The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire from the granting of the name and title Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate in 27 BC onward.[1] Augustus maintained a facade of Republican rule, rejecting monarchical titles but calling himself princeps senatus (first man of the Senate) and princeps civitatis (first citizen of the state). The title of Augustus was conferred on his successors to the imperial position, and emperors gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian.[2]
The style of government instituted by Augustus is called the Principate and continued until the late third or early fourth century.[3] The modern word "emperor" derives from the title imperator, that was granted by an army to a successful general; during the initial phase of the empire, the title was generally used only by the princeps.[4] For example, Augustus's official name was Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus.[5] The territory under command of the emperor had developed under the period of the Roman Republic as it invaded and occupied much of Europe and portions of North Africa and the Middle East. Under the republic, the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.[6] The chief magistrates of the republic were two consuls elected each year; consuls continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election.[7] Often, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.[8]
After the Crisis of the Third Century, Diocletian increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title "dominus noster" (our lord). The rise of powerful barbarian tribes along the borders of the empire, the challenge they posed to the defense of far-flung borders as well as an unstable imperial succession led Diocletian to divide the administration of the Empire geographically with a co-augustus in 286. In 330, Constantine the Great, the emperor who accepted Christianity, established a second capital in Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.[9] For most of the period from 286 to 480, there was more than one recognized senior emperor, with the division usually based on geographic regions. This division became permanent after the death of Theodosius I in 395, which historians have traditionally dated as the division between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. However, formally the Empire remained a single polity, with separate co-emperors in the separate courts.[10]
The fall of the Western Roman Empire is dated either from the de facto date of 476, when Romulus Augustulus was deposed by the Germanic Herulians led by Odoacer, or the de jure date of 480, on the death of Julius Nepos, when Eastern emperor Zeno ended recognition of a separate Western court.[11] Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire", oriented toward Hellenic culture and governed by the Byzantine emperors.[a] Given that "Byzantine" is a later historiographical designation and the inhabitants and emperors of the empire continually maintained Roman identity, this designation is not used universally and continues to be a subject of specialist debate.[b] Under Justinian I, in the sixth century, a large portion of the western empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain.[15] Over the course of the centuries thereafter, most of the imperial territories were lost, which eventually restricted the empire to Anatolia and the Balkans.[c] The line of emperors continued until the death of Constantine XI Palaiologos at the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when the remaining territories were conquered by the Ottoman Turks led by Sultan Mehmed II.[21][d] In the aftermath of the conquest, Mehmed II proclaimed himself kayser-i Rûm ("Caesar of the Romans"),[e] thus claiming to be the new emperor,[27]a claim maintained by succeeding sultans.[28] Competing claims of succession to the Roman Empire have also been forwarded by various other states and empires, and by numerous later pretenders.[29]
Legitimacy
Coin of Pescennius Niger, a Roman usurper who claimed imperial power AD 193–194. Legend: IMP CAES C PESC NIGER IVST AVG
While the imperial government of the Roman Empire was rarely called into question during its five centuries in the west and fifteen centuries in the east, individual emperors often faced unending challenges in the form of usurpation and perpetual civil wars.[30] From the rise of Augustus, the first Roman emperor, in 27 BC to the sack of Rome in AD 455, there were over a hundred usurpations or attempted usurpations (an average of one usurpation or attempt about every four years). From the murder of Commodus in 192 until the fifth century, there was scarcely a single decade without succession conflicts and civil war. Very few emperors died of natural causes, with regicide in practical terms having become the expected end of a Roman emperor by late antiquity.[31] The distinction between a usurper and a legitimate emperor is a blurry one, given that a large number of emperors commonly considered legitimate began their rule as usurpers, revolting against the previous legitimate emperor.[32]
True legitimizing structures and theories were weak, or wholly absent, in the Roman Empire,[31] and there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army.[33] Dynastic succession was not legally formalized, but also not uncommon, with powerful rulers sometimes succeeding in passing power on to their children or other relatives. While dynastic ties could bring someone to the throne, they were not a guarantee that their rule would not be challenged.[34] With the exception of Titus (r. 79–81; son of Vespasian), no son of an emperor who ruled after the death of his father died a natural death until Constantine I in 337. Control of Rome itself and approval of the Roman Senate held some importance as legitimising factors, but were mostly symbolic. Emperors who began their careers as usurpers had often been deemed public enemies by the senate before they managed to take the city. Emperors did not need to be acclaimed or crowned in Rome itself, as demonstrated in the Year of the Four Emperors (69), when claimants were crowned by armies in the Roman provinces, and the senate's role in legitimising emperors had almost faded into insignificance by the Crisis of the Third Century (235–285). By the end of the third century, Rome's importance was mainly ideological, with several emperors and usurpers even beginning to place their court in other cities in the empire, closer to the imperial frontier.[35]
Common methods used by emperors to assert claims of legitimacy, such as proclamation by the army, blood connections (sometimes fictitious) to past emperors, wearing imperial regalia, distributing one's own coins or statues and claims to pre-eminent virtue through propaganda, were pursued just as well by many usurpers as they were by legitimate emperors.[36] There were no constitutional or legal distinctions that differentiated legitimate emperors and usurpers. In ancient Roman texts, the differences between emperors and "tyrants" (the term typically used for usurpers) is often a moral one (with the tyrants ascribed wicked behaviour) rather than a legal one. Typically, the actual distinction was whether the claimant had been victorious or not. In the Historia Augusta, an ancient Roman collection of imperial biographies, the usurper Pescennius Niger (193–194) is expressly noted to only be a tyrant because he was defeated by Septimius Severus (r. 193–211).[37] This is also followed in modern historiography, where, in the absence of constitutional criteria separating them, the main factor that distinguishes usurpers from legitimate Roman emperors is their degree of success. What makes a figure who began as a usurper into a legitimate emperor is typically either that they managed to gain the recognition from a more senior, legitimate emperor, or that they managed to defeat a more senior, legitimate emperor and seize power from them by force.[34]
List inclusion criteria
Given that a concept of constitutional legitimacy was irrelevant in the Roman Empire, and emperors were only 'legitimate' in so far as they were able to be accepted in the wider empire,[38] this list of emperors operates on a collection of inclusion criteria:
Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed are treated as legitimate emperors.[39] From 286 onward, when imperial power was usually divided among two colleagues in the east and west,[40] control over the respective half is sufficient even if a claimant was not recognized in the other half, such as was the case for several of the last few emperors in the west.[41]
Imperial claimants who were proclaimed emperors by another, legitimate, senior emperor, or who were recognized by a legitimate senior emperor, are treated as legitimate emperors.[42] Many emperors ruled alongside one or various joint-emperors. However, and specially from the 4th century onwards, most of these were children who never ruled in their own right. Scholars of the later Empire always omit these rulers,[43] but the same is not always applied during the early Empire.[44] For the purposes of consistency, later senior emperors' tenures as co-emperors are not counted as part of their reign. The list also gives all co-emperors their own entry only up to the 4th century.
Imperial claimants who achieved the recognition of the Roman Senate, especially in times of uncertainty and civil war, are, due to the senate's nominal role as an elective body, treated as legitimate emperors.[45] In later times, especially when emperors ruled from other cities, this criterion defaults to the possession and control of Rome itself. In the later eastern empire, possession of the capital of Constantinople was an essential element of imperial legitimacy.[46]
In the case of non-dynastic emperors after or in the middle of the rule of a dynasty, it is customary among historians to group them together with the rulers of said dynasty,[47] an approach that is followed in this list. Dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers are indicated with thickened horizontal lines.
Principate (27 BC – AD 284)
Julio-Claudian dynasty (27 BC – AD 68)
Year of the Four Emperors (68–69)
Flavian dynasty (69–96)
Nerva–Antonine dynasty (96–192)
Year of the Five Emperors (193)
Note: The other claimants during the Year of the Five Emperors were Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, generally regarded as usurpers.
Severan dynasty (193–235)
(§) – Varying ascribed status[i]
Crisis of the Third Century (235–285)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
(§) – Varying ascribed status[i]
Dominate (284–476)
Tetrarchy (284–324)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
Constantinian dynasty (306–363)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
Valentinianic dynasty (364–392)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
Theodosian dynasty (379–457)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
Last western emperors (455–476)
Later Eastern emperors (457–1453)
Leonid dynasty (457–518)
Justinian dynasty (518–602)
Heraclian dynasty (610–695)
Twenty Years' Anarchy (695–717)
Isaurian (Syrian) dynasty (717–802)
(#) – Ambiguous legitimacy[j]
Nikephorian dynasty (802–813)
Amorian dynasty (820–867)
(§) – Varying ascribed status[w]
Macedonian dynasty (867–1056)
Doukas dynasty (1059–1078)
(§) – Varying ascribed status[w]
Komnenos dynasty (1081–1185)
Angelos dynasty (1185–1204)
Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)
Note: Roman rule in Constantinople was interrupted with the capture and sack of the city by the crusaders in 1204, which led to the establishment of the Frankokratia. Though the crusaders created a new line of Latin emperors in the city, modern historians recognize the line of emperors of the Laskaris dynasty, reigning in Nicaea, as the legitimate Roman emperors during this period because the Nicene Empire eventually retook Constantinople.[23] For other lines of claimant emperors, see List of Trapezuntine emperors and List of Thessalonian emperors.
^The term basileus eventually replaced augustus as the official title of the emperor, although both were seen as equals already by the times of Constantine I.[12]
^The Byzantine Empire is universally recognized as the remnant, continuation or later stage of the Roman Empire. There is no universally agreed date used to separate the ancient Roman and "Byzantine" empires, with proposed dates ranging in age from 284 to 717.[13] Some authors reject the term "Byzantine" entirely.[14]
^Spain was lost in 625[16] and Africa in 698.[17] A large portion of Italy was conquered by the Lombards already under Justinian I's successor, Justin II.[18] Rome and its surroundings remained under imperial control until 756, when they became the Papal States,[19] though the last Italian holdouts were not lost until 1071 with the fall of Bari.[20] The seventh century also saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.[21]
^There is no generally-accepted count of Roman emperors given that different scholars sometimes include and omit different emperors (see Legitimacy). This list includes 170 emperors, 12 of whose legitimacy is disputed in scholarship (including the obscure figure of Silbannacus, whose existence and role are shrouded in mystery,[22] and the four emperors of Nicaea, who are often seen as the "legitimate" emperors during the interregnum of 1204–1261),[23] and 5 ruling empresses, 2 of which have variable ascribed status (these being Saint Theodora and Eudokia Makrembolitissa, who were rulers in their own right but are still absent in most lists of rulers[24] or just labeled as regents),[25] for a total of 175 monarchs. Also included are 34 junior co-emperors, 3 of whose legitimacy is debated, and 1 junior co-empress (Thekla). All in all, this list thus includes a total of 210 occupants of the Roman imperial office.
^This was one of the titles used for the emperors in Constantinople by Ottoman writers prior to 1453.[26]
^Entries also include the regnal name of each emperor. These generally differed from their original birth name, often adopting elements from the previous emperor.[48]Augustus's full name would be "Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus" according to Roman naming conventions, but he styled himself as "Imperator Caesar Augustus", treating "Caesar" as a family name.[49] Given that "Imperator" was only a victory title, it will be omitted from the emperors' full nomenclature.
^The conventional date for the Empire's founding is 27 BC,[50] when the Senate awarded Octavian the title and name Augustus alongside one of several grants of power.[51] Ancient writers, however, give him a rule of 56 years.[50] He became de facto sovereign in 31 BC, after defeating his last remaining opposition at the Battle of Actium.[52] This is a date also used by some writers.[50] Augustus himself dated his accession to legal power to 7 January 43 BC, when he first received imperium.[51] Later that year he became consul (19 August) and then triumvir (27 November) alongside Mark Antony and Lepidus. Augustus thus ruled the Roman state for exactly 56 years, but only 40 as "emperor".[51]
^By this time, 'Caesar' and 'Augustus' are regarded less as personal names and more as imperial titles, with the former denoting the heir-apparent and the latter indicating the emperor himself.[67]
^ a bThe junior co-emperors marked as being of "varying ascribed status" are figures, mostly children, who are usually not counted as "true" emperors given their submissive status to the senior emperor, but are still present in some lists of rulers.[44]
^ a b c d e fUnless otherwise noted to be some other ambiguity, the emperors marked to be of ambiguous legitimacy are those who fulfill one or more of the inclusion criteria above, but who are not universally regarded by scholars to count as legitimate. In most cases, such figures are those who held power only briefly, and/or who in times of more than one emperor held one of the capitals but never achieved the full recognition of the other emperor(s).[81][82][83][84]
^On account of the limited surviving source material, almost all dates used here are just approximate. The chronology of the whole period is dubious and sources rarely agree on each other, in part due to the fact that many reigns overlap due to most emperors starting as rivals. For an analysis of the chronology, see Rea 1972, Peachin 1990 and Burgess 2014.
^Unmentioned in literary sources and known only from two coins seemingly issued in Rome, implying he was proclaimed emperor in the capital, probably between Aemilianus and Valerian, or against either.[99][100][101]
^Made caesar by his father and only referred to as augustus in a single series of coins, issued while he was besieged in Cologne in 260. Coinage issued after his death honor him as caesar; probably because Gallienus did not want to advertise the death of a second emperor in one year.[104][105]
^The chronology of Maximian's career is disputed. Some authors argue that he was promoted to augustus without ever being caesar, as claimed by many others. Another possible date for his accession as emperor (and the first division of the Roman Empire) is 13 December 285.[117]
^ a bLegitimately appointed as co-emperor by Licinius, though as western emperor (in opposition to Constantine I). Referred as caesar in literary sources, but called augustus in coinage. Did not actually rule anything given that Licinius did not control the west.[125]
^Although technically recognized by Constantius II, who even sent him the imperial diadem, Vetranio is often regarded as a usurper.[133]
^From the fourth century, emperors and other high-profile men of non-aristocratic birth often bore the name "Flavius", the family name of the Constantinian dynasty. Because it was often used as a status marker rather than personal name,[137] "Flavius" will generally be omitted in the following entries for simplicity.
^Distinction between nomen, praenomen and cognomen, the core elements of Roman naming conventions, began to fade away from the 3rd century onwards. Given that "new Romans" —that is, barbarians turned citizens— adopted the names of their masters, many citizens adopted the names Julius, Flavius (notable the Constantinians) and Marcus Aurelius (notable the 3rd century emperors), thus making them obsolete as surnames. As a result, most citizens of the Empire, even emperors, reverted back to single-names by the 5th century.[139]
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t uAlthough they constitutionally held the same supreme power as their senior counterpart, it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard those who actually ruled as emperors, omitting junior co-emperors who only exercised power nominally and never governed in their own name.[144][24]
^From 629 onwards, Heraclius issued administrative documents in Greek.[178] Latin continued to be used in communication with Western Europe until the end of the empire and coins continued to be struck with Latin inscriptions until the early eighth century.[179]
^Heraclius Constantine is often enumerated as 'Constantine III',[181] though this name is also often applied to the earlier western emperor and has also been used used for Heraclius Constantine's son Constans II (who actually ruled under the name 'Constantine', 'Constans' being a nickname).[182]
^Latin ceased being used in coin inscriptions under Leo III.[179]
^ a bThe empresses marked as being of "varying ascribed status" are figures who were undisputed as legitimate heads of the imperial government and who are sometimes (including by the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium),[204] though not always, seen as having been empresses regnant.
^ a bEmperors began to officially use family names from Constantine IX Monomachos onwards. The sole exception after Constantine IX's reign is Michael VI, whose family name (Bringas) was far less distinguished than those of the other imperial families and thus does not appear in official use.[224]
^Unattested in coinage; Leo is only called emperor in a singular letter, while his brother's status can only be deduced from the fact that he was born in the purple and that he also used the "imperial tokens".[230]
^Alexios III used the name Alexios Komnenos Angelos (Ἀλέξιος Κομνηνός Ἄγγελος) prior to his accession but reigned as Alexios Komnenos, dropping his own family name in order to stress his matrilineal descent from the Komnenos dynasty.[240]
References
Citations
^Mosshammer 2008, pp. 342–343; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 53–54
^Loewenstein 1973, pp. 329, 403.
^Loewenstein 1973, p. 238.
^Loewenstein 1973, p. 329.
^Loewenstein 1973, p. 245.
^Richardson 1984, pp. 39–40.
^Wu 2016, p. 35.
^Loewenstein 1973, p. 443.
^Loewenstein 1973, pp. 238, 403.
^Sandberg 2008, pp. 199–213..
^Arnold, Bjornlie & Sessa 2016, p. 3; Williams & Friell 1998, p. 187.
^ODB, p. 264.
^Mango 2002, p. 2.
^Goldsworthy 2009, p. 8.
^Halsall 2018, p. 53.
^Collins 2004, pp. 47–49.
^Becker 1913, p. 370.
^Hartmann 1913, p. 196.
^Logan 2012, pp. 71–74.
^Chalandon 1923, p. 325.
^ a bNicol 1992, p. ix.
^ a bEstiot 1996.
^ a bTreadgold 1997, p. 734.
^ a bODB, p. 360.
^Treadgold 1997, pp. 859–860.
^Çolak 2014, p. 19.
^Nicol 1967, p. 334.
^Çolak 2014, pp. 21–22.
^Nicol 1992, pp. 115–116.
^Omissi 2018, p. 3.
^ a bSmolin 2021, p. 22.
^Claes 2015, p. 15.
^Omissi 2018, p. 25.
^ a bClaes 2015, p. 23.
^Omissi 2018, pp. 9, 14, 17, 24.
^Smolin 2021, pp. 22–23.
^Omissi 2018, pp. 21, 29–30.
^Omissi 2018, p. 34.
^Omissi 2018, p. 32.
^Omissi 2018, p. xix.
^Mathisen 1997.
^Omissi 2018, p. 25; Claes 2015, p. 18.
^Foss 2005, p. 101; ODB, p. 360.
^ a bElton 1825, p. 303; Grant 1998, p. 179; Hekster 2008, p. 155; Cooley 2012; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. v–xii; Britannica; Livius; MET.
^Claes 2015, p. 15; Omissi 2018, p. 17
^Van Tricht 2011, pp. 79–80.
^Lawler 2004, p. 323.
^Cooley 2012.
^Syme 1958.
^ a b cMosshammer 2008, pp. 342–343.
^ a b cKienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 53–54.
^Meijer 2004, pp. 14–16.
^Grant, pp. 8, 9, 12–13; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 53–54, 350.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 70–72, 350; Grant, pp. 8, 16, 20, 25.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 78; Grant, pp. 8, 25, 27.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 82; Grant, pp. 8, 29, 33.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 88–89, 350; Grant, pp. 8, 34, 39.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 94; Grant, pp. 43, 44; Hammond, p. 24.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 97; Grant, pp. 46–47.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 99–100; Grant, pp. 48–50.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 101; Grant, pp. 51–52, 55.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 105; Grant, p. 55; Hammond, p. 27.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 109; Grant, pp. 60–69.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 114; Grant, p. 69; Burgess 2014, p. 53–54.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 116–117; Grant, pp. 71, 73, 76; Omissi 2018, p. 8; Burgess 2014, p. 54–56.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 122–123; Grant, pp. 68, 76; Omissi 2018, p. 8.
^Hammond, pp. 29–31.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 128; Grant, p. 87.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 131–132; Grant, pp. 68, 89, 91, 93.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 135; Grant, pp. 93, 94.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 140–141; Grant, p. 97; Omissi 2018, p. 8.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 145; Grant, pp. 103–104.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 147; Grant, pp. 106–108; Cooley 2012, p. 495.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 149–150; Grant, pp. 108, 110; Omissi 2018, p. 9.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 156–157; Grant, pp. 119–120; Hammond, pp. 35–36.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 160; Grant, p. 122.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 162; Grant, pp. 123, 124, 125–126.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 163–164; Grant, p. 125.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 165; Grant, pp. 126, 129; Burgess 2014, pp. 65–66.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 171–172; Grant, pp. 130–133; Burgess 2014, pp. 67–69.
^Vagi 1999, pp. 415, 463, 529.
^Omissi 2018, p. 24.
^Seibt 2018, p. 213.
^Tilemachos 2015, p. 243.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 176–179; Grant, pp. 137–139; Omissi 2018, p. 10; Burgess 2014, pp. 67–69.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 180–181; Grant, pp. 140–141; Meijer 2004, p. 85.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 182; Grant, pp. 142–143; Meijer 2004, p. 85; Peachin 1990, p. 28.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 183–184; Grant, pp. 146–148; Meijer 2004, p. 87; Peachin 1990, p. 28.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 185–186; Grant, pp. 144–145; Peachin 1990, p. 28.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 187–189; Grant, pp. 149–151; Peachin 1990, p. 29.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 190–191; Grant, pp. 152–155.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 192–193; Grant, pp. 152–155.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 195–197; Grant, pp. 156–159.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 197–198; Grant, pp. 156–159.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 200–201; Grant, pp. 160–161.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 198–199; Peachin 1990, p. 34.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 201–202; Grant, pp. 160–161; Peachin 1990, p. 36.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 203–204; Grant, p. 162; Peachin 1990, pp. 36–37.
^Claes 2015, p. 44.
^Estiot 1996, pp. 105–117.
^Hartmann 2002.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 205–207; Grant, pp. 163–167; Peachin 1990, pp. 37–38.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 209–211; Grant, pp. 168–172; Peachin 1990, pp. 39–40.
^Shiel 1979, p. 117.
^Vagi 1999, p. 357.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 213; Grant, pp. 168–172; Peachin 1990, pp. 39–40.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 222; Grant, pp. 179–180; Peachin 1990, pp. 42–43.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 224; Grant, pp. 181–182; Peachin 1990, p. 43.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 225–227; Grant, pp. 183–187; Peachin 1990, pp. 43–44.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46).
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 243; Grant, p. 190; Peachin 1990, pp. 46–47.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 244–245; Grant, pp. 191–193; Peachin 1990, p. 47.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 248–249; Grant, pp. 194–195; Peachin 1990, p. 49.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 250–251; Grant, pp. 196–197; Peachin 1990, pp. 49–50.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 252; Grant, pp. 198–201.
^Barnes, pp. 4, 30–32; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 257–258; Grant, p. 204.
^Burgess 2023.
^Barnes, pp. 4, 13, 32, 34; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 262–263; Grant, pp. 210–212.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 272–273; Barnes, pp. 4–6, 46; Grant, pp. 221–222.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 269; Barnes, pp. 35–36; Grant, pp. 216–218; ODB, p. 524–525.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 278; Barnes, pp. 4–5, 38–39; Grant, pp. 223–224.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 279; Grant, pp. 224–226; Barnes, pp. 12–13, 34.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 282; Barnes, pp. 6–7, 43–44; Grant, pp. 235–237.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 276; Barnes, pp. 6–7, 39; Grant, pp. 238–240.
^Vagi 1999, pp. 466–467.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 284; Barnes, p. 15.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 285; Barnes, p. 15.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 286–288; Barnes, pp. 5–8, 39–42; Grant, pp. 228–231, 234.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 296; Barnes, pp. 8, 44–45; Grant, p. 241.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 298; Barnes, pp. 8, 45.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 300–301; Grant, pp. 242–244.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 532; Grant, pp. 248–250; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 305–306.
^Grant, p. 249; Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 307; Meijer 2004, p. 127–128.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 307; PLRE, Vol. I, p. 954; Omissi 2018, pp. 181–182.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 624; Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 306.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 309–310; Grant, pp. 251–253.
^Cameron 1988, pp. 26, 28, 33.
^Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 312; Grant, pp. 255–258; PLRE, Vol. I, p. 461.
^Salway 1994.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 933–934; Grant, pp. 259–262; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 313–314.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 930–931; Grant, pp. 263–265; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 316–318.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 742–743; Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 318.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 401; Grant, pp. 266–267; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 319–320.
^Foss 2005, p. 101.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 588; Grant, pp. 274–275; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 327–328.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 934–935; Grant, pp. 268–269; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 321–322.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 293; Kienast, Eck & Heil, p. 329.
^PLRE, Vol. I, pp. 904–905; Grant, pp. 270–273; Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 323–329; ODB, pp. 2050–2051.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 99; ODB, pp. 173–174; Grant, pp. 276–281; Croke 1995, p. 58.
^PLRE, Vol. I, p. 442; ODB, p. 946; Grant, pp. 282–285.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 316–317; Grant, pp. 286–287.
^PLRE, Vol. II, p. 1100; ODB, pp. 2051–2052; Grant, pp. 288–291.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 180–181.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 321–325; Grant, pp. 292–295.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 594–595; Grant, pp. 296–297.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 1138–1139; Grant, pp. 298–304.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 714–715; ODB, pp. 1296–1297; Grant, pp. 305–307.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 749–751; Grant, pp. 315–316.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 196–198; Grant, pp. 310–311.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 702–703; Grant, pp. 315–316.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 1004–1005; Grant, pp. 317–318.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 96–98; Grant, pp. 319–321.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 796–798; Grant, p. 322.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 514, 777; Grant, pp. 323–324.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 777–778; Grant, pp. 325–326.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 949–950; Grant, pp. 332–334.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 663–664; ODB, pp. 1206–1207; Grant, pp. 312–314; Croke 2004, p. 569–572.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 664–665; ODB, pp. 1207–1208; Croke 2004, pp. 563–575.
^ a bPLRE, Vol. II, pp. 1200–1202; ODB, p. 2223; Grant, pp. 327–329; Croke 2004, p. 572.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 212–214; Grant, pp. 330–331.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 78–80; ODB, pp. 86–87.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 648–651; ODB, p. 1082; Grierson 1962, p. 45.
^PLRE, Vol. II, pp. 645–648; ODB, pp. 1083–1084.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIA, pp. 754–756; ODB, pp. 1082–1083; Grierson 1962, p. 47.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIB, pp. 1323–1326; ODB, pp. 2083–2084.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIB, pp. 855–860; ODB, p. 1318.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIB, pp. 1030–1032; ODB, p. 1666.
^Kaegi 2003, p. 194.
^ a bGrierson 1973, p. 177.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIA, p. 587; ODB, p. 916–917; Treadgold 1997, pp. 306, 308.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIA, p. 349; Grierson 1973, p. 385; Treadgold 1997, p. 308ff; Kaegi 2003, p. 112ff.
^Foss 2005, pp. 93–94.
^ODB, pp. 916–917; Grierson 1962, p. 48; Treadgold 1997, p. 309.
^PLRE, Vol. IIIA, p. 588; ODB, p. 918; Treadgold 1990, pp. 431–33.
^ODB, pp. 496–497; Grierson 1968, p. 402.
^ODB, pp. 500–501; Grierson 1968, pp. 402, 512.
^ODB, pp. 1084–1085; Grierson 1962, pp. 50–51; Grierson 1968, p. 568.
^ODB, pp. 1212–1213.
^ODB, p. 2084; Grierson 1962, p. 51.
^ODB, pp. 1084–1085; Grierson 1962, pp. 50–51.
^ODB, p. 1654; Grierson 1962, pp. 51–52.
^ODB, p. 87; Grierson 1962, p. 52.
^ODB, p. 2052.
^ODB, pp. 1208–1209; Treadgold 1997, p. 356.
^ODB, p. 501; Treadgold 1997, p. 366; PmbZ, Konstantinos 7 (#3703).
^ODB, p. 192; Treadgold 1997, p. 356 (n. 12, p. 939); Garland 2006, p. 10; Schreiner, pp. 85–86.
^ODB, p. 1209; PmbZ, Leo 4 (#4243).
^ODB, pp. 501–502; Treadgold 1997, pp. 417–424; PmbZ, Konstantinos 8 (#3704).
^ODB, pp. 1008–1009; Grierson 1962, p. 55.
^ODB, pp. 1476–1477.
^ODB, pp. 1945–1946; Grierson 1962, p. 55; Treadgold 1997, p. 429.
^ODB, p. 1362; Treadgold 1997, p. 431–433.
^ODB, pp. 1209–1210; Treadgold 1997, pp. 431–433, 438.
^ODB, pp. 739, 2037.
^ODB, p. 1363; Treadgold 1997, pp. 433–436, 438.
^ODB, p. 2066.
^ODB, pp. 2037–2038; Treadgold 1997, p. 438; Garland 1999, p. 102.
^ODB, pp. 1364; Treadgold 1997, pp. 446–455; PmbZ, Michael 11 (#4991).
^ODB, p. 260; Treadgold 1997, pp. 461, 490; Grierson 1973, pp. 473–476.
^ODB, pp. 1210–1211; Treadgold 1997, p. 458–462, 470, 491.
^ODB, pp. 56–57; Treadgold 1997, p. 471; Grierson 1973, p. 473–476.
^ODB, pp. 502–503; Treadgold 1997, p. 491.
^ODB, p. 1806; Schreiner, p. 121–128.
^ODB, pp. 1806–1807; Treadgold 1997, pp. 495–497; PmbZ, Romanos II (#26834).
^ODB, pp. 1478–1479.
^ODB, p. 1045.
^ODB, pp. 261–262; Grierson 1973, pp. 589, 599.
^ODB, p. 503; Grierson 1962, p. 58.
^ODB, pp. 503, 1807; Grierson 1962, p. 59.
^ODB, p. 1365; Treadgold 1997, p. 491.
^ODB, pp. 1365–1366; Treadgold 1997, p. 491.
^ODB, p. 2228; Treadgold 1997, p. 590.
^ a bODB, p. 2038; Treadgold 1997, pp. 491, 590.
^Grierson 1973, p. 180.
^ODB, p. 504.
^ODB, p. 1366; Treadgold 1997, p. 597; Schreiner, pp. 149–150.
^ODB, pp. 1011–2; Schreiner, pp. 151–2; Grierson 1973, pp. 759–760.
^ODB, pp. 504–505; Schreiner, pp. 151–152; Grierson 1973, p. 764.
^ODB, pp. 739–740; Treadgold 1997, p. 608; Grierson 1973, pp. 779–780.
^PmbZ, Leon 15005..
^ODB, p. 1807; Treadgold 1997, pp. 601–604, 608; Schreiner, p. 156.
^ODB, pp. 1366–1367; Schreiner, p. 157–159; Norwich 1993, p. 361.
^ODB, p. 1479; Schreiner, p. 158–159; Grierson 1973, p. 798–799, 821; Maynard 2021.
^ODB, p. 63; Schreiner, p. 159–164.
^ODB, pp. 1046–1047; Treadgold 1997, pp. 628–637; Bucossi & Rodriguez Suarez 2016, p. 16.
^ODB, pp. 1289–1290; Treadgold 1997, pp. 636, 638–650.
^ODB, pp. 64, 1289; Treadgold 1997, pp. 650–653; Schreiner, p. 176.
^ODB, pp. 64, 94, 1012; Treadgold 1997, pp. 653–656; Lascaratos 1999, p. 73.
^ a bODB, p. 1012; Treadgold 1997, pp. 654–660; Schreiner, pp. 183–185; Macrides 1999, VI: p. 75, X: p. 514, XII: p. 195.
^Cotsonis 2020, pp. 260–261.
^ODB, pp. 64–65; Treadgold 1997, pp. 659–664; Schreiner, pp. 183–185.
^ODB, pp. 65–66; Schreiner, pp. 183–185.
^ODB, p. 66; Treadgold 1997, pp. 265–266, 665; Schreiner, pp. 185–186.
^ODB, pp. 2039–2040; Angelov 2019, p. 18; Dragon 2003, p. 275.
^ODB, pp. 1047–1048; Angelov 2019, p. 256.
^ODB, pp. 2040–2041; Treadgold 1997, p. 731; Angelov 2019, p. 61, 258, 325.
^ODB, pp. 1048–1049; Macrides 2013, p. 303; Angelov 2019, p. 305; PLP, p. 2663 (#14534).
^ODB, p. 1367; Treadgold 1997, p. 745; Schreiner, pp. 196–206; PLP, p. 3929 (#21528).
^ODB, pp. 94–95; Angelov 2009, p. 100; PLP, p. 3889 (#21436).
^ODB, pp. 1367–8; Treadgold 1997, p. 755; Angelov 2009, p. 100; PLP, p. 3931 (#21529).
^ODB, p. 95; Treadgold 1997, p. 764; Lascaratos & Marketos 1997, pp. 106–9; PLP, p. 3891 (#21437).
^ODB, p. 1050; Schreiner, pp. 253, 345; PLP, p. 3912 (#21485).
^ODB, pp. 1050–1051; Schreiner, pp. 252–288; PLP, p. 2046 (#10973); Feiller 1976.
^ODB, p. 95; Mladenov 2003, p. 190; Schreiner, pp. 312–321; PLP, p. 3893 (#21438).
^ODB, p. 1052; Oikonomides 1977, p. 331; Schreiner, pp. 340–343; PLP, p. 3908 (#21480).
^ODB, p. 1291; Schreiner, pp. 276, 309, 429; PLP, p. 3923 (#21513).
^ODB, pp. 1053–1054; Schreiner, pp. 340, 387–411; PLP, p. 3909 (#21481).
^ODB, p. 505; Nicol 1992, pp. 2, 35–38, 70; PLP, p. 3919 (#21500).
^ODB, p. 413.
^ODB, p. 1047; PLP, p. 2326 (#12106).
Works cited
Angelov, Dimiter G. (2009). "Emperors and Patriarchs as Ideal Children and Adolescents: Literary Conventions and Cultural Expectations". In Papaconstantinou, Arietta; Talbot, Alice-Mary (eds.). Becoming Byzantine: Children and Childhood in Byzantium. Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-8840-2356-2.
Angelov, Dimiter (2019). The Byzantine Hellene: The Life of Emperor Theodore Laskaris and Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-1084-8071-0.
Arnold, Jonathan J.; Bjornlie, M. Shane; Sessa, Kristina (2016). "Introduction". In Arnold, Jonathan J.; Bjornlie, M. Shane; Sessa, Kristina (eds.). A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. Leiden: BRILL. ISBN 978-9-0043-1376-7.
Barnes, Timothy D. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Harvard: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-6742-8066-0.
Becker, C. H. (1913). "The Expansion of the Saracens—The East". In Gwatkin, H. M.; Whitney, J. P. (eds.). The Cambridge Medieval History: Volume II: The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire. New York: The Macmillan Company. OCLC 14739796.
Bucossi, Alessandra; Rodriguez Suarez, Alex, eds. (2016). John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0.
Burgess, Richard W. (2023). "Cutting the ‹Herculian› Knot: When Did Maximian Become Caesar and Augustus?". In Schuler; Haensch; Killen (eds.). Chiron 53. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. pp. 1–39. doi:10.34780/74h5-hc1b. ISBN 978-3-11-125249-0.
Burgess, Richard W. (2014). Roman imperial chronology and early-fourth-century historiography. Historia Einzelschriften. Stuttgart: Steiner. ISBN 978-3-515-10732-7.
Cameron, Alan (1988). "Flavius: a Nicety of Protocol". Latomus. 47 (1): 26–33. JSTOR 41540754.
Chalandon, Ferdinand (1923). "The Earlier Comneni". In Tanner, J. R.; Previté-Orton, C. W.; Brooke, Z. N. (eds.). The Cambridge Medieval History: Volume IV: The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453). New York: The Macmillan Company. OCLC 14739796.
Claes, Liesbeth (2015). "Coins with power?: imperial and local messages on the coinage of the usurpers of the second half of the third century". Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde. 102: 15–60. OCLC 948592865.
Çolak, Hasan (2014). "Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser: Disdain, Negligence and Appropriation of Byzantine Imperial Titulature in the Ottoman World". In Hadjianastasis, Marios (ed.). Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-9-0042-8351-0.
Cooley, Alison E. (2012). "Appendix 2; Augustus−Justinian". The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 488–509. ISBN 978-0-5218-4026-2.
Cotsonis, John A. (2020). The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals I. Oxford: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-3673-4696-6.
Croke, Brian (1995). The Chronicle of Marcellinus: A translation with commentary. London: Brill. ISBN 978-9-0043-4463-1.
Croke, Brian (2004). "The Imperial Reigns of Leo II". Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 96 (2): 559–575. doi:10.1515/BYZS.2003.559. S2CID 191460505.
Dragon, Gilbert (2003). Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-5218-0123-2.
Elton, Charles A. (1825). A History of the Roman Emperors. Baldwin, Cradock and Joy.
Estiot, Sylviane (1996). "L'empereur Silbannacus, un second antoninien" [Emperor Silbannacus, a second Antoninianus]. Revue numismatique (in French). 6 (151): 105–117. doi:10.3406/numi.1996.2087.
Feiller, Albert (1976). "Nouvelle note sur la chronologie du règne de Jean Cantacuzène" [New note on the chronology of the reign of John Kantakouzenos]. Études byzantines. 34: 119–124. doi:10.3406/rebyz.1976.2046.
Grant, Michael (1985). The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC–AD 476. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-6841-8388-9.
Grierson, Philip (1968). Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. Vol. 2. Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-8840-2024-0.
Grierson, Philip (1973). Catalogue of Byzantine Coins, vol. 3: Leo III to Nicephorus III, 717-1081. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 0-8840-2012-6.
Halsall, Guy (2018). "Transformations of Romanness: The northern Gallic case". In Pohl, Walter; Gantner, Clemens; Grifoni, Cinzia; Pollheimer-Mohaupt, Marianne (eds.). Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities. Berlin: De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-1105-9838-4.
Hammond, Mason (1957). "Imperial Elements in the Formula of the Roman Emperors during the First Two and a Half Centuries of the Empire". Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. 25: 19–64. doi:10.2307/4238646. JSTOR 4238646.
Hartmann, L. M. (1913). "Italy under the Lombards". In Gwatkin, H. M.; Whitney, J. P. (eds.). The Cambridge Medieval History: Volume II: The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire. New York: The Macmillan Company. OCLC 14739796.
Hartmann, Udo (2002). Rezension zu: C. Körner: Philippus Arabs [Review of C. Körner: Philip the Arab]. H-Soz-Kult. Kommunikation und Fachinformation für die Geschichtswissenschaften (in German). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-1101-7205-4. Retrieved 2021-04-11.
Hekster, Olivier (2008). Rome and Its Empire: AD 193–284. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-2304-4.
Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil (2017) [1990]. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie [Roman imperial table: Basics of the Roman imperial chronology] (in German) (6th ed.). Darmstadt: WBG. ISBN 978-3-5342-6724-8.
Lascaratos, J.; Marketos, S. (1997), "The fatal disease of the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus (1328-1341 A.D.)", Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 106–109, doi:10.1177/014107689709000215, PMC 1296151, PMID 9068444
Lascaratos, J. (1999). ""Eyes" on the Thrones: Imperial Ophthalmologic Nicknames". Survey of Ophthalmology. 44 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1016/S0039-6257(99)00039-9. ISSN 0039-6257. PMID 10466590.
Lawler, Jennifer (2004). Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire. Jefferson: McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6616-0.
Oikonomides, Nicolas (1977). "John VII Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 31: 329–337. doi:10.2307/1291411. JSTOR 1291411.
Omissi, Adrastos (2018). Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1988-2482-4.
Peachin, Michael (1990). Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235–284. Amsterdam: Gieben. ISBN 9-0506-3034-0.
Rea, J. R. (1972). "O. Leid. 144 and the Chronology of A. D. 238". Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 9: 1–19. JSTOR 20180380.
Richardson, John (1984). Roman Provincial Administration. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. ISBN 978-0-8629-2128-6. OCLC 1067756325.
Sandberg, Kaj (2008). "The So-Called Division of the Roman Empire in AD 395: Notes on a Persistent Theme in Modern Historiography". Arctos. 42: 199–213. ISSN 0570-734X.
Salway, Benet (1994). "What's in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700". Journal of Roman Studies. 84: 137–140. doi:10.2307/300873. JSTOR 300873. S2CID 162435434.
Schreiner, Peter (1977). Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken II: Historischer Kommentar [Byzantine small chronicles 2: Historical commentary]. CFHB (in German). Vienna: ÖAW. ISBN 978-3-7001-0206-9.
Seibt, Werner (2018). "Wer war Niketas Nobellisimos und Komes von Opsikion (8. Jahrhundert)?" [Who was Niketas Nobellisimos and Komes of Opsikion (8th century)?] (PDF). Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (in German). 67: 213–216. doi:10.1553/joeb67s213.
Shiel, Norman (1979). "The Coinage of Saloninus as Augustus". Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society). 24: 117–122. JSTOR 43573579.
Smolin, Nathan I. (2021). Christ the Emperor: Roman Emperor and Christian Theology in the 4th Century AD (Doctoral thesis). University of North Carolina. doi:10.17615/wg7y-3h07.
Syme, Ronald (1958), "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature", Historia, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 175–188, JSTOR 4434568
Tilemachos, Lounghis (2015). "Review Article: Juan Signes Codoner, The emperor Theophilos and the East, 829-842: Court and frontier in Byzantium during the last phase of Iconoclasm, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies, vol 13, Ashgate 2014". Byzantina Symmeikta. 25: 237–260. doi:10.12681/byzsym.8773.
Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001). Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit [Prosopographical Lexicon of the Palaiologan era] (in German). Vienna: ÖAW. ISBN 978-3-7001-1462-8. (see PLP)
Treadgold, W. (1990). "A Note on Byzantium's Year of the Four Emperors". Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 83 (2): 431–33. doi:10.1515/byzs.1990.83.2.431. S2CID 194092611.
Van Tricht, Filip (2011). "The Imperial Ideology". The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople (1204–1228). Leiden: Brill. pp. 61–101. ISBN 978-90-04-20323-5.
Vagi, David L. (1999). Coinage and History of the Roman Empire: c. 82 B.C. – A.D. 480. Volume I: History. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-1389-9907-7.
Watson, A. (1999). Aurelian and the Third Century. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-4150-7248-4.
Williams, Stephen; Friell, Gerard (1998). The Rome that Did Not Fall: The Survival of the East in the Fifth Century. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-2039-8231-0.
Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016). ""Live Like a King": The Monument of Philopappus and the Continuity of Client-Kingship". In So, Francis K. H. (ed.). Perceiving Power in Early Modern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-1375-8624-7.
Foster, Russell (2015). Mapping European Empire: Tabulae imperii Europaei. Oxford: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-3157-4475-9.
Giesey, Ralph E. (1960). The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France. Geneva: Librairie Droz. ISBN 978-2-6000-2987-2.
Harris, Jonathan (2013). "Despots, Emperors, and Balkan Identity in Exile". The Sixteenth Century Journal. 44 (3): 643–661. doi:10.1086/SCJ24244808. JSTOR 24244808.
Potter, David (1995). A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-3121-2480-9.
Setton, Kenneth M. (1978). The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-127-2.
