Good Byzantine History

[Bullethead]

Byzantium by John Julius Norwich
3 volumes: "The Early Centuries", "The Apogee", and "The Decline and Fall"

If you're like me, you learned nothing about the Byzantine Empire in school, just a few vague references to "decadence" and "byzantine plots". But with MTW only a few days away from our blood-stained hands, and the Byzantines being a playable faction, maybe you're wondering what the Hell they were all about.

If so, these are the books for you. They were written for the Byzantine-challenged masses so are easy reads. That said, they impart a LOT of useful info and are so well-written that you'll find them it hard to put them down at 0300 even when you have to go to work in a few hours. They read more like rousing adventure stories than history books. And by the end, you'll be a fan of Byzantium and will be sad when the ancient empire finally falls.

MTW's period corresponds almost exactly to the period covered by the 3rd volume. However, I recommend you read them all so you know the backstory http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[NinjaKilla]

Yeah I guess I should tackle this stuff at some point. I studied Frankish history which meant that a basic understanding of Byzatine politics was required, but it's quite a daunting subject so I never dared to really get into it. I'll have a look see if I can get hold of these books.

The other sunject is skipped was Viking Scandinavia, mind you I guess I'd need a good couple of years to understand that. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif



------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[Wavesword]

I liked Gibbon's chapters on Byzantium and the Crusades in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" but can't regard them as being the best historically. He really does catch the epic sweep of things tho'.

[Bullethead]

Quote Originally posted by Wavesword:
I liked Gibbon's chapters on Byzantium and the Crusades in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" but can't regard them as being the best historically. He really does catch the epic sweep of things tho'.[/QUOTE]

This is why it really pays to read books like these. I used to think the same thing. But since I've read these, I've come to consider Rome and the Western Empire to be punks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

According to these books, when the Roman Empire got split, Rome itself became a provincial town with the Western capital becoming Ravenna. Then Constantine the Great basically reunited the empire and ran the whole show from Byzantium aka Constantinople. IOW, there was only 1 Roman Empire from that point on, the capital of which was Byzantium. No "Western Empire" (or "Eastern Empire") at all, despite some claims to the contrary by rebellious Italian governors.

Over time, provinces fell away, including the Italian peninsula. Some barbarian named Alaric even burned down Rome. But that was way off in the western provinces, no big deal. And in due time, Roman armies from the new heartland retook much of Italy for a considerable time. Enough for southern Italy to become known up to about 1100 as "Greater Greece" and for Greek to be the native language of the population there (as it still is in a few backwaters, apparently).

The Byzantines always refered to themselves as Romans and they were right. Even if they became Christian, even if their official language eventually became Greek, even if Charlemagne started calling himself the Western Roman Emperor, and even if most outsiders started calling them Greeks. They were still the Roman Empire, never conquered, just shifted to the east from its origin.

Had Constantine kept the capital in Italy, I'm sure that part of the Empire would have lasted as long as the part around Byzantium. Hell, it might still be around. Rome fell because it had become an outlying province, not a capital.

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Nelson]

Thanks. This sounds like a good read.

------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO

[Sjakihata]

Hmm.. I history books written as a novel? To me it seems too subjective, might be "an easy" read, but I like hard facts e.g. dates etc.


NinjaKilla: What is wrong with the Vikings http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Bullethead]

Sjakihata Akechi said:
Quote Hmm.. I history books written as a novel? To me it seems too subjective, might be "an easy" read, but I like hard facts e.g. dates etc.[/QUOTE]

No, it's really a trilogy of history books. I just meant to say that it READS like a novel because it's a) a long tale of very interesting deeds both good and evil, and b) the author's style brings out the excitement and drama of these truly great events.

Here's and example, from the 3rd volume, dealing with the rise of Alexius Comnenus, a usurping general who founded one of the more stable and successful dynasties of the late Byzantine Empire (he'd be the Emperor at the start of MTW's full and early campaigns):

Quote ... Alexius had enemies at court; it was here above all that he needed a champion, and he found one in the Empress herself. Mary had no love for her new husband [Nicephorus Botaneiates, himself a usurping general], who after all was old enough to be her grandfather. As the former wife of Michael VII [whom NB had deposed], her first loyalty was to the Ducas family [among the most powerful in Byzantium], of which Alexius was a member by marriage. Perhaps she knew that (as the contemporary chronicler John Zonaras reports) two of her husband's cronies, a sinister pair of barbarian origin named Borilus and Germanus, were plotting to destroy the young general, and felt it her duty to protect him [he was kicking ass at the time when Byzantine interests were in rout elsewhere]; possibly, too, aware that her husband was considering naming a distant relation as his successor, she was trying to safeguard the interests of her son Constantine . It may even be--and subsequent events were to lend the theory additional weight--that she had fallen in love with Alexius, and saw herself in the role of Theophano to his Tzimisces [an earlier usurper similarly aided]. Any of these hypotheses may be true, or none of them; we have no means of telling. All we know is that, some time in 1080, Mary of Alania adopted Alexius Comnenus as her son.

Norwich, John Julius; Byzantium: The Decline and Fall, page 5[/QUOTE]

------------------
[B]-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Wavesword]

Mmmm, Gibbon obviously agreed to a great extent precisely because he continued the story of the Roman Empire through the Byzantines (although he thinks of them as being rather 'effeminate' at points!. Justinian tried to reconquer the West with a mercenary force, and thanks to the brilliance of Belisarius (and Narses) almost succceded! Alexius is an interesting character, who Gibbon regards as being an untrustworthy schemer. Stephen Runciman's history of the crusades represents him as a civilized prince who had learnt to accomadate Muslims and Christians alike. The story of the 4th(?) crusade is like one of damnation, where Knights set off for the holy land, sack some cities to get the Venetians to join in, and end up carving up Byzantium's empire between them! The Pope excommunicated them, but came round eventually (sigh)...

[Red Peasant]

Justinian bankrupted the Empire with his grandiose schemes, laying the platform for the later troubles with Persia and Islam.

Belisarius and Narses were great general though.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Bullethead]

Red Peasant said:
Quote Justinian bankrupted the Empire with his grandiose schemes, laying the platform for the later troubles with Persia and Islam.[/QUOTE]

The Empire went on to bigger and better things after Justinian so he didn't bankrupt it. Also, the Empire utterly destroyed the Persians long after Justinian's time. Unfortunately, it had no chance to celebrate because Mohammed came along simultaneously.

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Red Peasant]

The resiliance of the Byzantine Empire was indeed remarkable but the later empire was mainly confined to Asia Minor, the Balkans and some other minor areas.

Justinian's excesses seriously debilitated the long-term structural integrity of the empire as it existed in his time. A couple of generations later they almost lost everything, and what they did lose was the economic powerhouse of the old 'Eastern Empire': the Near East, Egypt, and, to a lesser extent, the African provinces.

The empire, as it regrouped in the 8th and 9th centuries, was a significantly different creature from its 'Justinian' forebear, both militarily and structurally.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Bullethead]

Wavesword said:
Quote Mmmm, Gibbon obviously agreed to a great extent precisely because he continued the story of the Roman Empire through the Byzantines (although he thinks of them as being rather 'effeminate' at points!.[/QUOTE]

Well, Byzantium lasted more than 1000 years after Alaric sacked Rome. And for most of that time, it's emperors were its leading generals. Or it's leading generals became its emperors via coups and then kept on soldiering. However, the last Byzantine Emperor died defending the city--can the same be said of those in Rome?

Quote Justinian tried to reconquer the West with a mercenary force, and thanks to the brilliance of Belisarius (and Narses) almost succceded![/QUOTE]

Don't forget this was the 2nd reconquering attempt. Long beforehand, it had already been done, only to get overrun by barbarians later. It was these barbarians that Justinian was trying to throw out.

Quote Alexius is an interesting character, who Gibbon regards as being an untrustworthy schemer. Stephen Runciman's history of the crusades represents him as a civilized prince who had learnt to accomadate Muslims and Christians alike.[/QUOTE]

Alexius I Comnenus spent most of his life fighting Muslims. His initial success in this field led him to the throne and after that he kept on fighting them, interrupted from time to time by serious Balkan invasions from Norman Sicily. So I wouldn't say he was too accomodating of Muslims.

Alexius also had to deal with the first few Crusades. This is where he got his undeserved "untrustworthy" reputation in the West. At this point in time, Western Europeans were only a few generations removed from total Dark Age barbarism and were still groping around trying to find the handle for civilization (but at least they were trying now :P). Suddenly, the pope got them all pointed in the same direction and off they went to reconquer the Holy Lands.

So here they came, by the 10s of thousands, pillaging, raping, and burning their way along like the pseudo-barbarians they were, through the lands of the only real Christian civilization of the time. But Alexius let them through, provisioned them, and provided transport across the Bosphorous, all while keeping depradations and East v. West fighting to a minimum. Just hustle them on through, "go kill some Turks, there's a good lad". No way he could have done more for them. They wouldn't go home and he couldn't let them linger in his lands.

However, he also had to extract from all the leaders oaths of fealty. After all, if any Christian nation had claim to the Holy Lands, it was the Byzantine Empire because the Holy Lands had formerly been provinces thereof. This oath thing caused some friction and a little bloodshed but eventually Alexius got his way. Mostly because the Crusaders, who were out for themselves above all, realized that only Byzantium was in a position to help them and they couldn't survive by themselves. Still, Outremer tried to be as independent as possible.

Quote The story of the 4th(?) crusade is like one of damnation, where Knights set off for the holy land, sack some cities to get the Venetians to join in, and end up carving up Byzantium's empire between them![/QUOTE]

What happened was the 4th Crusade was supposed to go by sea to Egypt, based on the strategic recommendations of Richard Lionhearted. So its organizers contracted with Venice to provide the ships both to transport the army and then supply it, the army footing the bill. However, the 4th Crusade wasn't as popular as those before. The Venetians mustered their full fleet but not enough soldiers showed up to pay for it and they wanted to go to Jerusalem, not Egypt. So the only way to pay off the Venetians was to go pillaging, which they did all along the coast of Greece. That these were all Christian towns didn't seem to bother them.

This all coincided with a serious downturn in the fortunes of the Comnenus dynasty. Thus, the "crusaders" were able to reach Constantinople itself. There was an unsuccessful assault followed by a siege. A coup in Byzantium came too late and a 2nd assault carried the city. The Venetian Doge, Enrico Dandolo (who was blind, nearly 90, and despite this led both assaults and was the driving force being the whole expedition), then crowned one of the soldiers as the 1st "Latin" Emperor of Byzantium, the legitimate government moving to Asia Minor for a while.

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Wavesword]

Relative views of the crusaders and the byzantines do seem to have changed a great deal over time. Tancred (of 1st crusade fame) is represented in some accounts as being a model knight, in others as a ruthless land-grabber. I read a selection of extracts from arab historians of the crusades a while ago for their assessment of the Christians, but it was mainly composed of biographies of Saladin the very very nice man, ahem.

[Warmaker]

I don't know too much about the Byzantines but Belisarius is a name I've heard more than several times.

Didn't Justinian dislike him despite him being his best general? Had him retire only to pull him out of retirement for another "save the Empire" campaign again? A bout of jealousy, right?

------------------
There's no such thing as overkill, just ensured victory!

[Bullethead]

Wavesword said:
Quote Relative views of the crusaders and the byzantines do seem to have changed a great deal over time. Tancred (of 1st crusade fame) is represented in some accounts as being a model knight, in others as a ruthless land-grabber.[/QUOTE]

Is there any difference? IMHO, the 2 are 1 in the same. Feudal society had 3 classes ("estates"): peasants to feed all, warriors to fight for all, and priests to pray for all. These castes were fairly exclusive--the warrior elite couldn't do any productive work because that was for peasants. Thus, their only real means of social and economic advancement was through success in combat: a combination of reputation earned, loot acquired directly, and rewards handed out by superiors. This was especially true for younger sons.

So basically, the warrior elite had to be offensive in nature. In an existing realm, all the titles and land already had been distributed. And while tournaments might have given accolades, they didn't provide anything in the way of long-term cashflow improvement. Thus, these guys either had to fight internally and grab each other's lands, or fight externally to grab somebody else's. Only by increasing acreage held did their cashflow really increase.

Quote I read a selection of extracts from arab historians of the crusades a while ago for their assessment of the Christians, but it was mainly composed of biographies of Saladin the very very nice man, ahem.[/QUOTE]

By modern standards, nobody alive back then was a "nice man" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. In fact, nearly everybody would today be considered a war criminal. Hell, the French and English had a war that lasted over 100 years. How many real battles were there in that period? Depends on what you call a "real battle" but less than 10 for sure. Say 1-2 per generation. But all the rest of the time, it was constant war on the opposing civilian peasantry. Burning of crops and villages, massacre of inhabitants, mass rape, the usual. The idea was both strategic (striking the base of the enemy's economy) and economic (looting), and it was about the only option in the long periods when the enemy avoided open battle. How would this be looked on today?

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Patricius]

Bullethead

Ravenna only became a capital during the time of Honorius replacing Mediolanum as the real capital of the west. Treveri, Sirminium, and Arelate - to an extent - also served as capitals. Rome had long ceased to be the real capital. But it mattered - St Jerome, then in Palestine was 'stupified and dismayed.... the bright light of the world was quenched.'

Alaric only burnt the law courts in the Basilica Julia and some pagan structures (410). Same for another Germanic sackers like the Vandals (455) - only pagan structures and the like were harmed. The Ostrogothic rulers improved the Basilica Nova, the Baths of Constantine and those of Carcalla,the Tiber bridges, the wharves and more besides.

Good posts otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Patricius (edited 08-28-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Patricius (edited 08-28-2002).]

[Red Peasant]

Welcome to Patricius.

Alaric expressed regret at what damage was inflicted on Rome. The Goths were owed a lot of 'money' by the Empire and they did try to 'extort' it from the Roman aristocracy. The Romans arrogantly refused and ended up paying far more than was originally asked for by the time the Goths had finished. Alaric's concern was more for the damage that his troops inflicted on the city....he couldn't really restrain them, as they weren't disciplined troops, and they were really pissed-off!

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Wavesword]

Tancred is represented as being a good knight as a foil to the villanous Bohemond (ambigously referred to as Ulyssesian!), which is the kind of narrative device that makes good stories and bad history. Saladin is represented as 'nice' because of his devoutness, and in comparison to most monarchs- certainly Richard III, and perhaps even St Louis- he wasn't a robber and a pillager. I'm as guilty as anyone else of applying today's standards to historical figures, but I'd certainly prefer that future generations judged me by their cultural circumstances rather than theirs! My post was an oblique reference to the practice of how judgements on particular historical figures reflect on the age that we live in, I think Nietzsche comments something like- if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Bottom line I think that we should be cautious of applying our cultural standards to historical figures but it is ultimately unavoidable. At the moment the Byzantines seem the civilized and therefore better party, but many a writer has preferred energetic barnarians to decadent civilizations. Gibbon comments scathingly on the number of native Byzantines who were willing to fight against the Turks- about 4870 'Romans'

------------------
Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephemeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.

[Giustiniani]

Quote Gibbon comments scathingly on the number of native Byzantines who were willing to fight against the Turks- about 4870 'Romans'

[/B][/QUOTE]

First of all hello to you all. Wavesword i believe you are talking about the Fall of the City to the Turks in 1453. That is correct. No more than 5000 citizens came to defend the city's walls out of a population of 100000. These where joined by 2000 volunteers, mostly Latins. These also included some 700 men, lead by Giovani Giustiniani Longo, Genoese commander of the island of Chios, who was appointed head of the defence ("protostratoras") by the Emperor. (This is where i get my nickname too). Anyway The Fall of Constantinople is a fascinating story and you can read some of it in this thread: http://www.greece.org/projects/Romiosini/fall.html

29th of May 1453 is stil considered to be the darkest day in Greece's history and Emperor Constantine XI Palaelogus is a legendary figure even today.

[Emperor Theodoripiklos IV]

the 5OOO men figure is actually the number of greeks of military age in the City...also in adittion to the Italians there was Turks and Slavs defending the city.
Total force was aroun 7 to 8k vs 80,000k Ottos.
Emperor Constantine is the only emperor or leader for that matter in the history of empires who fought shoulder to shoulder with his brave soldiers to the bitter end...finding a moste glorius death.
The pathetic western dogs , had they been in Constantines place would have had fled the city or would have commited suicide in the royal palace like that pussy Hitler who couldn't even make a last stand with his brave but doomed man or kids for that matter.
I am proud to be able to trace my bloodline backt to the imperial times...both greek and serbian...and if it was up to me id march an an army to "istanbul" and kick thous perverted fashist turks out to a man.
They have no rightful claims in our mother Europe. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Emperor Romanus IV]

Yes i totally agree that Emperor Constantine
did the best he could given his most unfortunate circumstances.I dun think there could have been a worst time 4 him to be born and to loose to a 21 year old Sultan.
Some good books that i've read on the Byzantine Empire so far include,the Secret History,14 Byzantine Rulers,The Alexiad,the Byzantine Revival.Also the books by Warren Treadgold r good,esp the one abt the Roman Army,can't remember the exact name though. Just some suggestions 4 the fans of Byzantine History.

[Red Peasant]

Quote Originally posted by Emperor Theodoripiklos IV:
the 5OOO men figure is actually the number of greeks of military age in the City...also in adittion to the Italians there was Turks and Slavs defending the city.
Total force was aroun 7 to 8k vs 80,000k Ottos.
Emperor Constantine is the only emperor or leader for that matter in the history of empires who fought shoulder to shoulder with his brave soldiers to the bitter end...finding a moste glorius death.
The pathetic western dogs , had they been in Constantines place would have had fled the city or would have commited suicide in the royal palace like that pussy Hitler who couldn't even make a last stand with his brave but doomed man or kids for that matter.
I am proud to be able to trace my bloodline backt to the imperial times...both greek and serbian...and if it was up to me id march an an army to "istanbul" and kick thous perverted fashist turks out to a man.
They have no rightful claims in our mother Europe. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif[/QUOTE]

Oh dear, nothing more fascist than this post. No wonder there will never be peace in the Balkan region...we should ring-fence it and let you guys get on with it till the last man is left standing. And he'll probably start fighting with himself!

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Emperor Theodoripiklos IV]

SAd thing is you are right RED http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
The wild blood of the Balkans.

[stilicho]

If you ask me the Byzantines/Rhomaioi (or Romans) have little to do with greece or serbia or any modern country. Modern countries seem based on "race/ethnicity". The Byzantine empire was based on religion, culture, civilization. As long as you were christian and had a pair, you could be Emperor. Didn't matter if you were greek, armenian, whatever. Heck the Byzantines thought greeks made crappy soldiers. One of the Byzantines most popular folk tales was of a border soldier who's father was an arab emir and who's mother was a Byzantine princess. It seems they were less interested in exterminating their enemies (which did happen, but rarely) then in bringing them back into the fold. Everyone was made in god's image. Compare that civilized attitude to the modern balkan attitude.

[Emperor Theodoripiklos IV]

I dont think any nation today has little or anyhting to do with the days of old.

[Ferocious Imbecile]

For the 4th Crusade, nothing can compare to The Alexiad of Anna Comnena

------------------
If you're not a communist when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a fascist when you're old, you don't have a brain.

[spmetla]

Quote I am proud to be able to trace my bloodline backt to the imperial times...both greek and serbian...and if it was up to me id march an an army to "istanbul" and kick thous perverted fashist turks out to a man.
They have no rightful claims in our mother Europe[/QUOTE]

Same here. My dad traced our family solidly back to 200B.C. After that I don't trust the source but it goes to 1912B.C.



------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"

"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"

email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com

[Rosacrux]

I traced my line in Crete, 12th century A.D. Later, an ancestor of mine fought (and died, actually) in the siege of Handakas (modern day Heraklion) by the Turkish hords.

Before that it's kinda blurry - but probably (due to my general build http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif ) I am genuine Doric breed



[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 09-25-2002).]

[stilicho]

You sure about that ferocious? 4th crusade happened 1204 A.D. She was alive 1083-1153 A.D.

[Ferocious Imbecile]

Quote Originally posted by stilicho:
You sure about that ferocious? 4th crusade happened 1204 A.D. She was alive 1083-1153 A.D.[/QUOTE]

You're right; it was the First Crusade she lived through... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.html

Hey...I read it in 1973....WTF! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If you're not a communist when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a fascist when you're old, you don't have a brain.

[Ferocious Imbecile]

Quote Originally posted by Red Peasant:
Oh dear, nothing more fascist than this post. No wonder there will never be peace in the Balkan region...we should ring-fence it and let you guys get on with it till the last man is left standing. And he'll probably start fighting with himself!

[/QUOTE]


If it wasn't for the Serbs and George Skanderbeg we'd probably all be bowing to the east 5 times a day and all our women would be "circumcised"...ahem....Let's not be too critical of those who have been fighting to protect our front door from the enemy while we sit comfortably eating in the kitchen.

[Red Peasant]

Quote Originally posted by Ferocious Imbecile:

If it wasn't for the Serbs and George Skanderbeg we'd probably all be bowing to the east 5 times a day and all our women would be "circumcised"...ahem....Let's not be too critical of those who have been fighting to protect our front door from the enemy while we sit comfortably eating in the kitchen.[/QUOTE]


Yawwwwwn!

If you say so mister! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[Emperor Theodoripiklos IV]

Well they did thank us by pounding Belgrade with bombs to save some albanian terrorists.
Should have seen thous WWII veterans in Belgrade weeping when the City was bombed ,for the memory of NAzi Stukas blasting away at the old city is very fresh.

Drugovi Partizani!!!
Smrt Fasizmu , Sloboda NArodu!!!!!!!!!!
SFRJ

[stilicho]

The serbs and albanians didnt make much of an impact long-term in stalling the turks. In fact, werent there serb units fighting alongside the turks in the final siege of Constantinople? The serbs were also surely partly responsible, with stefan dusan, of speeding up the Empires fall by attacking the
Byzantines in the back while They were occupied with civil wars and the ottamans. While the Byzantines were busy fulfilling their historical role, of being a defender for Christianity against all invaders, the serbs decided to be greedy and short-sighted. Well the serbs paid for it.
And as for the serbs being bombed, well all they had to do was summon some courage and throw milosovic out with their own hands. Like the romanians did with ceaucesceu? around 1990.