In last night's post I was still holding to my original line that our "national emergency" over social problems in Aboriginal communities was primarily the Rodent playing with The Power Of Nightmares to try and distract voters from the issues the government is getting hammered on. I did, however, speculate that it could also be a land grab for uranium mines - an idea Crikey was promoting with gusto today.
In retrospect, I think I failed to be cynical enough - this makes a lot more sense - what is happening seems to be a camouflaged "rolling back" native land rights to enable the radioactive future most of us are against to happen against the wishes of the people who own the land. Big government conservatives at it again - the American version are oil thieves, ours are uranium thieves.
Anyway, first off from Crikey, Alex Mitchell on the Rodent's "last throw of the dice".
This is the last throw of the dice for John Howard. He is doing one big favour for the mining industry which he has faithfully served in public life for the past 30 years by rolling back Aboriginal ownership of their tribal lands. Cynically, cruelly but utterly predictably, he's doing it under the hypocritical colours of humanitarianism. (Very similar to the invasion and occupation of Iraq sold as "spreading democracy").
In his four terms as PM, he has starved indigenous health, education and housing of funds, abolished ATSIC and pointedly marginalised the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. This particular pre-election pitch is aimed at Lateline viewers, readers of The Age and The SMH and ABC stalwarts, the demographic that constitutes Australian (small "l") liberalism. These are the feeble-brained, hand-wringers who are congenitally incapable of separating the wood from the trees. They are types currently heard sobbing: "I'm no fan of Mr Howard, but at least he's DOING SOMETHING!" Yes, he is: he's giving the mining giants the leg-up they need to start exploring, digging and quarrying in indigenous lands in the Northern Territory and then elsewhere.
He is being aided and abetted by Kevin Rudd's craven behaviour. Instead of falling into line with Howard's agenda, he should have demanded complete details of the plan, the highest-level briefing, sought face-to-face meetings with Aboriginal leaders, state premiers, police and army officers and taken the lead in a national debate. Instead, he mouthed pieties such as "I'm taking Mr Howard at his word" and "I believe the Prime Minister when he says he is responding to a national crisis" etc etc. Has anyone realised that these are almost the same words used by Kim Beazley when he backed Howard during the Tampa scam? By his pusillanimous approach, Rudd has vacated leadership on the tragic issue of rescuing Aboriginal communities and given Howard the opportunity to play his sickening Father of the Nation role. Paul Keating, you were right about the Rudd team of fixers, hucksters, flyweights and spineless opportunists.
And to be honest, we couldn't have put it better ourselves.
Next from Crikey, Gavin Mudd (no relation) on using children to nuke Aboriginal land rights.
It is ironic that at the time of the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum John Howard is in the middle of gutting the Northern Territory's Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA) -- the Commonwealth legislation made possible by that referendum.
The land rights were long overdue, hard fought for and won by Aboriginal people, but they are about to be critically undermined, not just by the politics of military-style interventions in problematic Aboriginal communities, but by a more insidious, as yet unrecognised agenda -- mining and nuclear waste on Aboriginal land.
The ALRA gives legitimate powers such as access permits for entry to Aboriginal freehold lands, a veto over exploration and mining and other activities. As noted by the 1974 Woodward Land Rights Inquiry, to deny Aboriginal people the right to prevent mining on their land is to deny the reality of their land rights.
Since gaining control of the Senate, the Howard Government has finally had the parliamentary power to gut the ALRA, which they are doing, but have needed a massive diversion before they introduce the most controversial reforms: radically altering the mining royalty regimes, and potentially remove the veto provision for exploration and mining.
It is no coincidence that many of the communities targeted for "military style intervention" are also areas that are heavily targeted for minerals exploration, particularly uranium, as well as for potential nuclear waste dumps. This includes Western Arnhem Land and Central Australia, where numerous known uranium deposits are being actively investigated by various wanna-be uranium producers.
I have personally visited numerous Aboriginal communities, including some with major social dysfunction and others which have escaped the tyranny of petrol sniffing, grog and domestic violence. This was achieved by the communities and took hard yakka over a decade (or more). Now, they are vibrant, positive and functional communities proud to be truly sustainable. Mining has rarely aided this process.
The use of "social issues" as a diversion to hide the gutting of Aboriginal land rights is malicious and cold-hearted. As with almost everything Howard does, there is clearly more at play -- perhaps it's time to have a real debate about problems, true partnerships and the future.
The Age says the "PM 'got it wrong' on abuse plan".
Days after the Prime Minister announced his unprecedented intervention, Rex Wild, QC, has accused the Government of adopting an excessively heavy-handed approach, sending people to descend on remote indigenous communities "like a plague of locusts". Mr Wild, co-author of the landmark report Little Children are Sacred, said Canberra should have been trying to build up trust with indigenous people. "Now you'll find the problem is that people's backs are up," he told the ABC's Lateline Business. Referring to his contact with communities before the publication of his report, Mr Wild said: "We didn't arrive with a battleship. We came gently … Now they are just having the gunships sent in."
A senior Federal Government adviser on indigenous substance abuse warned that banning alcohol in Aboriginal communities could cost lives. Ted Wilkes, chairman of the Government's National Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Committee, said a chronic shortage of treatment services in the NT meant people with alcohol addiction faced dangerous withdrawal without support. He has held meetings with Canberra health and drug strategy advisers to warn against a blanket ban on alcohol in Aboriginal communities without investment in rehabilitation.
Matthew Campbell writes: I am surprised at the vitriol directed at Guy Rundle as a result of his article (yesterday, comments), and that he, by making some valid observations, is basically on the side of the abusers. I don't know the experience of those who wrote in but it seems like it might be less than mine. I currently live in Alice Springs and previously lived in four Aboriginal communities in northern Western Australia. I have been working in indigenous communities in the NT for the past eight years and can attest that there are things in most of the communities I have visited that are working. These ventures are the product of a lot of hard work between well-trained professionals and Aboriginal people who together are developing and implementing innovative solutions to issues in these communities. They are, by their nature local initiatives, and where adequate time and resources have been invested continue to be successful, in some cases employing people, and in most leading to noticeable increases in self-esteem ownership and increased ability to develop new solutions to other issues. These sorts of things of course do not get reported on, meaning that in a situation like we have today, they are overlooked while non-indigenous Australians pronounce "nothing else has worked so this is worth a try". This latest plan will fail no doubt. However, don't think that this means that attention should not be drawn to Aboriginal communities. It should be, but if we based the response on building on what works, engaging in partnership with Aboriginal people we might have a chance. We need the spotlight turned on, but lets turn it on together so that in a few years all those saying currently "this is worth a try" won't have to acknowledge that solutions imposed from the outside don't work.
John Craig, Centre for Policy and Development Systems, writes: Re. "Make no mistake, Howard's NT plan is a new apartheid" (Monday, item 1). Might I respectfully suggest, in relation to your article, that: there is no doubt (as your article suggested) that making new special laws for Aborigines does not end "Aboriginal exceptionalism". However: apartheid means living apart (ie. as separate communities). It is not a term that strictly can be applied to preventing anyone from exercising legal rights they would otherwise have in particular places -- which is a quite routine effect of government regulations on land use (for example); special laws for Aboriginal people (and thus inequality before the law) were made possible by the widely supported 1967 referendum; inequality before the law was cited most vigorously by One Nation (whose name suggested their opposition to the idea of separate communities, but whose policy 'solutions' seemed unlikely to be particularly beneficial). As far as I can tell the position of Aboriginal Australia has not improved over the past 30-40 years -- arguably because the focus has been on gaining "benefits" (eg. native title to land, government funding) through political pressure, with virtually no attention to what is required for indigenous people to be economically successful. The real requirement to improve their situation is not to further force the Australian community to "cede power", but to gain economic power by participating in enterprises that entice consumers to part with hard-earned cash to pay for attractive products and services. Boosting any other form of power will simply leave Aboriginal people worse off through increasing their dependence on government handouts. While I have not yet studied the PM's proposed "solution", if it contains steps along the lines your article mentioned, then your article's suggestions about its likely failure and parallels with Iraq are (unfortunately) likely to be valid. In the case of Iraq also, the cultural and institutional preconditions for democracy and economic prosperity (and their absence in Iraq) were simply ignored. The Federal Government has "shot itself in the foot" by creating an organisation so politicised and centralised that it is virtually incapable of generating practical initiatives in relation to any problem (see the CPDS article: Decay of Australian Public Administration); The initiatives being advanced on both sides of politics seem equally insubstantial (On Populism in 2007); The problems facing indigenous communities are unlikely to be resolved as long as the practical effect that cultural assumptions have on any people's ability to be materially successfully continues to be put in the "too hard" basket and officially ignored (The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement).
In other local news, one of the big storms we have had recently resulted in a bulk coal carrier being washed up on the main surf beach at Newcastle (our primary coal export port), with efforts still underway to try and refloat it. In the meantime, local activist groups have been having fun shining a massive "coal causes climate chaos" slogan on the hull of the ship.
The day has arrived for salvage experts to attempt to refloat the bulk carrier Pasha Bulker from a sandbar at Newcastle's Nobbys Beach. The bid comes after Greenpeace activists last night staged a protest against coal at the salvage site, beaming messages against the ship's hull including "Coal causes climate change chaos".
Three tugs and winches aboard the $35 million coal carrier will haul together during today's 7pm high tide to heave the massive vessel seaward. The 40,000-tonne ship's ballast water, which has been holding her steady on the sand, will be pumped out and the hull pressurised.
Since the Pasha Bulker ran aground during a severe storm on June 8, its plight in pounding seas has been a source of fascination. The ship has about 700 tonnes of fuel and 100 tonnes of other chemicals on board, prompting worries of a possible hull breach.
Wind gusts of up to 80 km/h and three-metre waves around the ship are forecast to ease today and continue to lessen over tomorrow and Saturday, when the salvage operation is expected to continue.
Dave Roberts has a great article in The Guardian on liquid coal. Sounds the coal industry works the same way everywhere - sucking up government subsidies while despoiling the environment.
They say the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But if there's one thing the coal industry loves, it's digging.
Generating electricity by burning coal has ravaged the climate, but it's made coal barons in the US rich. They worried for a while that global warming would mean the end of the gravy train - they're the ones who started the massive climate-change disinformation campaign back in the 1980s - but instead, to their delight, they've discovered that climate change is a gravy train itself.
They're being showered with government subsidies to develop and deploy carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), whereby the emissions from coal-fired power plants are collected and stored underground. It's technologically precarious and enormously expensive, but with taxpayers footing the bill, what the hell?
Now they've got a new idea, and it's audacious. They want taxpayers to fund the creation of another coal industry, one that that would generate liquid transportation fuel from coal (coal-to-liquids, or CTL). Of course, liquefying coal is every bit as dirty as burning it for electricity, so - this is the brilliant bit - they want US taxpayers to simultaneously fund a new set of carbon sequestration projects.
In one fell swoop, using public money to create a dirty industry and public money to clean it up, skimming hefty profits off the top. It's like a two-rail bank shot of rent-seeking, a bamboozle almost without precedent. Even the ethanol guys must be impressed. You'd almost have to admire it, if it weren't your money and your climate at stake.
The Huffington Post has a rebuttal of Raymond Learsy's "Peak Oil Is Snake Oil" post recently by ASPO USA's Steve Andrews. There are a few over the top claims in here which weaken his case in my view (arguing Iraq's flat oil production is somehow related to peak oil is ridiculous, for example).
5. Over 90% of the world's oil is owned by government-controlled oil companies. ExxonMobil only ranks #13 in size, dwarfed by Saudi Aramco. On a daily basis, the Saudis produce much more oil from the world's largest single oil field -- Ghawar -- than ExxonMobil produces from its many multi-billion-dollar projects scattered worldwide. As a retiree from Saudi Aramco wrote recently, those government-controlled oil producers "are no longer inclined to rapidly exhaust their resource for the sake of accelerating the misuse of a precious and finite commodity." That's our new reality, Mr. Learsy.
Bruce Sterling's latest Viridian Note is out, this one focussing on manifestations of the "khaki green" future we should be trying to avoid.
Attention Conservation Notice: keenly depressing, yet something of a tribute to Viridian foresight.
LONDON == Global warming is such a threat to security that military planners must build it into their calculations, the head of Britain's armed forces said on Monday.
Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff, said risks that climate change could cause weakened states to disintegrate and produce major humanitarian disasters or exploitation by armed groups had to become a feature of military planning.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett chaired the first debate on climate change at the UN Security Council in April this year. She argued that the potential for climate change to cause wars meant it should be on the council's radar.
Stirrup said the unpredictability of the immediate effects of global warming on rainfall patterns and storms meant flashpoints could be advanced by years without warning.
He did not identify the problem areas, but Bert Metz of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the meeting they included Central America, the Amazon Basin, large parts of north, central and southern Africa and swathes of Asia.
Scientists say average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport, melting ice caps, bringing floods, droughts and famines, and putting millions of lives at risk.
Stirrup said the security threat was far more immediate than those figures might suggest.
"If things do get worse you don't need to come very much forward from 2040 before, in my terms at least, you are talking about the day after tomorrow," Stirrup said.
He said the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington showed the devastation that attacks fuelled by political, economic and social deprivation could achieve.
Now add in the effects of climate change. Poverty and despair multiply, resentment surges and people look for someone to blame," he said.
Even if the world agreed quickly on a way of equitably tackling the climate crisis == which was far from sure == the nature of the problem meant a significant degree of adverse change was already in the pipeline.
"That rapidity, alongside the size of the global population and the complexity of today's society, leaves us particularly vulnerable," Stirrup said. "It is bound to present substantial security challenges of one kind or another."
Asked on the margins of the meeting if that meant military planners should opt for premptive action where they saw a security crisis emerging, he said: "Only in the sense of building governance. Recognising the problem is the first step."
(((So, what's the story here? Well, as I pointed out earlier, green design is winning. Practically every state with a trace of civilization has got capitalist-green fever now. They'll even do it in the teeth of government opposition, as they do right now in the USA. So design, in the sense of a comprehensive grass-roots effort to change the infrastructure, is doing great.
It is scarcely necessary to talk about this; it has become mainstreamed.
However, nation-states couldn't get it together to create a Kyoto-friendly world order, so we're seeing many failed states and hollow states. These areas are defeating the armies of nation states through the simple tactic of becoming and remaining ungovernable. This, as Stirrup is pointing out here, is making failed states indistinguishable from climatic disaster areas. They are going to become the same thing. Khaki Green, as an idea, is far from mainstreamed, but this article is a strong signifier of it.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, but the rain is going to fall with particular virulence on places where there is no government. No army. No civil services. And no functional ability to restore the infrastructure.
Dan at The Daily Reckoning has some interesting observations on the wheat crop and on the financial treadmill and the debt traps facing the average Australian.
--It's raining outside. Again. All the rain has been great news for wheat growers in Victoria. But is now the time to go bearish on wheat, before the ground is even dry? Yesterday's Financial Review ran an article detailing how a lack of maintenance and upkeep has reduced the speed and traffic on the rail lines that carry Victorian wheat to market. Is another Queensland-coal-like bottleneck forming in wheat?
-- And then there's the question of wheat prices. Our commodity-trading analyst friend Steve Belmont chimed in with this from Chicago yesterday. "Since 1978, every spike high in wheat above US$4.50 per bushel has reversed, causing prices to retreat below US$4.00 per bushel within 7 to 9 months. Markets anticipate. Wheat is an international crop. It is grown everywhere. High wheat prices increase acreage, which increases supply, which lowers prices. Will the same thing happen this time? We don't know. There is always the possibility 'things will be different this time.' However, every time we hear that phrase we want to run the other way. This is precisely what we want to do now."
--Globalisation is rigged to force households deep into debt they can never repay. That was the gist of our argument this week about housing. But this applies to the whole gamut of modern economic life. Both partners work in a modern marriage, which seems to be the result of both choice and necessity. To afford the median priced home, a car, insurance, and the basics of modern life you need two incomes, and even that is not enough.
-- "Australians love their bit of land, but Census figures reveal we're less likely to own a home now than we were five years ago while the level of household debt has gone through the roof," reports Nicki Bourlioufas at news.com.au. The census figures also showed the number of Australians who actually own their homes outright declined from 40% in 2001 to 32.6% today.
--Before-tax incomes have risen by nearly 24% in the last five years, from AU$375 per week to AU$466 per week. The trouble is, rents and average mortgage repayments have risen faster. The average mortgage payment is up over 50% in the last five years from AU$867 to AU$1,300. The average weekly rent is up slightly less at 31%, from AU$145 in 2001 to AU$190 last year.
--"But that's great," a real estate agent might say. "Mortgage payments are up because house prices are up. And when house prices go up, people are getting richer. It's a little thing we in the real estate business call 'capital appreciation.'"
--What's not up for anyone, anywhere, is affordability. To chase rising home prices, Australians are having to load up on debt. Borrowed money fills the gap between slowly-rising incomes and fast-rising house prices. As a man in a grey suit said on the TV last night, and we're paraphrasing here, "It's more accurate to describe Australia as a nation of home buyers than as a nation of home owners."
--And here's another thing to think about. Housing bubbles are more accurately described as mortgage-lending bubbles. It's the supply of money, in this case cheap housing credit and grants from the State and the Federal governments - that push up house prices. The affordability crisis begins with an increase in housing credit. But how does it end?
--With falling prices. Buying a home only makes sense under the right financial circumstances. Today, the housing market is rigged to make mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and the tax man rich based on high appraisals and sales prices. But for the buyer? Reject the debtor's bargain, dear reader!
--We're not offering an easy alternative, by the way. It is tempting to try and get rich in housing. But we think it's more likely that in trying to get rich on 'capital appreciation' many people will become much poorer. As with investing, the first rule is to not lose your capital.
TomDispatch has a look at the situation in Iraq - "Iraq by the Numbers - Surging Past the Gates of Hell".
Wired has a look at the Ron Paul online juggernaut.
When Texas Congressman Ron Paul entered the race for next year's Republican presidential nomination, few political analysts paid much notice.
Paul has no backing from political bigwigs or any campaign war chest to speak of. As the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988 he won less than one-half of 1 percent of the national vote.
Yet despite his status among the longest of the long shots, the 71-year-old has become one of the internet's most omnipresent –- and some say most irritating -– subjects.
According to Technorati, "Ron Paul" is one of the web's most searched-for terms. News about Paul has an outsize presence on Digg and reddit, two sites that allow users to highlight their preferred content. Paul's YouTube channel has been viewed over one million times, dwarfing efforts from competitors like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The Ron Paul internet boom has born everything from Belgians for Ron Paul to a reggae music video promoting Paul's views on monetary policy and habeas corpus.
During the 2004 election, a web-savvy campaign staff helped turn Howard Dean's anti-war candidacy into the first online political phenomenon. But the Ron Paul frenzy seems to have sprung from the internet itself. Paul's libertarian message – he is against big government, the war, and pretty much anything that costs taxpayers money – has attracted a group of anti-establishment, tech-savvy supporters who have taken everyone by surprise.
"The people who are actually working for the campaign are a little overwhelmed with what's happening," says Alex Wallenwein, a supporter who organized two of the 362 Meetup.com groups dedicated to Paul.
Matt Margolis runs GOP Straw Polls, a popular series of monthly surveys that are posted on numerous blogs in an attempt to gauge how much support candidates have throughout the conservative blogosphere. Margolis originally didn't include Paul in the polls but added his name when his fan base began to grow. Paul now dominates the polls, winning nearly half of all ballots cast in the most recent survey.
Paul supporters say his success is just the results of the wild, wild web operating at its finest, giving voice to a movement that would otherwise find no traction in traditional media. "If we have 20,000 passionate supporters who go and vote in an online poll and Rudy Giuliani can only get 1,000, we're not going to apologize for that," says Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign communication director.
Michael Nystrom, founder of the Daily Paul blog, says, "What I find interesting is that other candidates have more money, but Ron Paul has something money can't buy, and that's this very active online community." Whether or not Paul's online support translates into any real world success, it is clear this candidate has stumbled upon a new brand of internet activism that has the rest of the web scrambling to adapt.
SMH - Iran Imposes Fuel Rations.
WHT / Mobjectivist (The Oil Drum) - Finding Needles in a Haystack. WHT takes his latest peak oil model to a wider audience at TOD.
Heise Online - German Wikipedia receives state funding. The German government is funding people to update Wikipedia's renewable energy sections. While this is no doubt a worthy cause (or at least one that seems likely to result in content aligned with my views), I think its really an example of the slippery slope of Wikipedia - eventually corporate PR and Government propaganda sockpuppets will be paid to engage in endless infowar on the pages of Wikipedia, to the point where reading a page on any hot topic is unlikely to result in a balanced or accurate account. Personally I prefer a model where everyone maintains their own blog or site (or contributes to a group blog), with interlinking guiding you to good content and search engines and social networking sites working out what consensus reality is from the links, votes and other pertinent traffic. Of course, this system can still be hacked, but at least there are many takes on the issues to consider, instead of one eternally changing view at Wikipedia.
ABC - Independents flag foray into US presidential race. Nader and Bloomberg heading for the starting gate - how many more to follow ?
AFP - Doctors back plan to store medical info under your skin. Ready to get chipped yet ?


text:
bootstrap html templates
Illustrative Insights
capturing insights in creative & imaginative ways
Hi, I'm Jill Christ - product researcher and principal consultant at Illustrative Insights. I believe that good product development starts with understanding the people you are building for, and the problems you are solving for them.
However, while startups of all shapes and sizes know this well, they often don't have bandwidth to tackle it.
That's why I started Illustrative Insights. We take creative and imaginative approaches to helping startups answer critical questions throughout in their product development lifecycle.
How do you capture illustrative insights?
Three important principles guide our approach to research.
Listening deeply & carefully
Transformative insights come from listening deeply to people. We coach startups on how to listen to their users language, and go beyond the surface level jargon, long-winded responses, and understand what's being said beneath the surface.
Observe keenly & intentionally
We believe that cultivating empathy means seeing what the world looks likes through the eyes of someone else. That is why it is important to watch people using designs on a regular basis. Watching other people struggle and succeed is what cultivates empathy.
Share stories & frameworks
Your insights have a much longer shelf life if they are told through stories and frameworks. That is why we share our findings in terms of diagrams, journeys, and empathy maps - to help capture both the bigger picture and actionable next steps for your product.
What do illustrative insights provide?
We help answer questions at each stage of the product lifecycle.
early-stage
Q. "Who are we building for?
What problem are we solving?"
A. To answer these questions at this stage, we first conduct a mix of exporatory methods. For example, we may conduct ethnographic research (e.g., in-home contextual interviews), or remote in-depth interviews (e.g., jobs-to-be-done). Then, we distill these insights into illustrative frameworks, and propose actionable next steps for the future.
mid-stage
Q. "Is this concept the right direction? How will people react?"
A. At this stage, it is important to take an iterative, observational research approach. This gives you a chance to watch people using your design, fix issues, make changes, and test them with users again. This can be a mix of usability methods (e.g., Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation), conducted on desktop or mobile devices. By the end of this stage, you should have a finely-tuned design, and a series of insights that capture how the design evolved from study to study.
late-stage
Q. "Why are(n't) people using it? And what should we build next?"
A. After a product is launched, it's important for startups to listen and observe people who have adopted their product. To do this, we work with them to conduct unmoderated studies (e.g., diary studies), observational interviews (in-home or remote), or group discussions. The goal of this stage is to understand what it is like for people to use the product on their own devices, and in their context, and over time. Insights at this stage are captured and distilled into illustrative frameworks with recommendations of what to do next.
"The most important thing in communication
is hearing what isn't said."
~Peter Drucker
© Copyright 2019 Illustrative Insights - All Rights Reserved

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
John II Komnenos
For other people named John Komnenos, see John Komnenos (disambiguation).
John II Komnenos or Comnenus (Greek: Ἱωάννης ὁ Κομνηνός, romanized: Iōannēs ho Komnēnos; 13 September 1087 – 8 April 1143) was Byzantine emperor from 1118 to 1143. Also known as "John the Beautiful" or "John the Good" (Kaloïōannēs), he was the eldest son of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and Irene Doukaina and the second emperor to rule during the Komnenian restoration of the Byzantine Empire. As he was born to a reigning emperor, he had the status of a porphyrogennetos. John was a pious and dedicated monarch who was determined to undo the damage his empire had suffered following the Battle of Manzikert, half a century earlier.
Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
Mosaic of John II at the Hagia Sophia
Byzantine emperor
15 August 1118 – 8 April 1143
1092 as co-emperor
Alexios I Komnenos
Manuel I Komnenos
Co-emperor
Alexios the Younger
Constantinople, Byzantine Empire
(now Istanbul, Turkey)
8 April 1143(1143-04-08) (aged 55)
Cilicia, Byzantine Empire
(now Southeastern Anatolia, Anatolia, Turkey)
Monastery of Christ Pantocrator, Constantinople
(now Zeyrek Mosque, Istanbul)
Irene of Hungary
Maria Komnene
Andronikos Komnenos
Anna Komnene
Isaac Komnenos
Theodora Komnene
Eudokia Komnene
Komnenian
Irene Doukaina
John has been assessed as the greatest of the Komnenian emperors.[1] In the course of the quarter-century of his reign, John made alliances with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, decisively defeated the Pechenegs, Hungarians and Serbs in the Balkans, and personally led numerous campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor. John's campaigns fundamentally changed the balance of power in the east, forcing the Turks onto the defensive and restoring to the Byzantines many towns, fortresses and cities across the Anatolian peninsula. In the southeast, John extended Byzantine control from the Maeander in the west all the way to Cilicia and Tarsus in the east. In an effort to demonstrate the Byzantine ideal of the emperor's role as the leader of the Christian world, John marched into Muslim Syria at the head of the combined forces of Byzantium and the Crusader states; yet despite the great vigour with which he pressed the campaign, John's hopes were disappointed by the evasiveness of his Crusader allies and their reluctance to fight alongside his forces.
Under John, the empire's population recovered to about 10 million people.[2] The quarter-century of John II's reign is less well recorded by contemporary or near-contemporary writers than the reigns of either his father, Alexios I, or his son, Manuel I. In particular little is known of the history of John's domestic rule or policies.[a]
1 Physical appearance and character
2 Accession to the throne
3 Military and civil administration
4 Conspiracies of the sebastokrator Isaac
5 Diplomacy
6 Religious matters
7 Military exploits
7.1 The Pechenegs destroyed (1122)
7.2 Conflict with Venice (1124–1126)
7.3 War with the Hungarians and Serbs (1127–1129 – chronology uncertain)
7.4 War of attrition against the Anatolian Turks (1119–20, 1130–35, 1139–40)
7.5 Campaigning in Cilicia and Syria (1137–1138)
7.6 Final campaigns (1142)
8 Death and succession
9 The legacy of John II
10 Family
11 Ancestry
12 See also
Physical appearance and characterEdit
John II Komnenos – a conjectural digital replacement of facial features damaged on the original mosaic in Hagia Sophia
The Latin historian William of Tyre described John as short and unusually ugly, with eyes, hair and complexion so dark he was known as 'the Moor'.[3] Yet despite his physical appearance, John was known as Kaloïōannēs, "John the Good" or "John the Beautiful"; the epithet referred to his character. Both his parents were unusually pious and John surpassed them. Members of his court were expected to restrict their conversation to serious subjects only. The food served at the emperor's table was very frugal and John lectured courtiers who lived in excessive luxury. His speech was dignified, but he engaged in repartee on occasion. All accounts agree that he was a faithful husband to his wife, an unusual trait in a medieval ruler. Despite his personal austerity, John had a high conception of the imperial role and would appear in full ceremonial splendour when this was advantageous.[4]
John was famed for his piety and his remarkably mild and just reign. He is considered an exceptional example of a moral ruler, at a time when cruelty was the norm. He is reputed never to have condemned anyone to death or mutilation.[5] Charity was dispensed lavishly. For this reason, he has been called the Byzantine Marcus Aurelius.[6] By the example of his personal morality and piety he effected a notable improvement in the manners of his age. Descriptions of him and his actions indicate that he had great self-control and personal courage, and was an excellent strategist and general.[4]
Accession to the throneEdit
John II (left) and his eldest son Alexios, crowned by Christ. Byzantine manuscript, early 12th century
John II succeeded his father as ruling basileus in 1118, but had already been crowned co-emperor by Alexios I between 1 September and early November, 1092.[7] Despite this coronation, the accession of John was contested. That Alexios I favoured John to succeed him is made obvious by the elevation of his son to the position of co-emperor. However, Alexios' influential wife, Irene, favoured the Caesar Nikephoros Bryennios, the husband of her eldest child Anna Komnene.[8] Anna, who in infancy had been betrothed to her father's first co-emperor Constantine Doukas, herself harboured obvious aspirations to power and the throne. During Alexios' final illness both wife and daughter exploited his physical weakness to apply pressure on him in support of their agenda for the succession. Alexios endured these constant demands without formally changing his intended successor. As Alexios lay dying in the monastery of the Mangana on 15 August 1118, John, relying on trusted relatives, especially his brother Isaac Komnenos, gained entry into the monastery and obtained the imperial signet ring from his father. He then assembled his armed followers and rode to the Great Palace, gathering the support of the citizenry on the way. The palace guard at first refused to admit John without clear proof of his father's wishes, however, the mob surrounding the new emperor simply forced an entry. In the palace John was acclaimed emperor. Irene, taken by surprise, was unable either to persuade her son to step down, or to induce Nikephoros to contend for the throne.[9][10] However, this account of events, in particular the involvement of John's sister, in any palace coup attempt during the days around Alexios' death, has been disputed in a recent biography of Anna. [11]
Alexios died the night following his son's decisive move to take power. John refused to attend his father's funeral, despite the pleas of his mother, because he feared a counter-coup. However, in the space of a few days, his position seemed secure. Within a year of his accession, however, John II uncovered a conspiracy to overthrow him which implicated his mother and sister.[12] Anna's husband Nikephoros had little sympathy with her ambitions, and it was his lack of support which doomed the conspiracy. Anna was stripped of her property, which was offered to the emperor's friend John Axouch. Axouch wisely declined and his influence ensured that Anna's property was eventually returned to her and that John II and his sister became reconciled, at least to a degree. Irene retired to a monastery and Anna seems to have been effectively removed from public life, taking up the less active occupation of historian. However, Nikephoros remained on good terms with his brother-in-law.[13][14] One of the very few records of John's own words concerns the plot against him; he says that after ascending the throne, God "destroyed the cunning plots of my visible and invisible enemies and rescued me from every trap subjecting all my enemies under my feet".[15] To safeguard his own succession, John crowned his young son Alexios as co-emperor around September 1119.[b]
Military and civil administrationEdit
The family intrigues that challenged his succession to the throne probably contributed to John's approach to rulership, which was to appoint men from outside the imperial family to high office. This was a radical departure from the methods of his father, who had used the imperial family and its many connections to fill almost all senior administrative and military posts.[8]
John Axouch was John II's closest adviser and was his only intimate friend. Axouch was a Turk captured as a child at the Siege of Nicaea, who had been given as a gift to John's father. Emperor Alexios had thought him a good companion for his son, and so he had been brought up alongside the prince in the imperial household. Axouch was immediately appointed Grand Domestic (in Greek: μέγας δομέστικος, megas domestikos), upon the accession of John II. The Grand Domestic was the commander in chief of the Byzantine armies. It has been suggested that references to Axouch's possession of the imperial seal early in the reign of John's successor Manuel I meant that he was, in addition to his military duties, the head of the civil administration of the Empire. This was an unofficial position known at the time as the mesazon, and equivalent to a vizier or 'prime-minister.'[17] Such an appointment was remarkable, and a radical departure from the nepotism that had characterised the reign of Alexios I. The imperial family harboured some degree of resentment at this decision, which was reinforced by the fact that they were required to make obeisance to John Axouch whenever they met him.[18]
John's unwillingness to allow his family to influence his government to any great extent was to remain constant for the rest of his reign. John appointed a number of his father's personal retainers to senior administrative posts, men such as Eustathios Kamytzes, Michaelitzes Styppeiotes and George Dekanos. These were men who had been politically eclipsed during the ascendancy exercised by John's mother in the later years of the reign of Alexios I.[14] A number of 'new men' were raised to prominence by John II, these included Gregory Taronites who was appointed protovestiarios, Manuel Anemas and Theodore Vatatzes, the latter two also became his sons-in-law. John's marriage policy, of bringing new families into the imperial orbit, may have been directed towards lessening the influence of certain prominent aristocratic clans, such as the Doukas, Diogenes and Melissenos families, some of which had produced emperors themselves in the past.[19]
Despite his move away from close reliance on the imperial family and its connections, John's court and government had many similarities to that of his father, not least in its serious tone and piety. Indeed, an extant collection of political advice couched in poetic form, called the Mousai, are attributed to Alexios I. The Mousai are addressed directly to John II and exhort him, amongst other things, to maintain justice during his reign and a full treasury. Alexios' advice on rulership therefore continued to be available to his son, even after the old emperor's death.[20]
The increase in military security and economic stability within Byzantine western Anatolia created by John II's campaigns allowed him to begin the establishment of a formal provincial system in these regions. The theme (province) of Thrakesion was re-established, with its administrative centre at Philadelphia. A new theme, named Mylasa and Melanoudion, was created to the south of Thrakesion.[21]
Conspiracies of the sebastokrator IsaacEdit
Isaac Komnenos, mosaic of from the Chora Church
The younger brother of John II, Isaac, had been of essential support during the accession crisis. However, despite being given the highest of court titles, that of sebastokrator, Isaac later became estranged from his brother and became an active conspirator. With trusted advisors of his own choosing, such as John Axouch, and later the support of his son and co-emperor, Alexios, John II offered no meaningful role to Isaac in the governance of the empire. In the reign of Alexios I sebastokratores had wielded considerable power and Isaac would have had an expectation of a similar level of authority being devolved on himself. This thwarted ambition is probably what disillusioned Isaac with his brother's rule. Isaac aimed at replacing his brother as emperor. In 1130 John became aware of a plot involving Isaac and other magnates as he was leaving to campaign against the Turks. When John tried to seize Isaac, the latter escaped and fled to the Danishmend emir Ghazi, who received him, and later sent him to the breakaway Byzantine regime of the Gabrades in Trebizond. Isaac then became the guest of Masoud, the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, and subsequently of Leo, the Prince of Cilician Armenia. That Isaac was seeking aid from these princes in a bid to take the Byzantine throne by force is highly likely. Such a coalition did not materialise, but Isaac seems to have retained strong support in Constantinople. In 1132 John had to return from campaign in haste, when news reached him that conspirators in Constantinople had made an appeal to Isaac to become their ruler. The triumph that John celebrated following his capture of Kastamuni in 1133 can be seen as being a public affirmation of John's legitimacy as emperor embodied in the celebration of the defeat of external foes. The brothers were briefly reconciled in 1138, and Isaac returned to Constantinople; however, a year later Isaac was exiled to Heraclea Pontica, where he remained for the rest of John's life. In the extensive artwork that Isaac commissioned, he made much of his porphyrogenete status and his relationship with his imperial father, Alexios I, but he made little or no reference to his relationship to his brother John, or to the title of sebastokrator that he had received from him.[22][23]
DiplomacyEdit
A letter from John II to Pope Innocent II
The central tenet of the foreign policy of John II in the West was to maintain an alliance with the German emperors (Holy Roman Empire). This was necessary to limit the threat posed by the Normans of southern Italy to Byzantine territory in the Balkans. This threat became especially acute after Roger II of Sicily made himself supreme in southern Italy and assumed the title of king. Emperor Lothair III had Byzantine backing, including a large financial subsidy, for his invasion of Norman territory in 1136, which reached as far south as Bari. Pope Innocent II, with the Church's possessions in Italy under threat by Roger II, who supported Antipope Anacletus II, was also party to the alliance of Lothair and John II. However, this alliance proved unable to resist Roger, who extracted by force a recognition of his royal title from the Pope in 1139 (Treaty of Mignano).[24] Lothair's successor Conrad III was approached in 1140 for a royal German bride for John's youngest son Manuel. Bertha of Sulzbach, Conrad's sister-in-law, was chosen and despatched to Byzantium.[25] At much the same time Roger II applied to John II for an imperial bride for his son, but was unsuccessful.[26]
John's penchant for interfering with his wife's family, the rulers of Hungary, was problematic. The welcome accorded to ousted claimants of the Hungarian throne in Constantinople was seen by the Byzantines as a useful insurance policy and source of political leverage. However, the Hungarians treated this interference as a fighting matter. A Hungarian alliance with the Serbs produced serious consequences for continued Byzantine dominance in the western Balkans.[27]
In the East John attempted, like his father, to exploit the differences between the Seljuq Sultan of Iconium and the Danishmendid dynasty controlling the northeastern, inland, parts of Anatolia. In 1134 the Seljuq sultan Masoud provided troops for John's attack on the Danishmend-held city of Kastamuni (reoccupied immediately after the Byzantine conquest of 1133), however, the alliance proved unreliable as the Seljuq troops abandoned the expedition, decamping during the night.[28]
In the Crusader states of the Levant it was generally admitted that the Byzantine claims over Antioch were legally valid, though it was pragmatically viewed that only when the Byzantine emperor was in a position to enforce them militarily were they likely to be recognised in practice. The high point of John's diplomacy in the Levant was in 1137 when he extracted formal homage from the rulers of the Principality of Antioch, County of Edessa and the County of Tripoli. The Byzantine desire to be seen as holding a level of suzerainty over all of the Crusader states was taken seriously, as evidenced by the alarm shown in the Kingdom of Jerusalem when John informed King Fulk of his plan for an armed pilgrimage to the Holy City (1142).[29]
Religious mattersEdit
Former Imperial Chapels of Christ Pantokrator, now the Zeyrek Mosque, Istanbul. The tomb of John II was in the central church.
Gold coin of John II Komnenos, depicting the Virgin Mary and John holding a cross.
The reign of John II was taken up with almost constant warfare and, unlike his father who delighted in active participation in theological and doctrinal disputes, John appears to have been content to leave ecclesiastical matters to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the church hierarchy. Only when religion impinged directly on imperial policy, as in relations with the papacy and the possible union of the Greek and Latin churches, did John take an active part. He organised a number of disputations between Greek and Latin theologians.[30]
John, alongside his wife who shared in his religious and charitable works, is known to have undertaken church building on a considerable scale, including construction of the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator (Zeyrek Mosque) in Constantinople. This monastery, with its three churches, has been described as one of the most important and influential architectural constructions of Middle Byzantine Constantinople. Attached to the monastery was a hospital, of 5 wards, open to people of all social classes. The hospital was staffed by trained layman doctors rather than monks.[31][32] The central of the three churches was the Komnenian funerary chapel, dedicated to St. Michael. It had twin domes, and is described in the typikon of the monastery as being in the form of a heroon; this emulates the older mausolea of Constantine and Justinian in the Church of the Holy Apostles.[33]
Very active persecution of the followers of the Paulician and Bogomil heresies characterised the last few years of the reign of Alexios I.[34] No records from the reign of John mention such persecution, though countermeasures against heresy by the Byzantine Church remained in force. A permanent synod in Constantinople investigated the writings of a deceased monk named Constantine Chrysomallos which had been circulating in certain monasteries. These works were ordered to be burnt by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Leo Styppes, in May 1140, on the grounds that they incorporated elements of Bogomil belief and practices.[35]
One of the few members of the imperial family to be placed in an important position by John was his cousin, Adrian Komnenos (son of John's uncle the sebastokrator Isaac). Adrian had become a monk, adopting the monastic name John, and had accompanied the emperor on his campaigns of 1138. Soon afterwards, Adrian was appointed Archbishop of Bulgaria as John IV of Ohrid. Bulgaria was an autocephalous see and required a prestigious man as archbishop.[36]
Military exploitsEdit
Though he fought a number of notable pitched battles, the military strategy of John II relied on taking and holding fortified settlements in order to construct defensible frontiers. John personally conducted approximately twenty five sieges during his reign.[37]
The Pechenegs destroyed (1122)Edit
In 1119–1121 John defeated the Seljuq Turks, establishing his control over southwestern Anatolia. However, immediately afterwards, in 1122, John quickly transferred his troops to Europe to counter a Pecheneg invasion across the Danube frontier into Paristrion. These invaders had been auxiliaries of the Prince of Kiev. John surrounded the Pechenegs as they burst into Thrace, tricked them into believing that he would grant them a favourable treaty, and then launched a devastating surprise attack upon their fortified camp. The ensuing Battle of Beroia was hard-fought, John was wounded in the leg by an arrow, but by the end of the day the Byzantine army had won a crushing victory. The decisive moment of the battle was when John led the Varangian Guard, largely composed of Englishmen, to assault defensive Pecheneg wagon laager, employing their famous axes to hack their way in.[38][39] The battle put an effective end to the Pechenegs as an independent people; many of the captives taken in the conflict were settled as soldier-farmers within the Byzantine frontier.[40]
Conflict with Venice (1124–1126)Edit
John II in full imperial regalia, Byzantine low relief sculpture in marble, early 12th century.
After his accession, John II had refused to confirm his father's 1082 treaty with the Republic of Venice, which had given the Italian republic unique and generous trading rights within the Byzantine Empire. Yet the change in policy was not motivated by financial concerns. An incident involving the abuse of a member of the imperial family by Venetians led to a dangerous conflict, especially as Byzantium had depended on Venice for its naval strength. After a Byzantine retaliatory attack on Kerkyra, John exiled the Venetian merchants from Constantinople. But this produced further retaliation, and a Venetian fleet of 72 ships plundered Rhodes, Chios, Samos, Lesbos, Andros and captured Kefalonia in the Ionian Sea.[41] Eventually John was forced to come to terms; the war was costing him more than it was worth, and he was not prepared to transfer funds from the imperial land forces to the navy for the construction of new ships. John re-confirmed the treaty of 1082, in August 1126.[42]
War with the Hungarians and Serbs (1127–1129 – chronology uncertain)Edit
Main article: Byzantine–Hungarian War (1127–29)
John's marriage to the Hungarian princess Piroska involved him in the dynastic struggles of the Kingdom of Hungary. In giving asylum to Álmos, a blinded claimant to the Hungarian throne, John aroused the suspicion of the Hungarians. The Hungarians, led by Stephen II, then invaded Byzantium's Balkan provinces in 1127, with hostilities lasting until 1129; however, an alternative chronology has been suggested with the Hungarian attack and Byzantine retaliation taking place in 1125 with a renewal of hostilities in 1126.[43][44][c] John launched a punitive raid against the Serbs, who had dangerously aligned themselves with Hungary, many of whom were rounded up and transported to Nicomedia in Asia Minor to serve as military colonists. This was done partly to cow the Serbs into submission (Serbia was, at least nominally, a Byzantine protectorate), and partly to strengthen the Byzantine frontier in the east against the Turks. The Serbs were forced to acknowledge Byzantine suzerainty once again.[40] The Serbian campaign may have taken place between two distinct phases in the war against Hungary.[45] The Hungarians attacked Belgrade, Nish and Sofia; John, who was near Philippopolis in Thrace, counterattacked, supported by a naval flotilla operating on the Danube.[38] After a challenging campaign, the details of which are obscure, the emperor managed to defeat the Hungarians and their Serbian allies at the fortress of Haram or Chramon, which is the modern Nova Palanka; many Hungarian troops were killed when a bridge they were crossing collapsed as they were fleeing from a Byzantine attack.[46] Following this the Hungarians renewed hostilities by attacking Braničevo, which was immediately rebuilt by John. Further Byzantine military successes, Choniates mentions several engagements, resulted in a restoration of peace.[47][48][49] The Byzantines were confirmed in their control of Braničevo, Belgrade and Zemun and they also recovered the region of Sirmium (called Frangochorion in Choniates), which had been Hungarian since the 1060s. The Hungarian pretender Álmos died in 1129, removing the major source of friction.[45]
War of attrition against the Anatolian Turks (1119–20, 1130–35, 1139–40)Edit
Main article: Byzantine-Seljuq Wars
Seljuq period architectural fragment from Konya, showing Seljuq appropriation of the double-headed eagle often associated with Byzantium. Ince Minare Museum, Konya. The naturalism of the sculpture looks more Greek than Syrian or Iranian in workmanship.
Early in John's reign the Turks were pressing forward against the Byzantine frontier in western Asia Minor. In 1119, the Seljuqs had cut the land route to the city of Attaleia on the southern coast of Anatolia. John II and Axouch the Grand Domestic besieged and recaptured Laodicea in 1119 and took Sozopolis by storm in 1120, re-opening land communication with Attaleia.[50] This route was especially important as it also led to Cilicia and the Crusader states of Syria.[40]
Following the end of hostilities with Hungary, John was able to concentrate on Asia Minor during most of his remaining years. He undertook annual campaigns against the Danishmendid emirate in Malatya (Melitene) on the upper Euphrates from 1130 to 1135. Thanks to his energetic campaigning, Turkish attempts at expansion in Asia Minor were halted, and John prepared to take the fight to the enemy. In order to restore the region to Byzantine control, he led a series of well planned and executed campaigns against the Turks, one of which resulted in the reconquest of the ancestral home of the Komnenoi at Kastamonu (Kastra Komnenon); he then left a garrison of 2,000 men at Gangra. John quickly earned a formidable reputation as a wall-breaker, taking one stronghold after another from his enemies. Regions that had been lost to the empire since the Battle of Manzikert were recovered and garrisoned. Yet resistance, particularly from the Danishmends of the northeast, was strong, and the difficult nature of holding the new conquests is illustrated by the fact that Kastamonu was recaptured by the Turks even as John was in Constantinople celebrating its return to Byzantine rule. John persevered, however, and Kastamonu soon changed hands once more.[28][51][52]
In the spring of 1139, the emperor campaigned with success against Turks, probably nomadic Turkomans, who were raiding the regions along the Sangarios River, striking their means of subsistence by driving off their herds.[53] He then marched for the final time against the Danishmend Turks, his army proceeding along the southern coast of the Black Sea through Bithynia and Paphlagonia. The breakaway Byzantine regime of Constantine Gabras in Trebizond was ended, and the region of Chaldia brought back under direct imperial control. John then besieged but failed to take the city of Neocaesarea, in 1140. The Byzantines were defeated by the conditions rather than by the Turks: the weather was very bad, large numbers of the army's horses died, and provisions became scarce.[54][55][56]
Campaigning in Cilicia and Syria (1137–1138)Edit
John II directs the Siege of Shaizar while his allies sit inactive in their camp, French manuscript 1338
In the Levant, the emperor sought to reinforce Byzantine claims to suzerainty over the Crusader States and to assert his rights over Antioch. In 1137 he conquered Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia from the Principality of Armenian Cilicia, and in 1138 Prince Levon I of Armenia and most of his family were brought as captives to Constantinople.[57][58] This opened the route to the Principality of Antioch, where Raymond of Poitiers, Prince of Antioch, and Joscelin II, Count of Edessa, recognized themselves as vassals of the emperor in 1137. Even Raymond II, the Count of Tripoli, hastened northwards to pay homage to John, repeating the homage that his predecessor had given John's father in 1109.[59] There then followed a joint campaign as John led the armies of Byzantium, Antioch, and Edessa against Muslim Syria. Aleppo proved too strong to attack, but the fortresses of Balat, Biza'a, Athareb, Maarat al-Numan, and Kafartab were taken by assault.[60]
Although John fought hard for the Christian cause in the campaign in Syria, his allies Prince Raymond of Antioch and Count Joscelin II of Edessa remained in their camp playing dice and feasting instead of helping to press the siege of the city of Shaizar. The Crusader Princes were suspicious of each other and of John, and neither wanted the other to gain from participating in the campaign. Raymond also wanted to hold on to Antioch, which he had agreed to hand over to John if the campaign was successful in capturing Aleppo, Shaizar, Homs, and Hama. Latin and Muslim sources describe John's energy and personal courage in prosecuting the siege. The city was taken, but the citadel defied assault. The Emir of Shaizar offered to pay a large indemnity, become John's vassal, and pay yearly tribute. John had lost all confidence in his allies, and a Muslim army under Zengi was approaching to try to relieve the city, therefore the emperor reluctantly accepted the offer.[61] The emperor was distracted by a Seljuq raid on Cilicia and developments in the west, where he was pursuing a German alliance directed against the threat posed by the Normans of Sicily. Joscelin and Raymond conspired to delay the promised handover of Antioch's citadel to the emperor, stirring up popular unrest in the city directed at John and the local Greek community. John had little choice but to leave Syria with his ambitions only partially realised.[62]
Final campaigns (1142)Edit
In early 1142 John campaigned against the Seljuqs of Iconium to secure his lines of communication through Attalia (Antalya). During this campaign his eldest son and co-emperor Alexios died of a fever. Having secured his route, John embarked on a new expedition into Syria determined to reduce Antioch to direct imperial rule.[63] This expedition included a planned pilgrimage to Jerusalem on which he intended to take his army. King Fulk of Jerusalem, fearing that the emperor's presence with overwhelming military force would constrain him to make an act of homage and formally recognise Byzantine suzerainty over his kingdom, begged the emperor to bring only a modest escort. Fulk cited the inability of his largely barren kingdom to support the passage of a substantial army.[29][64] This lukewarm response resulted in John II deciding to postpone his pilgrimage. John descended rapidly on northern Syria, forcing Joscelin II of Edessa to render hostages, including his daughter, as a guarantee of his good behaviour. He then advanced on Antioch demanding that the city and its citadel be surrendered to him. Raymond of Poitiers played for time, putting the proposal to the vote of the Antiochene general assembly. With the season well advanced John decided to take his army into winter quarters in Cilicia, proposing to renew his attack on Antioch the following year.[56]
Death and successionEdit
John II hunting, French manuscript of the 14th Century
Having prepared his army for a renewed attack on Antioch, John amused himself by hunting wild boar on Mount Taurus in Cilicia, where he accidentally cut himself on the hand with a poisoned arrow.[65] John initially ignored the wound and it became infected. He died a number of days after the accident, on 8 April 1143,[66] probably of septicaemia.[67] It has been suggested that John was assassinated by a conspiracy within the units of his army of Latin origins who were unhappy at fighting their co-religionists of Antioch, and who wanted to place his pro-western son Manuel on the throne.[68] However, there is very little overt support for this hypothesis in the primary sources.[d] John's final action as emperor was to choose Manuel, the younger of his surviving sons, to be his successor. John is recorded as citing two main reasons for choosing Manuel over his older brother Isaac: Isaac's irascibility, and the courage that Manuel had shown on campaign at Neocaesarea.[69][70] Another theory alleges that the reason for this choice was the AIMA prophecy, which foretold that John's successor should be one whose name began with an "M". Fittingly, John's close friend John Axouch, although he is recorded as having tried hard to persuade the dying emperor that Isaac was the better candidate to succeed, was instrumental in ensuring that Manuel's assumption of power was free from any overt opposition.[71]
The legacy of John IIEdit
The Byzantine empire under John II Komnenos, c. 1143
Historian John Birkenmeier argued that John's reign was the most successful of the Komnenian period. In The Development of the Komnenian Army 1081–1180, he stresses the wisdom of John's approach to warfare, which focused on sieges rather than risking pitched battles. Birkenmeier argues that John's strategy of launching annual campaigns with limited, realistic objectives was a more sensible one than that followed by his son Manuel I. According to this view, John's campaigns benefited the Byzantine Empire because they protected the empire's heartland, which lacked reliable borders, while gradually extending its territory in Asia Minor. The Turks were forced onto the defensive, while John kept his diplomatic situation relatively simple by allying with the Holy Roman Emperor against the Normans of Sicily.[72]
Overall, it is clear that John II Komnenos left the empire a great deal better off than he had found it. By the time of his death substantial territories had been recovered, and the goals of the recovery of control over central Anatolia and the re-establishment of a frontier on the Euphrates seemed achievable. However, the Greeks of the interior of Anatolia were becoming increasingly accustomed to Turkish rule and often found it preferable to that of Byzantium.[73] Also, though it was relatively easy to extract submission and admissions of vassalage from the Anatolian Turks, Serbs and Crusader States of the Levant, converting these relationships into concrete gains for the security of the Empire had proven elusive. These problems were left for his gifted and mercurial son, Manuel, to attempt to solve.[74]
Empress Irene, from the Komnenos mosaic in the Hagia Sophia
John II Komnenos married Princess Piroska of Hungary (renamed Irene), a daughter of King Ladislaus I of Hungary in 1104; the marriage was intended as compensation for the loss of some territories to King Coloman of Hungary. She played little part in government, devoting herself to piety and their large brood of children. Irene died on 13 August, 1134, and was later venerated as Saint Irene. John II and Irene had 8 children:[75]
Alexios Komnenos (October 1106 – summer 1142), co-emperor from 1119 to 1142
Maria Komnene (twin to Alexios), who married John Roger Dalassenos
Andronikos Komnenos (died 1142)
Anna Komnene (c. 1110/11 – after 1149), who married the admiral Stephen Kontostephanos, who died in battle in 1149. The couple had four children.[76]
Isaac Komnenos (c. 1113 – after 1154), raised to sebastokrator in 1122, he was superseded in the succession in favour of Manuel in 1143; married twice and had several children.[77]
Theodora Komnene (c. 1115 – before May 1157), who married the military commander Manuel Anemas, who was killed in action, after which she entered a monastery. The couple had at least four children.[78]
Eudokia Komnene (c. 1116 – before 1150), who married the military commander Theodore Vatatzes. She had at least six children, but died early.[79]
Manuel I Komnenos (28 November 1118 – 21 September 1180), became emperor, and reigned 1143–1180.[80]
AncestryEdit
Ancestors of John II Komnenos[81][82]
Manuel Erotikos Komnenos
John Komnenos (brother of Isaac I Komnenos)
Alexios Charon
Anna Dalassene
Adriane Dalassene
Andronikos Doukas
John Doukas
Irene Pegonitissa
Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria
Troian of Bulgaria
Maria of Bulgaria
Kontostephane Aballanta?
Byzantine Empire portal
Byzantium under the Komnenos dynasty
Komnenian army
List of Byzantine emperors
^ Alexios I was the subject of an extensive biography, the Alexiad, written by his daughter Anna Komnene, who mentions her brother, John II, very briefly. The works of Byzantine historians John Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates both include very short chapters on the reign of John II, which act as prologues, before proceeding to much fuller accounts of later events, see Birkenmeier, pp. 2, 5–6, 15, 19.
^ The coronation of Alexios as co-emperor is usually dated to 1122, but contemporary documents indicate that he was crowned between 12 July and 7 October 1119.[16]
^ The primary sources, Kinnamos and Choniates, give little detail about this campaign, no dates are specified, and what they do say differs considerably. The chronology presented here, 1127–1129, follows that of Angold and other scholars, Fine has the events taking place earlier, in 1125–1126.
^ Two rather ambiguous Byzantine rhetorical allusions were the basis of this theory – all contemporary historical writing unanimously agrees on an accidental cause for the death of John II.
John II Comnenus' Hungarian campaigns
An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors
Mosaic of John Komnenos, Eirene and Alexios in Hagia Sophia
^ Birkenmeier, p. 85
^ W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, p. 700
^ Runciman, p. 209
^ a b Choniates, p. 27
^ Dennis, p. 7
^ "John II", The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer, Vol. V, Ed. William Harrison De Puy, (The Christian Herald, 1908), 3654.
^ Bucossi and Suarez, p. 16
^ a b Magdalino, p. 207
^ Choniates, p. 6
^ Angold (1984), pp. 152–153
^ Neville (2016), pp. 22
^ Magdalino, pp. 192–193
^ Choniates, pp. 8–9
^ a b Angold (1984), p. 152
^ Stathakopoulos, p. 6
^ Hendy 1999, p. 244.
^ Magdalino, p. 254
^ Bernard and Demoen, p. 21
^ Haldon, p. 97
^ Magdalino (2016), pp. 63-64
^ Linardou (2016), pp. 155-182
^ Kinnamos, pp. 74–75
^ Angold (1984), p. 159
^ a b Choniates, pp. 12–13
^ a b Runciman, pp. 212–213, 222–224
^ Angold (1995), p. 75
^ Necipoğlu, p. 133
^ Ousterhout, pp. 142-145
^ Finlay, p. 81
^ Loos, pp. 98–99
^ Birkenmeier, pp. 86–87
^ Kinnamos, p. 16
^ a b c Angold (1984), p. 153
^ J. Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline and Fall, 70
^ Angold (1084), p. 154–155
^ Fine, pp. 235–236
^ a b Fine, p. 235
^ Angold, p. 154
^ Choniates, pp. 11–12
^ A. Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier, 46
^ Holt, Lambton & Lewis 1995, p. 240.
^ Choniates, p. 19
^ Runciman, pp. 215–217
^ Choniates p. 22
^ J. Harris, Byzantium and The Crusades, p. 86
^ John Kinnamos, History I.10.
^ Kinnamos, pp. 28-31
^ Magdalino, p. 41
^ Bucossi and Suarez, p xix
^ Varzos 1984, pp. 380–390.
^ Magdalino, pp. xxiii-xxvi
^ Comnena, Anna (1969) [Written around 1148], The Alexiad, translated by Sewter, E. R. A., Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth, pp, 522-523
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ioannes II Komnenos.
Niketas Choniates, critical edition and translation by Magoulias, Harry J., ed. (1984). O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniatēs. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-1764-8.
John Kinnamos, critical edition and translation by Brand, Charles M., ed. (1976). Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, by John Kinnamos. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04080-6.
William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea), translated by E. A. Babock and A. C. Krey (Columbia University Press, 1943). See the original text in the Latin library.
Angold, Michael, (1984) The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204, a political history, Longman. ISBN 978-0-58-249060-4
Angold, Michael, (1995) Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261. Cambridge University Press.Poetry and its Contexts in Eleventh-century Byzantium
Bernard, F. and Demoen, K. (2013) Poetry and its Contexts in Eleventh-century Byzantium, Ashgate Publishing
Birkenmeier, John W. (2002). The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081–1180. Brill. ISBN 90-04-11710-5.
Bucossi, Alessandra and Suarez, Alex R. (2016) John II Komnenos, emperor of Byzantium: in the shadow of father and son, Routledge. ISBN 978-1-47-246024-0
Dennis, G.T. (2001) Death in Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 55, pp. 1–7, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Fine, John V. A. Jr. (1991) [1983]. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
Finlay, George (1854), History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 1057–1453, Volume 2, William Blackwood & Sons
Haldon, John (1999). Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204. London: UCL Press. ISBN 1-85728-495-X.
Harris, Jonathan (2014), Byzantium and the Crusades, Bloomsbury, 2nd ed. ISBN 978-1-78093-767-0
Holt, P.M.; Lambton, Ann K.S.; Lewis, Bernard (1995). The Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 1A. Cambridge University Press.
Hendy, Michael F. (1999). Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. Vol. 4. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 244–274. ISBN 9780884022336.
Linardou, K. (2016) "Imperial Impersonations", in John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son, Bucossi, A. and Suarez, A.R. (eds.) pp. 155–182, Routledge, Abingdon and New York. ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0
Loos, Milan (1974) Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages Vol. 10, Springer, The Hague.
Magdalino, Paul (1993). The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-52653-1.
Magdalino, P. (2016) "The Triumph of 1133", in John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son, Bucossi, A. and Suarez, A.R. (eds.) pp. 53–70, Routledge, Abingdon and New York. ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0
Neville, L. (2016) "Anna Komnene: The Life & Work of a Medieval Historian", Oxford University Press.
Necipoğlu, Nevra (ed.) (2001) Byzantine Constantinople, Brill.
Norwich, John J. Byzantium; Vol. 3: The Decline and Fall. Viking, 1995 ISBN 0-670-82377-5
Ousterhhout, R. (2016) "Architecture and patronage in the age of John II", in John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son, Bucossi, A. and Suarez, A. R. (eds.), pp. 135–154, Routledge, Abingdon and New York. ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0
Runciman, Steven (1952) A History of the Crusades, Vol. II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge University Press.
Stathakopoulos, D. (2016) "John II Komnenos: a historiographical essay", in John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son, Bucossi, A. and Suarez, A. R. (eds.), pp. 1–10, Routledge, Abingdon and New York. ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0
Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2.
Urbansky, Andrew B. Byzantium and the Danube Frontier, Twayne Publishers, 1968
Varzos, Konstantinos (1984). Η Γενεαλογία των Κομνηνών [The Genealogy of the Komnenoi] (PDF) (in Greek). Vol. A. Thessaloniki: Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Thessaloniki. OCLC 834784634.
Komnenian dynasty
Born: 13 September 1087 Died: 8 April 1143
Alexios I
with Alexios I (father) as senior co-emperor (1092–18)
Alexios (son) as junior co-emperor (1119–42) Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_II_Komnenos&oldid=1126651625"


RJ Golf Spinner Transport Bag comes equipped with built in wheels and a retractable handle.
This allows the bag to be easily rolled thru airports. This 9.5" pro-style bag has complete organization for clubs, balls and accessories and large openings for easy club removal and insertion.


text:
Regulators to pilot cyber program
By AB+F Editorial
The Council of Financial Regulators is ready to roll out a pilot program to tackle cybersecurity risks as it continues its focus on a number of industry initiatives in the area.
In its quarterly statement following a meeting held at the end of November, the council – including the Reserve Bank, APRA and ASIC, said it continues to pursue several work streams on cyber security.
It expects to release its pilot framework for a "threat intelligence-based testing" regime (CORIE) in the near future.
Members also endorsed a work plan that will focus on coordinating agency approaches on incident response, regulatory frameworks and testing.
The group also continues to engage with the Department of Home Affairs on the development of an improved "framework for the security and resilience of critical infrastructure," including in the financial sector.
Members also discussed ongoing digital identity initiatives, including work under way by the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and the private sector through the Australian Payments Network.
A council subcommittee will engage with the DTA on these issues.
Wider issues beyond cybersecurity were also discussed. Not surprisingly loan deferrals were a hot button issue.
The group of regulators acknowledged that to date the "transition has progressed relatively smoothly," given that many borrowers are now starting to make repayments. The group acknowledged that the share of loans deferred has now fallen 3 per cent in October from the 10 per cent peaks in the mid-year.
Nevertheless, the council "will continue to closely monitor developments, including the treatment of customers in hardship, as further deferrals expire in the coming months".