though there was no notable opposition to this plan the decrepit imperial administration in Anatolia and the ever worsening population flight prevented this from ever being realized. With the ever worsening Anatolian situation the remaining population felt abandoned by Constantinople and occasionally individuals took matters into their own hands. In 1303, amidst the flight of the soldiers, an officer named Kotertzes established an emergency defense and drew to him a following who were “as enemies of his enemies and friends of his friends”. Andronikos was incapable of aiding or stopping Kotertzes or a certain Attaleiates who with popular support seized Magnesia in 1304. Another curiosity was a certain John Choiroboskos named “Pigherd”. He gathered 300 peasants in Thrace wanting to campaign against the Turks in Anatolia. But the empire feared this would lead to a general insurrection and so he was Imprisoned. 9 months later, John fled from jail and together with Anatolian refugees campaigned in the east against the Turks, he was eventually captured in battle but escaped and fled back to Thrace.
9 months later, John fled from jail and together with Anatolian refugees campaigned in the east against the Turks, he was eventually captured in battle but escaped and fled back to Thrace. Having evidently proven himself he was then commissioned by Michael IX who gave him 1,000 peasants to fight the Catalans and Turks who were now in the empire's European holdings. This motley troop however only achieved the plunder of the environs of Thessalonica. Fiscal policy. The economic destitution which plagued the reign of Andronikos II caused him to undertake drastic measures to cut state spending. These cuts included the native army, which was reduced to a near-token force and largely superseded, first by foreign mercenary companies and then by militias. As shown by the failed campaign of Andronikos's co-emperor Michael IX, these inexperienced militiamen made countering the Turkish advance a difficult and dangerous undertaking. For a time the Byzantine navy was completely disbanded, leaving the empire reliant on Genoese and Venetian forces who charged exorbitantly for their service. Many discharged Byzantine sailors and shipbuilders found employment with the Turkomans, who had just reached the western Anatolian coast and sought to build up their own naval forces. The resulting new fleets contributed greatly to the exploding problem of Turkic piracy in the Aegean Sea, ravaging trade routes and coastal lands alike.
In 1320, as a result of heightened taxation and more rigorous policies of collection, Andronikos II was able to raise a total of 1 million Hyperpyra for the budgetary year of 1321. He intended to use the money to expand his army to some 3000 horsemen, and to recreate the Byzantine Navy by building 20 ships. This plan, militarily ambitious though still insufficient for the needs of the empire, was disrupted by Andronikos II's impending civil war with his grandson Andronikos III. For the sake of comparison, the Hyperpyron from 1320 was worth half as much as the undebased Nomisma from the reign of Basil II. Early church policy. As Andronikos broke the church union of his father he also removed many of his church appointments, including the pro-unionist Patriarch John XI. The new, anti-unionist Patriarch Joseph I resigned his office and died the following year, and was replaced by a Cypriot who took the name Gregory II. Andronikos also faced the Arsenite Schism, a movement which was anti-union but otherwise had little common ground with the emperor. Its name was derived from the former Patriarch Arsenios, who was removed from office after excommunicating Michael VIII for having blinded and imprisoned John IV. The Arsenites held that the captive John was the rightful Byzantine Emperor and that the Patriarchs John XI, Joseph I, and now Gregory II were illegitimate.
To try and mend this schism, Gregory called for a church synod to which he invited both the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, asking them to rescind their previous pro-unionist declaration. The Patriarch of Antioch refused, then abdicated from his office and fled to Syria. Gregory also extracted a public avowal from the Empress Theodora, that she would never ask that her deceased husband Michael VIII receive a Christian burial. Though this Synod did much to satisfy the Orthodox Clergy, it failed to do the same with the Arsenites. A few years later Gregory II was forced to resign, as some of his writings were deemed to be heretical. His replacement, chosen by Andronikos in order to distract from an ever-worsening political situation, was an Athonite hermit who took the name Athanasius. The new Patriarch was intensely ascetic, and spent much of his time repudiating clergymen for their earthly possessions; eventually he sought to confiscate property from some of the wealthier churches and monasteries. Many clergymen responded with overt hostility, going as far as pelting him with stones as he walked the streets of Constantinople. Athanasius ceased to appear in public without a bodyguard.
When in the summer of 1293 Andronikos returned from a visit to his swiftly-dwindling Anatolian holdings, he was met by a delegation of leading clergyman who demanded the deposition of Athanasius. Andronikos was unwilling, but the strength of the opposition eventually forced him to comply. Meanwhile, Athanasius personally penned a church bull in which he excommunicated the clergymen who had denounced him, hiding it in a pillar in the northern gallery of Hagia Sophia. It was only found a few years later, causing much uproar. Family. On 8 November 1273 Andronikos II married as his first wife Anna of Hungary, daughter of Stephen V of Hungary and Elizabeth the Cuman, with whom he had two sons: Anna died in 1281, and in 1284 Andronikos married Yolanda (renamed Irene), a daughter of William VII of Montferrat, with whom he had: Andronikos II also had at least three other daughters, illegitimate only in the sense that they married outside their clan. 3 out of 4 daughters of the king married Mongol khans, showcasing the reality of that time.
Andronikos I Komnenos Andronikos I Komnenos (; – 12 September 1185), Latinized as Andronicus I Comnenus, was Byzantine emperor from 1183 to 1185. A nephew of John II Komnenos (1118–1143), Andronikos rose to fame in the reign of his cousin Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), during which his life was marked by political failures, adventures, scandalous romances, and rivalry with the emperor. After Manuel's death in 1180, the elderly Andronikos rose to prominence as the accession of the young Alexios II Komnenos led to power struggles in Constantinople. In 1182, Andronikos seized power in the capital, ostensibly as a guardian of the young emperor. Andronikos swiftly and ruthlessly eliminated his political rivals, including Alexios II's mother and regent, Maria of Antioch. In September 1183, Andronikos was crowned as co-emperor and had Alexios murdered, assuming power in his own name. Andronikos staunchly opposed the powerful Byzantine aristocracy and enacted brutal measures to curb their influence. Although he faced several revolts and the empire became increasingly unstable, his reforms had a favorable effect on the common citizenry. The capture of Thessaloniki by William II of Sicily in 1185 turned the people of Constantinople against Andronikos, who was captured and brutally murdered.
Andronikos was the last Byzantine emperor of the Komnenos dynasty (1081–1185). He was vilified as a tyrant by later Byzantine writers, with one historian calling him "Misophaes" (, ) in reference to the great number of enemies he had blinded. The anti-aristocratic policies pursued by Andronikos destroyed the Komnenian system implemented by his predecessors. His reforms and policies were reversed by the succeeding Angelos dynasty (1185–1204), which contributed to the collapse of imperial central authority. When the Byzantine Empire was temporarily overthrown in the Fourth Crusade (1204), Andronikos' descendants established the Empire of Trebizond, where the Komnenoi continued to rule until 1461. Early life and character. Andronikos Komnenos was born in 1118–1120, the son of the "sebastokrator" Isaac Komnenos and his wife Irene. Andronikos had three siblings: the older brother John and two older sisters, one of which was named Anna. Andronikos was the nephew of the reigning emperor, John II Komnenos (1118–1143), and grew up together with his cousin (and John's successor) Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180).
In 1130, Andronikos's father was involved in a conspiracy against John II while the emperor was away from Constantinople on campaign against the Sultanate of Rum. The conspiracy was uncovered but Isaac and his sons fled the capital and found refuge at the court of the Danishmendid emir Gümüshtigin Ghazi at Melitene. The family spent six years on the run, traveling to Trebizond, Armenian Cilicia, and eventually the Sultanate of Rum, before Isaac reconciled with John II and the emperor forgave him. According to the historian Anthony Kaldellis, Andronikos was "one of the most colorful and versatile personalities of the age". He was tall, handsome, and brave, but a poor strategist, and was known for his good looks, intellect, charm, and elegance. Reign of Manuel I (1143–1180). Imperial career. Manuel I Komnenos began his reign as emperor on good terms with Andronikos. Andronikos showed no signs of treachery towards his cousin and Manuel was fond of his company since the two were of similar age and had grown up together. Andronikos took offence when officials spoke badly of Manuel's governance and was lent Manuel's favorite horse while they were on military campaigns. Similar in personality, the friendship between Manuel and Andronikos only gradually transitioned into rivalry.
Manuel never succeeded in integrating Andronikos into the imperial family power network. Although talented and impressive as a person, Andronikos typically handled tasks entrusted to him carelessly. Relations between Manuel and Andronikos deteriorated in 1148, when Manuel appointed his favorite nephew John Doukas Komnenos as "protovestiarios" and "protosebastos". These appointments were the last in a long line of extraordinary favors given to John and greatly wounded Andronikos, who from then on became involved in various intrigues against the emperor. In 1151–1152, Manuel sent Andronikos with an army against Thoros II of Armenian Cilicia, who had conquered large parts of Byzantine-held Cilicia. The campaign was a dismal failure, as Thoros defeated Andronikos and occupied even more of Cilicia. Andronikos was nevertheless made governor of the portions that remained in imperial control. In the winter of 1152–1153, the imperial court was at Pelagonia in Macedonia, perhaps for recreational hunting. During the stay there, Andronikos slept in the same tent as Eudokia Komnene, Manuel's niece and sister of John Komnenos Doukas, committing incest. When Eudokia's family attempted to catch the two in the act and assassinate Andronikos, he escaped by cutting a hole in the side of the tent with his sword. Manuel criticized the affair but Andronikos answered him that "subjects should always follow their master's example", alluding to well-founded rumors of the emperor himself having an incestuous relationship with Eudokia's sister Theodora.
Andronikos actively conspired against Manuel in the early 1150s, together with Baldwin III of Jerusalem and Mesud I of Rum. He was then removed from his command in Cilicia and transferred to oversee the governance of Branitzova and Naissus in the west. Not long thereafter, Andronikos promised to turn over these towns to Géza II of Hungary in return for aid in seizing the imperial throne. In 1155, Andronikos was imprisoned by Manuel in the imperial palace. According to Niketas Choniates, the imprisonment was a direct result of his plot to usurp the throne with Hungarian aid, and his affair with Eudokia. John Kinnamos, however, claims that Manuel knew of the intrigues and did not punish Andronikos until he uttered death threats to John Komnenos Doukas. Escapes from prison. Andronikos escaped from prison in 1159, while Manuel was away on campaign in Cilicia and Syria. Having discovered an ancient underground passage beneath his cell, he dug his way down using only his hands and managed to conceal the opening so that the guards were unable to find any damage to the cell. The escape was reported to Manuel's wife, Empress Bertha-Irene, and a great search was ordered in Constantinople. In Andronikos's stead, his wife was briefly imprisoned in the same cell. According to Niketas Choniates, Andronikos soon emerged up into the cell again, embraced and had sex with his wife, conceiving his second son John. Andronikos then escaped the capital but was caught in Melangeia in Thrace by a soldier named Nikaias and imprisoned again with stronger chains and more guards.
Andronikos escaped prison for a second time in 1164. He had pretended to be ill and was provided with a boy to see to his physical needs. Andronikos convinced the boy to make wax impressions of the keys to his cell and to bring these impressions to Andronikos's elder son, Manuel. Manuel forged copies of the keys, which the boy used to let Andronikos out. Andronikos spent three days hiding in tall grass near the palace, before trying to flee in a fishing boat alongside a fisherman named Chysochoöpolos. The two were caught by guards, but Andronikos convinced them that he was an escaped slave and was let go out of compassion. Andronikos then made his way to his home, said goodbye to his family, and fled the capital, traveling beyond the Carpathian Mountains. Andronikos first spent some time in Halych, where he was briefly captured by Vlachs from Moldavia who intended to bring him back to Manuel. During his captivity, Andronikos pretended to suffer from infectious diarrhea, requiring frequent stops to dismount and defecate alone and at a distance. One night, he made a dummy out of his cloak, hat, and staff, in the position of a man defecating. While the Vlachs watched the dummy, Andronikos managed to escape. He then made his way to Galicia, where he was well received by Prince Yaroslav Osmomysl.
During his time at Yaroslav's court, Andronikos tried to recruit the Cumans to aid him in an invasion of the Byzantine Empire. Despite these efforts, Manuel sought to reconcile with him and managed to form an anti-Hungarian alliance with Yaroslav. When the Byzantines and Galicians joined forces in a combined invasion of Hungary in the 1160s, Andronikos led a force of Galicians and assisted Manuel during a siege of Semlin. The campaign was a success and Andronikos returned with Manuel to Constantinople. In 1166, Andronikos was removed from court for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to then designated heir, Béla III of Hungary, but was entrusted once again to govern Cilicia. Exile. In 1167, Andronikos deserted his post in Cilicia and traveled to Antioch, where he seduced Philippa of Antioch. Philippa was the sister of both Manuel's second wife Maria and Bohemond III, the reigning prince of Antioch. The affair caused a scandal and threatened to jeopardize Manuel's foreign policy. Bohemond formally complained to the emperor that Andronikos was neglecting his duties in Cilicia and instead dallying with Philippa. Manuel was outraged and immediately recalled Andronikos, replacing him as governor in Cilicia with Constantine Kalamanos. Kalamanos was also dispatched to attempt to wed Philippa. Upon meeting Kalamanos, the princess refused to address him by name, berated him for being short, and derided Manuel as "stupid and simple-minded" for believing she would forsake Andronikos for a man from such an obscure family line. Andronikos refused to return home and instead fled with Philippa to Jerusalem, where King Amalric gave him Beirut as a fief to govern.
Andronikos left Philippa in 1168 and instead seduced the dowager queen Theodora Komnene, widow of Amalric's brother Baldwin III and daughter of Andronikos's cousin Isaac. Theodora was 21 years old at the time. The historian John Julius Norwich has described Theodora as the love of Andronikos's life, though their close relation made them unable to marry. Manuel was furious over this affair as well and again ordered Andronikos to return home. Fearing that Amalric would back Manuel, Andronikos feigned acceptance. He traveled to Acre without Theodora, though she suddenly arrived after him and the two eloped together to the court of Nur al-Din Zengi in Damascus. The arrival of a Byzantine prince and a dowager-queen of Jerusalem in Damascus became a sensation in the Muslim world and they were welcomed with much enthusiasm. Andronikos and Theodora traveled from court to court for several years, making their way through Anatolia and the Caucasus. They were eventually received by George III of Georgia and Andronikos was granted estates in Kakhetia. In 1173 or 1174, Andronikos accompanied George on a military expedition to Shirvan up to the Caspian shores, where the Georgians recaptured the fortress of Shabaran from invaders from Darband for his cousin, the Shirvanshah Akhsitan I.
Andronikos and Theodora eventually settled in Koloneia in northeastern Anatolia, just beyond the frontier of the Byzantine Empire. Their peaceful life there came to an end when imperial officials captured Theodora and their two children and brought them to Constantinople. After over a decade in exile, Andronikos returned to Constantinople in 1180 and theatrically pleaded for forgiveness from Manuel with a chain around his neck, begging that Theodora and the children be returned. The two reconciled, and Andronikos was sent to govern Paphlagonia, where he lived with Theodora in a castle on the Black Sea coast. The arrangement was understood as internal exile and peaceful retirement. Theodora's ultimate fate is not known, though she likely died before Andronikos's return to imperial politics in 1182. Reign of Alexios II (1180–1183). Power struggle. Manuel died on 24 September 1180 and the throne was inherited by his eleven-year-old son, Alexios II Komnenos. A regency was set up for the young emperor, led by Manuel's widow, Maria of Antioch. Manuel had made his officials and nobles swear to obey Maria as regent, on the condition that she became a nun (which she did) and guarded the honor of the empire and their son. Maria was supported by Patriarch Theodosios Borradiotes and the "prōtosebastos" Alexios Komnenos, a nephew of Manuel. Despite this, she was in a dangerous position. She was of Latin (i.e. Catholic/Western European) origin and regent for a minor with ambitious relatives. Manuel had throughout his reign sought to integrate the empire into the world of the Latin states in the West and Levant through diplomacy. His efforts were largely unsuccessful, as Latin polities began to regard themselves as having a say in imperial politics and anti-Latin sentiment grew among the populace of the empire.
Maria of Antioch was young and beautiful, leading to power struggles between officials who sought her favor. Little political attention was given to Alexios II, who as a child was devoted entirely to pursuits such as chariot races and hunting. The perceived pro-Latin stance of the regency and rumors that Maria and Alexios the "prōtosebastos" were lovers, as well as suspicions that the "prōtosebastos" planned to seize the throne for himself, led to the formation of a court faction opposed to the regency. Some of Maria's supporters also began to abandon her as the favors they sought were increasingly given to the "prōtosebastos". The opposition was led by Manuel's daughter, Maria Komnene, her husband Renier of Montferrat, and Manuel's illegitimate son Alexios. In early 1181, a plot to assassinate the "prōtosebastos" was uncovered and many were arrested. Maria Komnene and Renier sought asylum in the Hagia Sophia and were supported by Patriarch Theodosios and the clergy. The two conspirators turned the church into a stronghold and issued demands that the "prōtosebastos" be removed from office and that those arrested should be released. The citizenry of Constantinople were split between the two factions. Clashes erupted throughout the capital, lasting for two months. Maria Komnene, supported by the clergy, portrayed her revolt against the regency as a holy war. With the government focused on the power struggle, the empire swiftly lost territory to foreign enemies. Béla III of Hungary conquered Dalmatia and Sirmium, and Kilij Arslan II of Rum conquered Sozopolis and besieged Attaleia.
Peace was brokered in the capital by the "megas doux" Andronikos Kontostephanos and the patriarch but the conflict was not resolved. In 1182, Maria Komnene and other nobles sent for Andronikos in Paphlagonia, inviting him to the capital to assume the protection of Alexios II. Andronikos was by this time in his early sixties and regarded by some as an elder statesman. Because of his exile away from the affairs in the capital, he was seen as an impartial outsider who could champion the young emperor's best interests. Maria Komnene could also assume that he would be supportive of her since Andronikos's sons Manuel and John had been involved in her revolt. In the spring of 1182, Andronikos assembled an army and marched on Constantinople. He portrayed himself as a champion of Alexios II, accused Maria of Antioch and the "prōtosebastos" of conspiracy, and falsely claimed that Manuel had appointed him as one of Alexios II's regents. The general Andronikos Angelos was sent to intercept Andronikos but was defeated, fled back to Constantinople, and quickly defected to Andronikos out of fear of his failure being punished. Once Andronikos reached the Bosporus, public opinion in Constantinople was firmly on his side. The "prōtosebastos" organized a fleet to stop Andronikos, led by Kontostephanos, though Kontostephanos likewise defected to the rebel's side.
Regent in Constantinople. With no military forces left to oppose Andronikos, the "prōtosebastos" was taken captive and taken across the Bosporus to Andronikos's camp, where he was blinded. Andronikos then ferried his troops to the city and took control virtually without opposition. He almost immediately made his way to the Pantokrator Monastery, apparently to pay his respects to the tomb of Manuel. Soon after Andronikos gained control of Constantinople in April 1182, the Massacre of the Latins erupted in the city. Andronikos made no effort to stop the pogroms, instead referring to them as a "defeat of the tyranny of the Latins" and a "restoration of Roman affairs". There is no evidence that Andronikos was particularly anti-Latin on a personal level but the massacre was politically useful since anti-Latin sentiment had helped bring him to power and because many Latins in the city had supported Maria of Antioch's regency. The bulk of Constantinople's Latin population were either killed or forced to flee and the Latin quarters were plundered and set on fire. According to Eustathius of Thessalonica, approximately 60,000 people were killed though this number is likely exaggerated. A papal delegate visiting Constantinople was decapitated and his head was tied to the tail of a dog.
In May, Patriarch Theodosios formally handed Constantinople over to Andronikos. The patriarch and Andronikos ensured that Alexios II was formally crowned as emperor on 16 May 1182. Andronikos carried the young emperor into Hagia Sophia on his shoulders and acted as a devoted supporter. Andronikos soon dealt with his political rivals as well as all major schemers during Maria of Antioch's regency, including those who had supported him. The blinded "prōtosebastos" was exiled to a monastery. Both Maria Komnene and Renier of Montferrat were poisoned within a few months. Andronikos Kontostephanos was suspected of conspiracy and blinded alongside his four sons in the summer of 1183. Maria of Antioch remained an obstacle since she was legally appointed as regent. Andronikos had Patriarch Theodosios agree on expelling her from the palace and then had her prosecuted for treason on the basis that she had asked her brother-in-law, Béla III of Hungary, for help. Found guilty, Maria was imprisoned and Andronikos had Alexios II sign a document condemning her to death. The empress was strangled to death and subjected to "damnatio memoriae", with her portraits in public places being replaced with imagery of Andronikos.
In the place of Manuel's officials, Andronikos raised up his own loyalists, such as Michael Haploucheir and Stephen Hagiochristophorites. The execution of Maria of Antioch left the young Alexios II without protection. Andronikos had some of the clergy formally absolve him of his oaths to Manuel and Alexios II and was crowned as co-emperor in September 1183. Soon thereafter, Alexios II was strangled and his body was thrown in the sea, encased in lead. Just over a year after taking power as the young emperor's guardian, Andronikos had thus had him suppressed and killed and now ruled in his own name. Reign (1183–1185). Andronikos's assumption of sole power rapidly plunged the empire into further instability. The elimination of Alexios II made Andronikos dependent on a power base bound only to him through self-interest. In Alexios's place, Andronikos in November 1183 named his son John as co-emperor and heir. The choice likely fell on the younger John rather than the older son, Manuel, since John was considered more loyal and his name adhered to the AIMA prophecy. One of the only members of the previous immediate imperial family to survive Andronikos's rise to power was Agnes of France, Alexios II's young French wife. To increase his legitimacy, the elderly Andronikos controversially married the eleven-year-old empress.
Andronikos concentrated his political efforts on internal affairs and was determined to curtail the power of the aristocracy and stop corruption, returning absolute control of the state to the hands of the emperor. Under the preceding Komnenoi emperors, regional magnates had acquired vast power, managing their administrations at will and exploiting peasants and common citizens. Although often brutal, Andronikos was generally successful in his anti-aristocratic measures and his policies had a favorable effect on the citizenry. Because the emperor directly endangered their positions, aristocrats were uncooperative and many rose in revolt, in turn being suppressed with cruelty and terror. The situation soon evolved into a reign of terror where even suspicion of disloyalty could result in disgrace and execution. There were imperial spies everywhere, night arrests, and sham trials. Andronikos's purges were not limited to Constantinople. In the spring of 1184, the emperor marched into Anatolia to punish the cities of Nicaea and Prusa, which opposed his accession. The rebels included the aristocrat Isaac Angelos and his family. During the siege, Andronikos had Isaac's mother Euphrosyne placed on top of a battering ram to deter the defenders from trying to destroy it. After Prusa was taken by storm, several of the defenders were impaled outside the city walls, though Isaac was spared due to surrendering in return for immunity.
Other than his brutal suppression of aristocrats, Andronikos attempted to put sensible policies in place to secure the well-being of the peasantry and provincial administration of the empire. The taxation system was overhauled in an attempt to root out corruption and ensure that only regular taxes were paid (and not surcharges imposed by tax farmers). He further legislated that offices for collecting revenue were to be awarded based on merit and not sold to the highest bidder. Andronikos was receptive to accusations against aristocrats by the common people and the prosperity of the provincial population increased under his rule. The emperor actively responded to complaints of inequality and corruption, and tried to shorten the gap between the provinces and the capital, seeking to solve problems that had originated in Manuel's pro-aristocratic reign. The brutality enacted against the ruling class caused the alliances built up under Manuel in the Balkans to fall apart. Béla III of Hungary invaded the empire in 1183, posing as an avenger of Maria of Antioch, but was driven away in 1184. During this conflict, Stefan Nemanja managed to secure Serbian independence from the empire. The suppression of aristocrats and rivals, some of whom were Andronikos's family members, led to many Byzantine nobles fleeing the empire in search of aid. Komnenian princelings are recorded as having approached figures such as the king of Hungary, the sultan of Rum, the marquis of Montferrat, the pope, the king of Jerusalem, and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa with pleas of intervention, stirring up further trouble against the empire. In 1184, Andronikos's cousin Isaac Komnenos seized Cyprus and ruled there independently; in retaliation, Andronikos had two of Isaac's relatives stoned and impaled.
Downfall and death. In 1185, the "pinkernēs" Alexios Komnenos, a great-nephew of Manuel, approached William II of Sicily with a request for aid against Andronikos. William invaded the Byzantine Empire and successfully captured both Dyrrhachium and Thessaloniki in the name of a young man pretending to be Alexios II. The capture of Thessaloniki in August 1185 was followed by a brutal sack of the city, portrayed by the chronicler William of Tyre as if the Sicilians were "making war on God himself", and as revenge for the Massacre of the Latins. With Thessaloniki captured, the Sicilians turned their eyes towards Constantinople. The war, however, slowly shifted in Andronikos's favor. The Byzantines successfully split up the invaders into several smaller forces and were slowing down their advance eastwards. Despite beginning to turn the tide, the atmosphere in Constantinople was tense and fearful and the fall of Thessaloniki had turned the common people of the city, previously strong supporters of Andronikos, against the emperor.
During this time, Andronikos sent Stephen Hagiochristophorites to arrest the earlier rebel Isaac Angelos, who was a matrilineal relative of the Komnenos dynasty. Isaac panicked, killed Hagiochristophorites, and sought refuge in the Hagia Sophia. Finding himself at the center of popular demonstrations against Andronikos, Isaac unwittingly became the champion of an uprising and was proclaimed emperor. Andronikos tried to flee Constantinople in a boat but was captured and brought to Isaac. Isaac handed Andronikos over to the incensed people of Constantinople. Andronikos was tied to a post and brutally beaten for three days. Alongside numerous other punishments, his right hand was cut off, his teeth and hair were pulled out, one of his eyes was gouged out, and boiling water was thrown in his face. Andronikos was then taken to the Hippodrome, where he was hung by his feet between two pillars. Two Latin soldiers competed over whose sword could penetrate his body more deeply, and Andronikos's body was eventually torn apart. According to Niketas Choniates, Andronikos endured the brutality bravely, and retained his senses throughout the ordeal. He died on 12 September 1185, and his remains were left unburied and visible for several years afterwards. At the news of Andronikos's death, his son and co-emperor John was murdered by his own troops in Thrace.
Family. Andronikos was married twice and had numerous mistresses. He had three children with his first wife, whose name is not recorded: Andronikos had no children with his second wife, Agnes of France, nor any known illegitimate children with any of his mistresses other than his long-term partner Theodora Komnene, with whom he had two: Legacy. Andronikos's fall from power ended the rule of the Komnenos dynasty, which had governed the Byzantine Empire since 1081. He was vilified as a tyrant in Byzantine writings after his death. The later Angeloi emperors made it official imperial policy that Andronikos had been a tyrant, echoed in all texts addressed to them or their officials. This policy included changing earlier texts; in the writings of Theodore Balsamon, for instance, all references to Andronikos as "basileus" (emperor) were replaced by "tyrannos". Nicetas Choniates, a contemporary historian, called Andronikos "Misophaes" (, ) in reference to the great number of enemies he had blinded. The earlier Komnenoi emperors had instituted the Komnenian system of administration, family rule, and financial and military obligations. This system allowed the empire to achieve prosperity and some internal stability. It also greatly increased the power and wealth of the landowning provincial aristocracy. Aristocrats had become able to run their administrations at will, exploit common citizens, and withhold funds from the central government to use for their own purposes. At its extreme, this could allow for independent local governments, such as that of Isaac Komnenos in Cyprus and the later realm ruled by Leo Sgouros in the Peloponnese. The power and abuses of the aristocracy was a very real issue, recognized by Andronikos, which ultimately contributed to the empire's catastrophic decline after his death.
Through his reforms and brutal suppression, Andronikos destroyed the Komnenian system, though his death ended all attempts to curb the power of the aristocracy. Over the course of the subsequent Angelos dynasty, aristocratic power instead increased and the empire's central authority collapsed. Though blame for Byzantine decline has in the past been levied at Andronikos's brutal rule, his brutal efforts did little damage to the empire's long-term stability since they were largely confined to the ruling class, mostly in Constantinople itself. His domestic reforms were largely sensible, though imposed too hastily, and his brutal fall from power after a short reign stopped any chance of repairing the system. The Angeloi emperors, Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) and Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203), faced problems of manpower directly resulting from the increasingly decentralized empire. The historian Paul Magdalino suggested in 1993 that Andronikos's reign saw the setting of the precedents that allowed the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) to transpire, including an increasingly anti-Latin foreign policy as well as the phenomenon of relatives of the imperial family traveling abroad in the hope of securing foreign intervention in imperial politics.
Andronicus of Cyrrhus Andronicus of Cyrrhus or Andronicus Cyrrhestes (Latin; , "Andrónikos Kyrrhēstēs"; ) was a Macedonian astronomer best known for designing the Tower of the Winds in Roman Athens. Life. Little is known about the life of Andronicus, although his father is recorded as Hermias. It is usually assumed that he came from the Cyrrhus in Macedonia rather than the one in Syria. Work. Andronicus is usually credited with the construction of the Tower of the Winds in the Roman forum at Athens around a considerable portion of which still exists. It is octagonal, with figures of the eight principal winds (Anemoi) carved on the appropriate side. Originally, a bronze figure of Triton was placed on the summit that was turned round by the wind so that the rod in his hand pointed to the correct wind direction, an idea replicated with subsequent wind vanes. The interior housed a large clepsydra and there were multiple sundials on the exterior, so that it functioned as a kind of early clocktower. He also built a multifaced sundial for the Temple of Poseidon on the island of Tinos.
Andronicus of Rhodes Andronikos of Rhodes (; ; ) was a Greek philosopher from Rhodes who was also the scholarch (head) of the Peripatetic school. He is most famous for publishing a new edition of the works of Aristotle that forms the basis of the texts that survive today. Life. Little is known about Andronicus' life. He is reported to have been the eleventh scholarch of the Peripatetic school. He taught in Rome, about 58 BC, and was the teacher of Boethus of Sidon, with whom Strabo studied. Works of Aristotle. Andronicus is of special interest in the history of philosophy, from the statement of Plutarch, that he published a new edition of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus, which formerly belonged to the library of Apellicon, and were brought to Rome by Sulla with the rest of Apellicon's library in 84. Tyrannion commenced this task, but apparently did not do much towards it. The arrangement which Andronicus made of Aristotle's writings seems to be the one which forms the basis of our present editions and we are probably indebted to him for the preservation of a large number of Aristotle's works.
Writings. Andronicus wrote a work upon Aristotle, the fifth book of which contained a complete list of the philosopher's writings, and he also wrote commentaries upon the "Physics", "Ethics", and "Categories". None of these works are currently known to be extant. Two treatises are sometimes erroneously attributed to him, one "On Emotions", the other a commentary on Aristotle's "Ethics" (really by Constantine Paleocappa in the 16th century, or by John Callistus of Thessalonica).
Andronicus Andronicus or Andronikos () is a classical Greek name. The name has the sense of "male victor, warrior". Its female counterpart is Andronikè (Ἀνδρονίκη). Notable bearers of the name include:
Ammianus Marcellinus Ammianus Marcellinus, occasionally anglicized as Ammian (Greek: Αμμιανός Μαρκελλίνος; born , died 400), was a Greek and Roman soldier and historian who wrote the penultimate major historical account surviving from antiquity (preceding Procopius). Written in Latin and known as the "Res gestae", his work chronicled the history of Rome from the accession of Emperor Nerva in 96 to the death of Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. Only the sections covering the period 353 to 378 survive. Biography. Ammianus was born in the East Mediterranean, possibly in Syria or Phoenicia, around 330, into a noble family of Greek origin. Since he calls himself "Graecus" ( Greek), he was most likely born in a Greek-speaking area of the empire. His native language was Greek, but he also knew Latin. The surviving books of his history cover the years 353 to 378. Ammianus began his career as a military officer in the Praetorian Guard, where he gained firsthand experience in various military campaigns. He served as an officer in the army of the emperors Constantius II and Julian. He served in Gaul (Julian) and in the east (twice for Constantius, once under Julian). He professes to have been "a former soldier and a Greek" ("miles quondam et graecus"), and his enrollment among the elite "protectors domestic" (household guards) shows that he was of the middle class or higher birth. Consensus is that Ammianus probably came from a curial family, but it is also possible that he was the son of a "comes Orientis" of the same family name. He entered the army at an early age, when Constantius II was emperor of the East, and was sent to serve under Ursicinus, governor of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, and "magister militum". Ammianus campaigned in the East twice under Ursicinus.
He traveled with Ursicinus to Italy in an expedition against Silvanus, an officer who had proclaimed himself emperor in Gaul. Ursicinus ended the threat by having Silvanus assassinated, then stayed in the region to help install Julian as Caesar of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ammianus probably met Julian for the first time while serving on Ursicinus' staff in Gaul. In 359, Constantius sent Ursicinus back to the east to help in the defense against a Persian invasion led by King Shapur II himself. Ammianus returned with his commander to the East and again served Ursicinus as a staff officer. Ursicinus, although he was the more experienced commander, was placed under the command of Sabinianus, the "Magister Peditum" of the east. The two did not get along, resulting in a lack of cooperation between the Limitanei (border regiments) of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene under Ursicinus' command and the "comitatus" (field army) of Sabinianus. While on a mission near Nisibis, Ammianus spotted a Persian patrol which was about to try and capture Ursicinus, and warned his commander in time. In an attempt to locate the Persian Royal Army, Ursicinus sent Ammianus to Jovinianus, the semi-independent governor of Corduene, and a friend of Ursicinus. Ammianus successfully located the Persian main body and reported his findings to Ursicinus.
After his mission in Corduene, Ammianus left the headquarters at Amida in the retinue of Ursinicus, who was on a mission to make sure the bridges across the Euphrates were demolished. They were attacked by the Persian vanguard, who had made a night march in an attempt to catch the Romans at Amida unprepared. After a protracted cavalry battle, the Romans were scattered; Ursicinus evaded capture and fled to Melitene, while Ammianus made a difficult journey back to Amida with a wounded comrade. The Persians besieged and eventually sacked Amida, and Ammianus barely escaped with his life. When Ursicinus was dismissed from his military post by Constantius, Ammianus too seems to have retired from the military; however, reevaluation of his participation in Julian's Persian campaign has led modern scholarship to suggest that he continued his service but did not for some reason include the period in his history. He accompanied Julian, for whom he expresses enthusiastic admiration, in his campaigns against the Alamanni and the Sassanids.
After Julian's death, Ammianus accompanied the retreat of the new emperor, Jovian, as far as Antioch. He was residing in Antioch in 372 when a certain Theodorus was thought to have been identified as the successor to the emperor Valens by divination. Speaking as an alleged eyewitness, Marcellinus recounts how Theodorus and several others were made to confess their deceit through the use of torture, and cruelly punished. He eventually settled in Rome and began the "Res gestae". The precise year of his death is unknown, but scholarly consensus places it somewhere between 392 and 400 at the latest. Modern scholarship generally describes Ammianus as a pagan who was tolerant of Christianity. Marcellinus writes of Christianity as being a "plain and simple" religion that demands only what is just and mild, and when he condemns the actions of Christians, he does not do so based on their Christianity as such. His lifetime was marked by lengthy outbreaks of sectarian and dogmatic strife within the new state-backed faith, often with violent consequences (especially the Arian controversy) and these conflicts sometimes appeared unworthy to him, though it was territory where he could not risk going very far in criticism, due to the growing and volatile political connections between the church and imperial power.
Ammianus was not blind to the faults of Christians or of pagans and was especially critical of them; he commented that "no wild beasts are so hostile to men as Christian sects, in general, are to one another" and he condemns the emperor Julian for excessive attachment to (pagan) sacrifice, and for his edict effectively barring Christians from teaching posts. Work. While living in Rome in the 380s, Ammianus wrote a Latin history of the Roman empire from the accession of Nerva (96) to the death of Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (378), in effect writing a continuation of the history of Tacitus. At 22.16.12, he praises the Serapeum of Alexandria in Egypt as the glory of the empire, so his work was presumably completed before the destruction of that building in 391. The "Res gestae" ("Rerum gestarum libri XXXI") was originally composed of thirty-one books, but the first thirteen have been lost. The surviving eighteen books, covering the period from 353 to 378, constitute the foundation of modern understanding of the history of the fourth-century Roman Empire. They are lauded as a clear, comprehensive, and generally impartial account of events by a contemporary; like many ancient historians, however, Ammianus was in fact not impartial, although he expresses an intention to be so, and had strong moral and religious prejudices. Although criticized as lacking literary merit by his early biographers, he was in fact quite skilled in rhetoric, which significantly has brought the veracity of some of the "Res gestae" into question.
His work has suffered substantially from manuscript transmission. Aside from the loss of the first thirteen books, the remaining eighteen are in many places corrupt and lacunose. The sole surviving manuscript from which almost every other is derived is a ninth-century Carolingian text, Vatican lat. 1873 ("V"), produced in Fulda from an insular exemplar. The only independent textual source for Ammianus lies in Fragmenta Marbugensia ("M"), another ninth-century Frankish codex which was taken apart to provide covers for account-books during the fifteenth century. Only six leaves of "M" survive; however, before this manuscript was dismantled the Abbot of Hersfeld lent the manuscript to Sigismund Gelenius, who used it in preparing the text of the second Froben edition ("G"). The dates and relationship of V and M were long disputed until 1936 when R. P. Robinson demonstrated persuasively that V was copied from M. As L. D. Reynolds summarizes, "M is thus a fragment of the archetype; symptoms of an insular pre-archetype are evident."
His handling from his earliest printers was little better. The "editio princeps" was printed in 1474 in Rome by Georg Sachsel and Bartholomaeus Golsch, which broke off at the end of Book 26. The next edition (Bologna, 1517) suffered from its editor's conjectures upon the poor text of the 1474 edition; the 1474 edition was pirated for the first Froben edition (Basle, 1518). It was not until 1533 that the last five books of Ammianus' history were put into print by Silvanus Otmar and edited by Mariangelus Accursius. The first modern edition was produced by C.U. Clark (Berlin, 1910–1913). The first English translations were by Philemon Holland in 1609, and later by C.D. Yonge in 1862. Reception. Edward Gibbon judged Ammianus "an accurate and faithful guide, who composed the history of his own times without indulging the prejudices and passions which usually affect the mind of a contemporary." But he also condemned Ammianus for lack of literary flair: "The coarse and undistinguishing pencil of Ammianus has delineated his bloody figures with tedious and disgusting accuracy." Austrian historian Ernst Stein praised Ammianus as "the greatest literary genius that the world produced between Tacitus and Dante".
According to Kimberly Kagan, his accounts of battles emphasize the experience of the soldiers but at the cost of ignoring the bigger picture. As a result, it is difficult for the reader to understand why the battles he describes had the outcome they did. Ammianus' work contains a detailed description of the earthquake and tsunami of 365 in Alexandria, which devastated the metropolis and the shores of the eastern Mediterranean on 21 July 365. His report describes accurately the characteristic sequence of earthquake, retreat of the sea, and sudden incoming giant wave.
Apollo 13 Apollo 13 (April 1117, 1970) was the seventh crewed mission in the Apollo space program and would have been the third Moon landing. The craft was launched from Kennedy Space Center on April 11, 1970, but the landing was aborted after an oxygen tank in the service module (SM) exploded two days into the mission, disabling its electrical and life-support system. The crew, supported by backup systems on the lunar module (LM), instead looped around the Moon in a circumlunar trajectory and returned safely to Earth on April 17. The mission was commanded by Jim Lovell, with Jack Swigert as command module (CM) pilot and Fred Haise as Lunar Module (LM) pilot. Swigert was a late replacement for Ken Mattingly, who was grounded after exposure to rubella. A routine stir of an oxygen tank ignited damaged wire insulation inside it, causing an explosion that vented the contents of both of the SM's oxygen tanks to space. Without oxygen, needed for breathing and for generating electric power, the SM's propulsion and life support systems could not operate. The CM's systems had to be shut down to conserve its remaining resources for reentry, forcing the crew to transfer to the LM as a lifeboat. With the lunar landing canceled, mission controllers worked to bring the crew home alive.
Although the LM was designed to support two men on the lunar surface for two days, Mission Control in Houston improvised new procedures so it could support three men for four days. The crew experienced great hardship, caused by limited power, a chilly and wet cabin and a shortage of potable water. There was a critical need to adapt the CM's cartridges for the carbon dioxide scrubber system to work in the LM; the crew and mission controllers were successful in improvising a solution. The astronauts' peril briefly renewed public interest in the Apollo program; tens of millions watched the splashdown in the South Pacific Ocean on television. An investigative review board found fault with preflight testing of the oxygen tank and Teflon being placed inside it. The board recommended changes, including minimizing the use of potentially combustible items inside the tank; this was done for Apollo 14. The story of Apollo 13 has been dramatized several times, most notably in the 1995 film "Apollo 13" based on "Lost Moon", the 1994 memoir co-authored by Lovell – and an episode of the 1998 miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".
Background. In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation to land an astronaut on the Moon by the end of the decade, with a safe return to Earth. NASA worked towards this goal incrementally, sending astronauts into space during Project Mercury and Project Gemini, leading up to the Apollo program. The goal was achieved with Apollo 11, which landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the lunar surface while Michael Collins orbited the Moon in Command Module "Columbia". The mission returned to Earth on July 24, 1969, fulfilling Kennedy's challenge. NASA had contracted for fifteen Saturn V rockets to achieve the goal; at the time no one knew how many missions this would require. Since success was obtained in 1969 with the sixth SaturnV on Apollo 11, nine rockets remained available for a hoped-for total of ten landings. After the excitement of Apollo 11, the general public grew apathetic towards the space program and Congress continued to cut NASA's budget; Apollo 20 was canceled. Despite the successful lunar landing, the missions were considered so risky that astronauts could not afford life insurance to provide for their families if they died in space.
Even before the first U.S. astronaut entered space in 1961, planning for a centralized facility to communicate with the spacecraft and monitor its performance had begun, for the most part the brainchild of Christopher C. Kraft Jr., who became NASA's first flight director. During John Glenn's Mercury "Friendship 7" flight in February 1962 (the first crewed orbital flight by the U.S.), one of Kraft's decisions was overruled by NASA managers. He was vindicated by post-mission analysis and implemented a rule that, during the mission, the flight director's word was absolute – to overrule him, NASA would have to fire him on the spot. Flight directors during Apollo had a one-sentence job description, "The flight director may take any actions necessary for crew safety and mission success." Houston's Mission Control Center was opened in 1965. It was in part designed by Kraft and now named for him. In Mission Control, each flight controller, in addition to monitoring telemetry from the spacecraft, was in communication via voice loop to specialists in a Staff Support Room (or "back room"), who focused on specific spacecraft systems.
Apollo 13 was to be the second H mission, meant to demonstrate precision lunar landings and explore specific sites on the Moon. With Kennedy's goal accomplished by Apollo 11, and Apollo 12 demonstrating that the astronauts could perform a precision landing, mission planners were able to focus on more than just landing safely and having astronauts minimally trained in geology gather lunar samples to take home to Earth. There was a greater role for science on Apollo 13, especially for geology, something emphasized by the mission's motto, "Ex luna, scientia" (From the Moon, knowledge). Astronauts and key Mission Control personnel. Apollo 13's mission commander, Jim Lovell, was 42 years old at the time of the spaceflight. He was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and had been a naval aviator and test pilot before being selected for the second group of astronauts in 1962; he flew with Frank Borman in Gemini 7 in 1965 and Buzz Aldrin in Gemini 12 the following year before flying in Apollo 8 in 1968, the first spacecraft to orbit the Moon. At the time of Apollo 13, Lovell was the NASA astronaut with the most time in space, with 572 hours over the three missions.
Jack Swigert, the command module pilot (CMP), was 38 years old and held a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aerospace science; he had served in the Air Force and in state Air National Guards and was an engineering test pilot before being selected for the fifth group of astronauts in 1966. Fred Haise, the Lunar Module pilot (LMP), was 36 years old. He held a B.S. in aeronautical engineering, had been a Marine Corps fighter pilot, and was a civilian research pilot for NASA when he was selected as a Group5 astronaut. According to the standard Apollo crew rotation, the prime crew for Apollo 13 would have been the backup crew for Apollo 10, with Mercury and Gemini veteran Gordon Cooper in command, Donn F. Eisele as CMP and Edgar Mitchell as LMP. Deke Slayton, NASA's Director of Flight Crew Operations, never intended to rotate Cooper and Eisele to a prime crew assignment, as both were out of favorCooper for his lax attitude towards training, and Eisele for incidents aboard Apollo7 and an extramarital affair. He assigned them to the backup crew because no other veteran astronauts were available. Slayton's original choices for Apollo 13 were Alan Shepard as commander, Stuart Roosa as CMP, and Mitchell as LMP. However, management felt Shepard needed more training time, as he had only recently resumed active status after surgery for an inner ear disorder and had not flown since 1961. Thus, Lovell's crew (himself, Haise and Ken Mattingly), having all backed up Apollo 11 and being slated for Apollo 14, was swapped with Shepard's.
Swigert was originally CMP of Apollo 13's backup crew, with John Young as commander and Charles Duke as lunar module pilot. Seven days before launch, Duke contracted rubella from his son's friend. This exposed both the prime and backup crews, who trained together. Of the five, only Mattingly was not immune through prior exposure. Normally, if any member of the prime crew had to be grounded, the remaining crew would be replaced as well, and the backup crew substituted, but Duke's illness ruled this out, so two days before launch, Mattingly was replaced by Swigert. Mattingly never developed rubella and later flew on Apollo 16. For Apollo, a third crew of astronauts, known as the support crew, was designated in addition to the prime and backup crews used on projects Mercury and Gemini. Slayton created the support crews because James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the US, meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Support crew members were to assist as directed by the mission commander. Usually low in seniority, they assembled the mission's rules, flight plan, and checklists, and kept them updated; for Apollo 13, they were Vance D. Brand, Jack Lousma and either William Pogue or Joseph Kerwin.
For Apollo 13, flight directors were Gene Kranz, White team (the lead flight director); Glynn Lunney, Black team; Milton Windler, Maroon team and Gerry Griffin, Gold team. The CAPCOMs (the person in Mission Control, during the Apollo program an astronaut, who was responsible for voice communications with the crew) for Apollo 13 were Kerwin, Brand, Lousma, Young and Mattingly. Mission insignia and call signs. The Apollo 13 mission insignia depicts the Greek god of the Sun, Apollo, with three horses pulling his chariot across the face of the Moon, and the Earth seen in the distance. This is meant to symbolize the Apollo flights bringing the light of knowledge to all people. The mission motto, "Ex luna, scientia" ("From the Moon, knowledge"), appears. In choosing it, Lovell adapted the motto of his alma mater, the Naval Academy, "Ex scientia, tridens" ("From knowledge, sea power"). On the patch, the mission number appeared in Roman numerals as Apollo XIII. It did not have to be modified after Swigert replaced Mattingly, as it is one of only two Apollo mission insigniathe other being Apollo 11not to include the names of the crew. It was designed by artist Lumen Martin Winter, who based it on a mural he had painted for the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The mural was later purchased by actor Tom Hanks, who portrayed Lovell in the movie "Apollo 13", and it is now in the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Illinois.
The mission's motto was in Lovell's mind when he chose the call sign "Aquarius" for the lunar module, taken from Aquarius, the bringer of water. Some in the media erroneously reported that the call sign was taken from a song by that name from the musical "Hair". The command module's call sign, "Odyssey", was chosen not only for its Homeric association but to refer to the recent film, "", based on a short story by science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. In his book, Lovell indicated he chose the name "Odyssey" because he liked the word and its definition: a long voyage with many changes of fortune. Due to the accident and the last minute crew change of Jack Swigert replacing Ken Mattingly three days prior to launch, the Apollo 13 Robbins medallions flown aboard the mission were melted down and reminted after the mission to reflect the correct crew, and the absence of a lunar landing date. Space vehicle. The Saturn V rocket used to carry Apollo 13 to the Moon was numbered SA-508, and was almost identical to those used on Apollo8 through 12. Including the spacecraft, the rocket weighed in at . The S-IC first stage's engines were rated to generate less total thrust than Apollo 12's, though they remained within specifications. To keep its liquid hydrogen propellent cold, the S-II second stage's cryogenic tanks were insulated; on earlier Apollo missions this came in the form of panels that were affixed, but beginning with Apollo 13, insulation was sprayed onto the exterior of the tanks. Extra propellant was carried as a test, since future J missions to the Moon would require more propellant for their heavier payloads. This made the vehicle the heaviest yet flown by NASA, and Apollo 13 was visibly slower to clear the launch tower than earlier missions.
The Apollo 13 spacecraft consisted of Command Module 109 and Service Module 109 (together CSM-109), called "Odyssey", and Lunar Module7 (LM-7), called "Aquarius". Also considered part of the spacecraft was the launch escape system, which would propel the command module (CM) to safety in the event of a problem during liftoff, and the Spacecraft–LM Adapter, numbered as SLA-16, which housed the lunar module (LM) during the first hours of the mission. The LM stages, CM and service module (SM) were received at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in June 1969; the portions of the Saturn V were received in June and July. Thereafter, testing and assembly proceeded, culminating with the rollout of the launch vehicle, with the spacecraft atop it, on December 15, 1969. Apollo 13 was originally scheduled for launch on March 12, 1970, but that January NASA announced the mission would be postponed until April 11, both to allow more time for planning and to spread the Apollo missions over a longer period. The plan was to have two Apollo flights per year and was in response to budgetary constraints that had recently seen the cancellation of Apollo 20.
Training and preparation. The Apollo 13 prime crew undertook over 1,000 hours of mission-specific training, more than five hours for every hour of the mission's ten-day planned duration. Each member of the prime crew spent over 400 hours in simulators of the CM and (for Lovell and Haise) of the LM at KSC and at Houston, some of which involved the flight controllers at Mission Control. Flight controllers participated in many simulations of problems with the spacecraft in flight, which taught them how to react in an emergency. Specialized simulators at other locations were also used by the crew members. The astronauts of Apollo 11 had minimal time for geology training, with only six months between crew assignment and launch; higher priorities took much of their time. Apollo 12 saw more such training, including practice in the field, using a CAPCOM and a simulated backroom of scientists, to whom the astronauts had to describe what they saw. Scientist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt saw that there was limited enthusiasm for geology field trips. Believing an inspirational teacher was needed, Schmitt arranged for Lovell and Haise to meet his old professor, Caltech's Lee Silver. The two astronauts, and backups Young and Duke, went on a field trip with Silver at their own time and expense. At the end of their week together, Lovell made Silver their geology mentor, who would be extensively involved in the geology planning for Apollo 13. Farouk El-Baz oversaw the training of Mattingly and his backup, Swigert, which involved describing and photographing simulated lunar landmarks from airplanes. El-Baz had all three prime crew astronauts describe geologic features they saw during their flights between Houston and KSC; Mattingly's enthusiasm caused other astronauts, such as Apollo 14's CMP, Roosa, to seek out El-Baz as a teacher.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.