Diocletian and Aurelian similarities

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“… like with most of the third century emperors the sources …

are fragmentary, late and often unreliable”.

Dr. Ilkka Syvänne

 

 

Never a truer word ….

 

I have already re-set Diocletian, lifting him right out of the murky “third century” (AD) and re-locating him to the Census period of the Nativity of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:1):

 

See my articles on this:

 

Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

(1)  Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

Augustus-like Diocletian likewise had a trustworthy right-hand, second self

 

(1)  Augustus-like Diocletian likewise had a trustworthy right-hand, second self

 

Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

(1) Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

Diocletian the Persecutor thereby becomes, all at once - as according to my previous research - Caesar Augustus of the Lucan Census; Hadrian; and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

That means that, for the full reconstruction of this archetypal tyrant-persecutor, we need to take bites from (supposedly) c. 170 BC (Antiochus); the Nativity Year (Augustus); the C2nd AD (Hadrian); and the C3rd AD (Diocletian) - four different centuries - and who knows what else!

 

Diocletian: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, is frequently compared with Aurelian: Lucius Domitius Aurelianus another of those dubious “third century” characters. 

 

Here are some examples of this:

diocletian and aurelian similarities - Search

 

Diocletian and Aurelian similarities

 

Diocletian and Aurelian shared several key similarities during their reigns:

 

• Both were Illyrian-born emperors who rose to power through military service.
• They both played significant roles in stabilizing the Roman Empire during the Crisis of the Third Century.
• Both emperors were involved in military reforms and strategic alliances to defend the empire against barbarian threats.
• They both implemented administrative changes to address the structural weaknesses of the empire.
• Both emperors were known for their monarchial ceremonies and attempts to elevate their status above the masses.
• Both emperors were involved in political reforms to ensure the stability and efficiency of the empire.
  These similarities highlight the commonalities in their approaches to governance and the efforts they made to restore order and stability to the Roman Empire. 

The Transformation of the Roman Empire: Aurelian and Diocletians Responses to Barbarian Threats | 🧠🔥History Learning Chunks

 The Transformation of the Roman Empire:

Aurelian and Diocletian’s Responses to Barbarian Threats

 

Explore how Aurelian and Diocletian’s responses to barbarian threats stabilized the late Roman Empire through military reforms and administrative changes.

 

Overview

 

This study examines how Aurelian and Diocletian, two prominent Illyrian emperors, responded to the increasing pressure from barbarian incursions in the third century CE. Their military reforms and strategic alliances were crucial in stabilizing the empire amidst political turmoil. These efforts laid the groundwork for Diocletian’s extensive administrative and structural changes that transformed the Roman state.

 

Context

 

The late Roman Empire faced significant internal and external pressures during the Crisis of the Third Century (235-284 CE), a period marked by military anarchy, economic instability, and political fragmentation. The barbarians from beyond the borders increasingly challenged Roman authority, particularly in Europe. This era saw the rise of emperors who often came from the provinces rather than Rome itself, reflecting the decentralization of imperial power. Among these leaders were a series of Illyrian-born emperors, including Decius (249-251 CE), Claudius Gothicus (268-270 CE), Aurelian (270-275 CE), and Diocletian (284-305 CE).

 

Their military prowess was essential in defending the empire against external threats, while their administrative reforms aimed to address structural weaknesses that had accumulated over centuries.

 

Timeline

 

• 235-284: The Crisis of the Third Century; political instability and frequent changes in emperors.
• 249: Decius becomes emperor; begins efforts to reassert Roman authority against barbarian incursions.
• 260: Capture of Emperor Valerian by the Persians, marking a low point for Roman military power.
• 268: Claudius Gothicus assumes power and defeats the Goths at Naissus (modern-day Niš in Serbia).
• 271: Aurelian establishes temporary forts along the Danube; begins systematic military reforms.
• 274: Aurelian concludes a peace treaty with Palmyra, securing Roman interests against Persian threats.
• 275: After Aurelian’s death, another Illyrian emperor, Probus (r. 276-282 CE), continues to strengthen the frontier defenses.
• 284: Diocletian becomes emperor; begins his extensive program of military and administrative reforms.
• 300: Diocletian establishes Tetrarchy (rule by four emperors) to stabilize governance across the empire.

….

 

Key Figures and Groups

 

Aurelian (r. 270-275 CE): A Roman emperor from Illyria known for his military prowess and administrative reforms. He is credited with stabilizing the empire through strategic alliances and defensive measures.

 

Diocletian (r. 284-305 CE): An Illyrian soldier who became emperor, Diocletian sought to strengthen and reform the Roman state after decades of instability. His rule marked a turning point in the history of the late Roman Empire. ….

….

Under Emperor Aurelian, Rome faced a critical juncture where barbarian incursions were overwhelming local defenses. His response included strategic alliances with Palmyra to divert attention from Europe while strengthening the Danubian frontier through temporary fortifications. Aurelian’s reforms also focused on streamlining military command structures and logistics, which laid the groundwork for future stability.

 

Explanation and Importance

 

The reigns of Aurelian and Diocletian were pivotal in shaping the late Roman Empire’s response to external threats and internal instability. Their efforts not only defended Rome against barbarian incursions but also restructured governance to ensure long-term stability. Aurelian’s military reforms and strategic alliances helped stabilize Europe, while his successor, Diocletian, introduced sweeping administrative changes through the Tetrarchy system.

 

These transformations were essential in addressing structural weaknesses that had accumulated over centuries of imperial expansion and subsequent contraction. By centralizing governance and restructuring military command, Diocletian’s reforms laid the foundation for a more resilient Roman state capable of withstanding future challenges. The legacy of these leaders underscores the critical role of effective leadership and institutional reform in navigating periods of crisis.

 

Comparative Insight

 

The transformation under Aurelian and Diocletian can be compared to the earlier Augustan period (27 BCE – 14 CE) when Emperor Augustus established a balanced system between republican institutions and autocratic power. Like Augustus, Aurelian and Diocletian aimed to stabilize governance through military and administrative reforms but with different emphases given the crisis context of their era.

 

Extended Analysis

 

Reforming Military Command: Aurelian introduced reorganizations that streamlined military command structures, allowing for more effective coordination against barbarian threats. This involved creating mobile reserves in key danger areas and establishing temporary forts along critical frontiers like the Danube.

 

Alliances with Palmyra: Strategic alliances such as those formed between Rome and Palmyra under Aurelian were crucial in securing Roman interests against multiple fronts, particularly when resources were stretched thin due to external pressures.

 

Administrative Reforms Under Diocletian: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy system divided the empire into four regions each governed by a pair of rulers (Augustus and Caesar), enhancing centralized governance and military coordination. This structural change aimed at long-term stability beyond immediate crisis management. ….

 

See also:

 

Gold, silver and coins; Aurelian and Diocletian

 

(6) Gold, silver and coins; Aurelian and Diocletian.doc

 

The varied evidence [1977] on the coinage reforms of Aurelian and Diocletian involving

gold and silver is brought together in an attempt to construct a consistent picture of

monetary events at the end of the third century AD.

 

            The general picture of the Roman Empire in the third century AD is one of chaos.

It is always assumed that the great inflation, which can be traced both from written sources and from the collapse of the silver coinage, aggravated the military and political disruption

to such an extent that the Empire all but fell. It needs to be repeated many times that there is little archaeological evidence which actually necessitates such a gloomy view;

but such repetition is fruitless without a considerable amount of archaeological synthesis

far beyond the bounds of this paper.

           

Two events at the end of the century, the currency reform of Aurelian in 273-4,

and the attempts at complete economic reform of Diocletian from 294 to 301,

are usually taken as marks of economic recovery ….

 

 

 

David of Georgia a new King David

 

 

“In 1106, David founded the Gelati Monastery and Academy.

The finest Georgian thinkers, philosophers, theologians, and scholars

of the time gathered here. Some historians even called Gelati “a new Athens”

and “a second Jerusalem.” David believed that a strong state is not built on a

strong army alone — it also needed education”.

 

TSNOBISTVIS.COM

 

 

July 31, 2026

David IV the Builder — How the King of a Small Country Turned Georgia into One of the Strongest Medieval States | TSNOBISTVIS.COM

 

David IV the Builder — How the King of a Small Country

Turned Georgia into One of the Strongest Medieval States

 

There are many kings in history who have won wars. Many have also conquered new lands. But very few were given a name by their own people that reflected their greatest accomplishment.

 

In the history of Georgia, one such ruler is David IV, whom posterity named “the Builder” (Agmashenebeli) — a king who not only won battles, but restored a nearly ruined country into a strong and unified state.

Today, almost nine centuries later, David the Builder is a national hero to Georgians and, in the eyes of historians, one of the most distinguished statesmen of the Middle Ages.

 

At the end of the 11th century, Georgia was in a severe crisis. The Seljuk Empire regularly devastated the country. Many cities and villages were destroyed, the population was abandoning their homes, the economy had almost collapsed, and the royal authority was significantly weakened.

 

In 1098, the First Crusade in Europe ended successfully, and Jerusalem was taken by the Christians. During the exact same era, in the Caucasus, little Georgia was fighting for its very existence.

 

In 1089, a young king of only 16 years ascended the throne — David IV. At that time, few could have imagined that in a few decades, this small country would turn into one of the strongest states in the region.

 

The King Who First Built the State

 

David realized that winning battles alone was not enough. First, a strong state had to be created. He carried out reforms that completely transformed Georgia:

 

·       Central authority was strengthened.

·       A professional army was created.

·       The tax system was organized.

·       Reforms were carried out in the Church.

·       Intelligence gathering was developed.

·       The rule of law was strengthened.

·       Tens of thousands of Kipchak warriors were settled in the country, who later became a significant part of the Georgian army.

 

In modern terms, David was not just a military leader — he was simultaneously a reformer, economist, diplomat, and strategist.

 

Didgori — The Battle That Changed History

 

In 1121, a Seljuk coalition assembled against Georgia. Their goal was simple — to put an end to Georgia’s rise. The enemy significantly outnumbered the Georgians, but David made brilliant use of the terrain, the element of surprise, and the high fighting spirit of his army.

 

On August 12, on the field of Didgori, the Georgians won a brilliant victory. A Georgian chronicler called this victory a “Miraculous Victory” (Dzlevai Sakvirveli). Military historians today still consider the Battle of Didgori as one of the best examples of how a well-planned strategy can defeat a numerically superior army.

 

The Recovery of Tbilisi

 

One year after the victory at Didgori, David liberated Tbilisi. In 1122, the city became the capital of Georgia. This marked the end of a centuries-old era when a large part of Tbilisi was in the hands of foreign rulers. The political unification of the country was practically complete.

 

Merely a Warrior?

 

David the Builder is often remembered only for his military successes. In reality, his greatest achievements were the deeds accomplished during peacetime. During his reign:

 

·       Roads were built.

·       Schools were opened.

·       Trade flourished.

·       Security in the country increased significantly.

·       Georgia became an important part of international trade routes.

 

The Gelati Academy — A Medieval Center of Knowledge

 

Gelati Monastery — a cultural and educational center

founded by King David IV the Builder.

 

In 1106, David founded the Gelati Monastery and Academy. The finest Georgian thinkers, philosophers, theologians, and scholars of the time gathered here. Some historians even called Gelati “a new Athens” and “a second Jerusalem.”

 

Damien Mackey’s comments: I was waiting for this, “a second Jerusalem”.

Actually, I was waiting for David IV as “a new King David”, “a second King David”.  

 

We have already encountered a couple of these new Davids in pseudo-history.

For instance, in my article:

 

Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

(2) Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

we read this (my emphasis): “According to Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”.

 

{It does not help matters that Heraclius had a son, David, named after King David: David (son of Heraclius) - Wikipedia “He was born after the emperor and empress had visited Jerusalem and his given name reflects a deliberate attempt to link the imperial family with the Biblical David”.} 

 

And we also met the French king, Pepin “the Short”, as “the new King David”:

 

Solomon and Charlemagne

 

(2) Solomon and Charlemagne

 

In the same article, we learned about Pepin’s famous son - and same may by now have even anticipated this: “Emperor Charlemagne’s life bears some uncanny likenesses to that of the ancient King Solomon of Israel and his family”.

 

Pepin, a new King David.

His son, Charlemagne, a second King Solomon.

 

The Golden Age of David and Solomon, an era famous for its Wisdom and culture, its literature, but also for its prosperity, its building works, and its internationality, is reflected in David IV’s supposed reforms, with an emphasis on education.

For, as the article continues:

 

David believed that a strong state is not built on a strong army alone — it also needed education.

 

Why Was David’s Victory Important for the Christian World?

 

David the Builder ruled the country during the period when the Crusades were taking place in Europe and the Middle East. By that time, Georgia had become one of the strongest Christian states in the East.

 

The victory at Didgori significantly weakened Seljuk influence in the South Caucasus and proved that defeating their massive coalition was possible. While historians do not claim that Didgori directly altered the course of the Crusades, it is clear that this victory had a major political and moral impact on the Christian world.

 

Damien Mackey’s comments: The dubious David IV (sometimes called II) was almost an exact contemporary of the pitifully poorly attested, the supposed founder of the Knights Templar:

 

A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens

 

(3) A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens

 

This, in turn, does nothing at all to inspire one’s confidence in the dates conventionally assigned to David IV and to the First Crusade.

 

It all becomes even more murky if there is any validity to my article of these parallels:

 

Crusaders very much like the Maccabees, Seleucids like Seljuks

 

(3) Crusaders very much like the Maccabees, Seleucids like Seljuks

 

Does the following describe mediæval times “in the East”, or the Golden Age of kings Solomon and David of Israel?

 

A strong Christian state emerged in the East, which not only preserved its independence but also became one of the leading regional powers. David’s story is not just the history of Georgia. It is the story of how a small country managed to survive surrounded by powerful neighbors. How a young king managed to restore a ruined state. How, alongside military victory, education, economy, and state institutions can become the foundation of a nation’s strength.

 

In world history, rulers like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, or Napoleon are frequently remembered. David the Builder is far less known internationally, yet his statecraft and reforms provide every reason to rank him among the most successful rulers of the Middle Ages.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: It may be fitting that the writer names here, alongside established historical figures, Alexander and Napoleon, the fictitious composite  character, Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne, who is similarly historically dubious as is David IV. See e.g. my articles:

 

Julius Caesar legends borrowed, in part, from life of Jesus Christ

 

(3) Julius Caesar legends borrowed, in part, from life of Jesus Christ

 

and:

Solomon and Charlemagne

 

(3) Solomon and Charlemagne

 

Legacy

 

Today, David the Builder’s name is borne by universities, streets, cathedrals, and state awards in Georgia. The period of his reign is considered the beginning of the Georgian people’s “Golden Age.”

 

However, perhaps his greatest legacy lies neither in his victories nor in the cathedrals he built. His main legacy is the idea that even a small country can create great history if it has a visionary leader, a strong state, and a united society.

 

That is why David IV is not only a national hero of Georgia today, but also one of the most outstanding statesmen of the Middle Ages — an example of a leader whose life proves that wise governance and the right reforms can change the course of history, regardless of a country’s size or geopolitical challenges.

[End of article]

 

The Old Testament parallels do not end there.

 

A David supposedly married princess Tamar, a Jewish name of one who, in the Bible, was the ‘daughter’ of King David of Israel:

Queen Tamar: The Confident Female Ruler of the Georgian Golden Age | Ancient Origins

 

What this 2016 article does get right, at least, is that the life of Queen Tamar of Georgia coincided with a Golden Age. On this, see e.g. my article:

 

The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife

 

(3) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife

 

Queen Tamar: The Confident Female Ruler of the Georgian Golden Age

 

Queen Tamar was a ruler of Georgia who lived between the 12th and 13th centuries AD. This monarch presided over what is today known as the Georgian Golden Age. This was a period that began in the 12th century AD with the reign of King David IV (the Builder), and ended shortly after the death of Queen Tamar in the early 13th centuries AD. Within this golden age, the period of Tamar’s reign has sometimes been regarded as the point when the Kingdom of Georgia was at its zenith.

 

Co-Ruling Georgia

 

Queen Tamar was born in 1166 AD to King George III and Queen Burdukhan. Tamar was the royal couple’s first child, and it has been claimed that the Georgian king decided that when his daughter reached the age of 12, she would be his co-ruler. ….

 

 

A Sassanian conquest of Jerusalem during the lifetime of Mohammed?

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“In the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem to the Sasanian–Jewish alliance, the city initially descended into chaos and disorder, although reconstruction began soon. On Khosrow’s orders, the Sasanian army located the True Cross, which Christians believe was used to crucify Jesus in 30 or 33,

and moved it to Ctesiphon”.

 Wikipedia

 

A whole bunch of characters who seem to have biblical origins, and who appear in the ridiculously un-historical story of the supposed Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, re-emerge in the account of the so-called Sassanian assault upon Jerusalem (614 AD).

Some of these characters I introduced early in my recent article:

 

The historical basis for that wonderful, nutty Heraclius

 

(1) The historical basis for that wonderful, nutty Heraclius

 

as follows:

 

His historical basis

 

Given that the presumed contemporaries of emperor Heraclius as referred to above: Jonah; Nehemiah; Shahrbaraz; Mohammed; plus the city of Nineveh; were all biblically based – {Jonah as the prophet Jonah; Nehemiah as the Tirshatha Nehemiah; Shahrbaraz as Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8); Mohammed as a biblical composite; and Nineveh as the Assyrian capital of Nineveh} – then  one might logically consider that the emperor Heraclius, too, who most certainly cannot have been a genuine historical character (see article above), was based upon some notable biblical hero.

 

If so, then who may have been that biblical person?

 

Well Heraclius is most famous for the “Battle of Nineveh” which he is supposed to have won convincingly. Thus, we could begin by considering some Old Testament notable who had success against Nineveh, and/or the Assyrians.

Someone preferably with a name compatible with Heraclius.

 

We do not have to go very far to find him.

 

The most famous victory against the Assyrians, the defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000, attested not only in various books of the Bible but also in e.g. Greco-Roman literature, occurred during the reign of King Hezekiah, whose name, with the replacement of the letter z with an r, and the removal of the added theophoric element (iah) at the end, becomes, virtually, Herac-lius. Thus:

 

He[z]ek-      iah

He[r]ac-[l]ius

 

Although I would not anticipate any really tight correspondence between the historical, well-documented reign of King Hezekiah of Judah and the deliciously crazy, fictitious, reign of the emperor Heraclius, I would nonetheless expect to be able to identify certain strange biblical afterglows in the haphazard story of the latter. ….

[End of quote]

 

Now, compare this with this standard account of the:

Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem

Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem - Wikipedia

 

The Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem in early 614 was a significant development in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. It was the result of a major offensive by the Sasanian Empire across the Fertile Crescent, culminating in the annexation of Jerusalem and Palaestina Prima as a whole. The Sasanian advance had been bolstered by the timely outbreak of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius, owing to decades of persecution of Jews and Samaritans by the Byzantine Empire, although the Heraclian dynasty itself had only been in power for four years.

 

Mackey’s comment: Here, for starters, we encounter the non-historical Heraclius.

 

In 613, Sasanian king Khosrow II had appointed his army chief Shahrbaraz to lead a campaign into the Byzantines' Diocese of the East. Under Shahrbaraz's command, the Sasanian army proceeded to secure victories at Antioch and Caesarea Maritima, which was the administrative capital of Palaestina Prima. …. By this time, the grand inner harbour had silted up and was useless, but the city continued to be an important maritime hub after Byzantine emperor Anastasius I Dicorus ordered the outer harbour's reconstruction.

 

Mackey’s comment: Shahrbaraz, as noted above, stands for the prince of Judah, Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8), at the time of King Cyrus of Medo-Persia (c. 500 BC).

 

Khosrow II must, thus, for his part, represent Cyrus himself.

 

However, it is not quite that simple.

 

Khosrow II, a supposed Sassanian, also appears to act as an alter ego for the ancient neo-Assyrian Great King, Sennacherib (c. 700 BC).

 

So Khosrow must be something of a composite character.

 

As I wrote about Khosrow in my article:

 

….

Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh and devastating much of Mesopotamia.

 

My comment: Not quite right. After Judith’s intervention, the Jews were able to drive the Assyrians right out of the land of Israel and back to Mesopotamia, with the enemy suffering massive losses. This was the basis for Heraclius’s so-called Battle of Nineveh. Not 627 AD, but more like c. 700 BC!

 

The Persian Shah Khosrow II was overthrown and executed by his son Kavad II, who soon sued for a peace treaty, agreeing to withdraw from all occupied territory.

 

My comment: Not long after Sennacherib’s crushing defeat, he was indeed assassinated – but by two of his sons, not one.

Khosrow may be something of a title, like e.g. Pharaoh. (Or, is it a variant for Assyria?)

“The Persian Shah Khosrow II”, here, must stand for Sennacherib, the Great King of Assyria. Whilst the “son Kavad II” - though presumably representing Sennacherib’s murderers, Adrammelech and Sharezer (cf. 2 Kings 19:37) - equates better name-wise, however, to Sennacherib’s non-regicide successor, Esarhaddon. Thus:

 

E-sa[r]had-don

      KA        VAD

 

Unlike in the Heraclius-Khosrow II scenario, the Assyrian regicide pair can be historically identified:

 

Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

 

(3) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

 

Heraclius won the war, but his Empire was deeply strained.

 

My comment: Sadly, everything about emperor Heraclius and his supposed “Empire” is “deeply strained”. ….

[End of quote]

Successfully capturing the city and the harbour had given the Sasanians strategic access to the Mediterranean Sea … and their ranks were reinforced by Nehemiah ben Hushiel … and Benjamin of Tiberias, who enlisted and armed Jewish rebels throughout Galilee, including the cities of Tiberias and Nazareth. In total, between 20,000 and 26,000 Jewish rebels joined the Sasanian army's assault on Byzantine Jerusalem. …. By mid-614, the Sasanians had taken the city, but sources vary on whether this occurred without resistance from the Byzantine army … or after a siege and breaching of the wall with artillery.

 

Mackey’s comment: Here is another of our biblical characters, Nehemiah.

See my article on this – the situation is actually quite remarkable:

 

Supposedly two officials ‘Nehemiah’ occupying BC time and AD time

 

(4) Supposedly two officials 'Nehemiah' occupying BC time and AD time

 

So, in the course of the one Sassanian invasion, we find ourselves jumping from the era of Sennacherib and Hezekiah (c. 700 BC), to the time of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes (c. 600 BC), and then down to the time of the Medo-Persian king, Cyrus (c. 500 BC) – all a good millennium before 614 AD!

 

In the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem to the Sasanian–Jewish alliance, the city initially descended into chaos and disorder, although reconstruction began soon. On Khosrow's orders, the Sasanian army located the True Cross, which Christians believe was used to crucify Jesus in 30 or 33, and moved it to Ctesiphon.

 

Mackey’s comment: A nice pious story, but impossibly un-historical.

 

The Sasanian conquest interrupted the centuries-long Byzantine ban on Jewish entry into Jerusalem, and Jews were able to enter the city for the first time since the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136.

 

Mackey’s comment: If we are actually somewhere in the neo-Assyrian and Medo-Persian eras of BC history, then the revolt of Bar Kochba will not occur yet for a good half a millennium and more.

 

Sources for Christian casualties during this period vary greatly, with some placing the number of dead and wounded in the low thousands and others in the tens of thousands or higher. The Byzantines eventually recovered their lost territories before being pushed out indefinitely by the Muslim conquest of the Levant in 638, whereafter the ban on Jews was lifted and Christian rule over Jerusalem ended until the Crusades. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: But, on those Crusades, see e.g. my article:

 

Maccabeans and Crusaders Seleucids and Saltukids Seljuks

 

(4) Maccabeans and Crusaders Seleucids and Saltukids Seljuks