Chapter, Paragraph

  1  2,1 |           and have found there a policy of government rather than
  2  2,1 |          Constantine’s religious policy, he said, is the introduction
  3  2,1 |           H. Grégoire wrote that policy always takes precedence
  4  2,1 |  religion, particularly external policy.[17] A. Piganiol said that
  5  2,1 |    continuator and executor of a policy initiated by others, rather
  6  2,1 |        Constantine, originated a policy of tolerance toward Christianity.
  7  2,1 |         Milan” proclaimed, not a policy of toleration, but the predominance
  8  2,2 |     successor to the throne. His policy of extinguishing all the
  9  2,2 |     development of the religious policy of the last years of his
 10  2,2 |   carried out a persistent Arian policy against paganism. One of
 11  2,2 |  advanced.~ The persistent Arian policy of Constantius led to serious
 12  2,2 |           St. Jerome called this policy of Julian “a gentle persecution,
 13  2,3 |   followed an entirely different policy. Upon declaring himself
 14  2,3 |     quite definitely forsook the policy of religious toleration
 15  2,3 |          in this respect was the policy of the eastern ruler, Theodosius,
 16  2,3 |   Constantinople.~ The religious policy of Theodosius, therefore,
 17  2,3 |        followed to some extent a policy of toleration toward other
 18  2,3 |       and he decided to follow a policy of peaceful relations with
 19  2,3 |       following his Germanophile policy, failed to realize that
 20  2,3 |        successors continued this policy of colonization. The areas
 21  2,3 |         Herodias.[119] His harsh policy toward the Arian Goths also
 22  2,5 |        nature. The firm orthodox policy of the two emperors who
 23  2,5 |       very strong.~The religious policy of Anastasius. The rebellion
 24  2,5 |      Anastasius in his religious policy favored Monophysitism; somewhat
 25  2,5 |         Emperor.~ This religious policy of Anastasius led to the
 26  2,5 |         sea.”[150]~ The internal policy of Anastasius, not yet sufficiently
 27  2,5 |       very definite Monophysitic policy. Both these emperors were
 28  2,5 |    period. In their Monophysitic policy both were confronted by
 29  2,5 |     administration and religious policy.[180] This point of view
 30  3   |       well as in their religious policy the successors of Zeno and
 31  3,1 |      departed from the religious policy of his two predecessors
 32  3,1 |         to an end. The religious policy of the emperors of this
 33  3,1 |        point of view of external policy, the Byzantine emperors
 34  3,3 |                     The external policy of Justinian and his ideology.~
 35  3,4 |          of Justinian’s external policy. — To summarize Justinian’
 36  3,4 |      Justinian’s entire external policy we must say that his endless
 37  3,4 |  Meanwhile, his general external policy brought about an extremely
 38  3,6 |               The ecclesiastical policy of Justinian.~ As the successor
 39  3,6 |        guided Justinian’s church policy; some have concluded that
 40  3,6 |      questions of doctrine. This policy of temporal authority in
 41  3,6 |    historian, “was in its church policy a double-faced Janus with
 42  3,6 |        aim of Justinian’s church policy from the very beginning
 43  3,7 |      famous for his conciliatory policy towards the Monophysites.
 44  3,7 |        regretfully to change his policy. Anthimus was deposed and
 45  3,7 |       and Justinian instituted a policy of persecuting and exiling
 46  3,7 |          change in the religious policy of the government.~ In summarizing
 47  3,7 |     religious and ecclesiastical policy of Justinian the question
 48  3,7 |         of Justinian’s religious policy we must not disregard his
 49  3,8 |                     The internal policy of Justinian.~ ~The Nika
 50  3,8 |          of Justinian’s internal policy was his obstinate, still
 51  3,10|       Empire the firmly orthodox policy of the emperors and the
 52  3,12|          of Justinian’s external policy in the West, where the Empire
 53  3,14|    favored by the emperors. This policy was expressed in such acts,
 54  3,14|        The unsuccessful external policy of Phocas in regard to the
 55  3,16|          through the enlightened policy of the modern Turkish republic
 56  3,16|        successors. The religious policy of the Emperor was also
 57  4   |      will and extreme autocratic policy and who strove to dethrone
 58  4,1 |     Great. It was the unyielding policy of the emperors that rendered
 59  4,1 |       also dissatisfied with the policy of the central authorities
 60  4,2 |                        Religious Policy of the dynasty~ ~Monotheletism
 61  4,2 |       undermine the conciliatory policy of Heraclius. The Roman
 62  4,2 |        of Constans II, religious policy developed as follows. The
 63  4,2 |          the Emperor’s religious policy was also growing stronger
 64  5,2 | Byzantine Empire. This offensive policy became evident in the late
 65  5,3 |  explained it by Leo’s Bulgarian policy. Leo saw that the Slavs
 66  5,4 |          period have seen in the policy of the iconoclastic emperors
 67  5,4 |   believed that the iconoclastic policy of the emperors was prompted
 68  5,4 |    regulated by the iconoclastic policy of the emperors, which was
 69  5,4 |  emphasis from iconoclasm to the policy of the government against
 70  5,4 |         its fundamental aims the policy of Leo III was not based
 71  5,4 |        the basis of their church policy. These emperors were neither
 72  5,4 |          strongly opposed to the policy of the Emperor. In Greece
 73  5,4 |      church walls.~Leo’s hostile policy against images has found
 74  5,4 |    Gregory II, who opposed Leo’s policy of image-breaking, was succeeded
 75  5,4 |          determined iconoclastic policy and in the last years of
 76  5,5 |   foundations of an iconoclastic policy, sanction its validity,
 77  5,6 |          behind the militaristic policy of Justinian in the sixth
 78  5,7 |          his time. The religious policy of the iconoclasts stands
 79  5,7 |      Isaurian dynasty. For their policy, no matter how sincere on
 80  5,7 |       aspect of the iconoclastic policy of the Isaurian emperors
 81  5,8 |         the renewed iconoclastic policy, and announced that he was
 82  5,8 |          an earlier period. This policy won over numerous supporters.~
 83  5,8 |   continuator of the traditional policy of creating in Italy an
 84  5,8 |       subject to new trials. The policy of Nicephorus was one of
 85  5,8 |       image-worship the tolerant policy of Nicephorus seemed as
 86  5,8 |   advance openly an iconoclastic policy. One source credits the
 87  5,8 |   agreement with Leo’s religious policy. In the year 815 a second
 88  5,8 |        carry out their religious policy under conditions which differed
 89  5,8 |       Byzantine Empire. Only the policy pursued by the iconoclastic
 90  5,8 |       Greek fire, deeming it bad policy to enlighten barbarians.”[
 91  6,2 |          problem in the external policy of Basil I, the founder
 92  6,2 |        point in Basil’s external policy. His plans for a general
 93  6,2 |          the Empire. The eastern policy of Leo VI during the second
 94  6,2 |        into the imperial eastern policy, a spirit of confident aggression.”[
 95  6,2 |     importance for the Byzantine policy in the East. After three
 96  6,2 |      Ocean.[24]~ In the West the policy of Nicephorus Phocas was
 97  6,2 |      favorable for an aggressive policy in the east. The menacing
 98  6,2 |       latter sometimes pursued a policy of cruel persecution of
 99  6,2 |         as well as the religious policy of the central government.
100  6,3 |    success of wise and energetic policy on the part of Romanus Lecapenus. “
101  6,6 | completely altered the Byzantine policy toward Italy. Not only did
102  6,7 |    marked the beginning of a new policy toward the pope.~ In the
103  6,7 |  material change in the internal policy of the Byzantine emperors,
104  6,8 |          the throne the external policy of the Empire should have
105  6,8 |        his fall the antimilitary policy of Constantine Ducas weakened
106  6,8 |    Manzikert.~ The new financial policy of Michael VII Ducas Parapinakes,
107  6,8 |     which often meant changes in policy, Psellus showed great ability
108  6,8 |          in Basil’s constructive policy as the erection of St. Sophia
109  7,1 |       emperors and their foreign policy~The revolution of 1081 elevated
110  7,1 |          saw the collapse of his policy.~ Alexius II (1180‑1183),
111  7,1 |   exasperated by the latinophile policy of the Empress‑regent, Mary
112  7,1 |        shown that the aggressive policy of Robert Guiscard in the
113  7,1 |    methods of Byzantine internal policy was to transport various
114  7,1 |           Thus the international policy of the Empire toward the
115  7,1 |        the total of his external policy. Such a point of view is
116  7,1 |    danger. Thus, in his external policy Alexius successfully overcame
117  7,1 |        enterprises. His external policy chiefly continued that of
118  7,1 |         interest in his external policy was concentrated in Asia
119  7,1 |         parts of John’s external policy in the West, then, were
120  7,1 |         If John, in his external policy, had turned his chief attention
121  7,1 |      involved chiefly in western policy, which had sad consequences
122  7,1 |      reign of Manuel his western policy, like that of his predecessor,
123  7,1 |        to proceed in his western policy against Roger. Nevertheless
124  7,1 |         more clearly.~ ~External policy of Manuel after the Second
125  7,1 |        the aims of the Byzantine policy changed. Now it had to oppose
126  7,1 |        to reply to the Byzantine policy in Italy in a similar way,
127  7,1 |         triumph of the Byzantine policy towards the Latins. It was
128  7,1 |          any efficient offensive policy in the East. She could barely
129  7,1 |     Bremen.~ To sum up, Manuel’s policy differed very much from
130  7,1 |          cautious and thoughtful policy of his grandfather and father.
131  7,1 |     Manuel’s epoch estimated his policy in these comments: “Manuel
132  7,1 |          sad consequences of his policy; they had been already perceived
133  7,1 |        to stop it. The erroneous policy of Manuel led the Empire
134  7,1 |         would keep up the social policy of the first three Comneni.
135  7,1 |          failure of the external policy. Andronicus came to the
136  7,1 |          of the western European policy, came to an end; at the
137  7,2 |                          Foreign policy of the Angeli~ ~Characteristics
138  7,2 |         to do with the Byzantine policy, and that the foundation
139  7,2 |        against Byzantium. Such a policy, moreover, was an immediate
140  7,2 |    Constantinople. Therefore the policy of Henry VI was not only
141  7,2 |        Henry VI was not only the policy of a crusader, but also
142  7,2 |         a crusader, but also the policy of a man absorbed in the
143  7,3 |       had been undermined by the policy of the German sovereigns,
144  7,3 |       change in the premeditated policy of Venice and Germany and
145  7,3 |       grew discontented with the policy of the Emperors, whom they
146  7,3 |       and egoistically patriotic policy of Doge Dandolo.~ The Latin
147  7,4 |   speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave
148  7,4 |          of his illusive western policy.~ In the internal church
149  7,4 |          in his secular external policy and in his ecclesiastical
150  7,4 |        and in his ecclesiastical policy, was wholly unsuccessful.
151  7,4 |          fact that the Emperor’s policy in both fields was only
152  7,4 |        was only his own personal policy and had no solid and real
153  7,4 |    discontent with the financial policy of Manuel. The Greeks of
154  7,4 |        reaction against Manuel’s policy, did the situation of the
155  7,4 |     against Manuel’s latinophile policy and support of the large
156  7,4 |          connection with the new policy of Andronicus towards the
157  7,4 |   entirely corresponded with the policy of Alexius II Comnenus.
158  7,4 |      towards the end of 1182 his policy was already openly hostile
159  7,4 |   commercial questions. Manuel’s policy was always closely connected
160  7,4 |         history and for external policy, and throws special light
161  8,2 |         guided the imperialistic policy of the King Kalojan against
162  8,3 |                          Foreign policy of the Lascarids and the
163  8,5 |          strong but conciliatory policy might have succeeded, if
164  8,5 |     might have succeeded, if any policy ever could, in filling up
165  8,6 |          John Vatatzes’ external policy, therefore, consisted on
166  8,6 |        vacillating and weakening policy of interstate hostilities,
167  8,6 |     interstate hostilities, or a policy of transient alliances.
168  8,7 |   peninsula.~ But the anti-Latin policy of Theodore Angelus did
169  8,7 |         to resist the aggressive policy of Theodore of Epirus.~
170  8,9 |          of Bulgaria changed his policy and came out as a defender
171  8,10|         the final success of his policy, that is, the taking of
172  8,12|     Significance of the external policy of John Vatatzes.~ With
173  8,13|     father’s successful external policy and for his own breadth
174  8,14|         pope held a conciliatory policy, allowing the Greek bishops
175  8,14|          carry out an aggressive policy against the Empire of Nicaea.
176  8,14|      abandoned their traditional policy. But this agreement remained
177  8,14|         guide the ecclesiastical policy, take part in church matters,
178  8,15|         expectations. Theodore’s policy was to diminish the influence
179  8,15|          that the reason for his policy was his military activities.[
180  8,17|    famous for their iconoclastic policy waged their struggle not
181  8,17|         owing to the latinophile policy of Manuel I, they settled
182  9,1 |                          Foreign policy of the Paleologi.~ Constantinople,
183  9,2 |          the centers of European policy. “After the restoration
184  9,3 |                     The external policy of Michael VIII.~ ~Byzantium
185  9,3 |         keystone to his external policy. In connection with this
186  9,3 |        depended upon his western policy.~ At the close of the twelfth
187  9,3 |   Byzantium, Manfred adopted the policy of his predecessors which
188  9,3 |          wish for a conciliatory policy regarding Byzantium. On
189  9,3 |   successful in his conciliatory policy towards the pope and to
190  9,3 |        to imitate the aggressive policy of Charles of Anjou, appealed
191  9,3 |        which encroached upon the policy of Charles in the West.
192  9,3 |      supported his imperialistic policy in the East.[49] In addition,
193  9,3 |       Jerusalem. In his peaceful policy of coming to an understanding
194  9,3 |       who supported entirely the policy of the Sicilian king and
195  9,3 |     moment in Michael’s external policy. In 1281 Michael VIII opened
196  9,3 |     foundations of the Byzantine policy of this pope, who had broken
197  9,3 |       for the western aggressive policy against Byzantium.~ The
198  9,3 |        had a repercussion on the policy of Venice who, a year before,
199  9,3 |         Mark rapidly changed her policy; realizing that Charles
200  9,3 |      Charles of Anjou.~ ~Eastern policy of Michael VIII. — The Emperors
201  9,3 |  distinct feature of the eastern policy under Michael VIII. It was
202  9,3 |    several times in his external policy.[64]~ In this connection
203  9,3 |        in Bithynia. The external policy of Michael VIII, so strongly
204  9,3 |  influenced by the imperialistic policy of Charles of Anjou, had
205  9,3 |       Michael’s enforced eastern policy were felt when the Turks,
206  9,4 |                     The external policy of Byzantium during the
207  9,4 |        Andronicoi.~ The external policy of Andronicus II and Andronicus
208  9,4 |           to open his aggressive policy, on one hand, by the annexation
209  9,4 |        II continued his father’s policy of privileges for Genoa,
210  9,5 |      also miscarried, due to the policy of John Cantacuzene; in
211  9,9 |       different power, different policy, different will, and different
212  9,11|        century, in their eastern policy wished no repetition of
213  9,11|         the pope, his aggressive policy against Byzantium found
214  9,11|         menace of the aggressive policy of Charles of Anjou.~ Since
215  9,12|         support to the religious policy of Michael Palaeologus.~
216  9,12|          triumph of the Orthodox policy, the party of the zealots,
217  9,14|   resistance to John’s religious policy. His conversion in Rome
218  9,18|         resisted Michael’s union policy. He therefore incurred the