u/Ambitious-Cat-5678

Of course when I say colonial I mean the colonialism of the Norman occupation of England rather than that of the 15th century onwards or of the German expansionism into Eastern Europe and the Baltic. It seems clear that they tried to have some continuity with the Byzantium of old, but they also effectively inserted a new elite of foreign Latin lords among other discriminatory policies. Ironically, I would go so far as to say that the Latins were more tame with regards to their new acquisitions when compared to their Norman counterparts (the harrying of the north is a big yikes).

Since I have not seen anyone talking about this publication, I am interested to see peoples' opinions on it. What points does he make about the West's relationship with the Byzantines?

I personally believe John II deserves the title for his Anatolian campaigns that were superbly executed. He, without having to undertake any major battles, reduced the holdings of the Turks to the plateau and destroyed Armenian Cilicia. His Syrian campaigns, while not as successful, had frightened both the Zengids and the Crusader states, effectively securing his Cilician prize.

Did any of Sulla or Cicero or Hannibal survive in the minds of literate Byzantines, or were they forgotten to time? And if so, how was their memory preserved from generation to generation? Furthermore, how much did they (the elites) know of the political and social structure of society at the time?