Why should it be? It was never a capital when it was called Byzantium, it was renamed six years before the relocation and 71 years before Byzantine empire was even a thing.
Defenestration is the act of throwing something (or somebody) out of a window. The term probably wouldn't have entered into common-esque English vocabulary if it wasn't for the fact that there were two historically significant defenestrations in Prague.
Sarajevo is located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, between Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, all those countries are slavics, they even were part of the Yugoslav Republic which was supposed to be an union of slavic countries
Shouldn't the answer to the Peloponnesian War question be more than one city? Sure, Sparta did most of the legwork in that war, but there was a whole league of cities who fought on the same side and thus also defeated Athens, with Corinth, Thebes and Elis the most notable ones.
A little remark about empires, and the Roman Empire in particular. Rome was an empire before Caesar. It became an empire when it became expansionist, say around 150BCE, after the punic wars, and the first conquests in Greece. The concept of emperor is very complicated, and Rome didn't have one in the modern meaning before at least the end of the third century. For the Romans, an "imperator" was a military commander, who had absolute power over the region he was conquering. That power was temporary, and while a victorious "imperator" was celebrated in Rome with a triumph, he could not come into the city with his armies, or even his armor, he had to be a simple citizen in Rome. Anyway, several important Romans, like Scipio Africanus, Marius, Sylla, Pompeus and Caesar himself actually were imperators at some point. On the other hand, Augustus was not officially a monarch, he faked to have restored the republic, a semblance which remained until Diocletian, around 290.
So, what I meant to say in the first place was that an empire is not a country led by an emperor, but an expansionist country. The UK was an empire while being ruled by a king, not an emperor (though the title emperor of India was indeed used). It's even more true for France, which had en emperor until 1970 but still had a powerful empire afterwards... most of their conquests actually came in the end of the 19th century and it lasted until the 1960s.
The same holds for Rome, where the word imperium appeared to describe the vast and growing territory that the city was controlling, long before there were monarchs.
Why do we remember the Roman leaders as emperors then? Only because it was their first title. Usually, they were called "Imperator [...] Caesar Augustus" with the significant name in the brackets. It was to show that they had military power but it was not their main function. In fact, they should be called "princeps" (i.e. prince), their title of leader of the senate.
Yes. Although the transition from the principate to the dominate was not something that suddenly happened with Diocletian.
It's true that Augustus preserved the form of the republic.
But after a few decades had passed everyone knew that the republic was gone except in name only and that power was concentrated in the person of the emperor.
This quiz presents a simplified version suitable for a trivia website.
Hard to tell if "everyone" really knew that, but of course, it was mostly hypocrisy, because the Romans were allergic to the notion of king, or anything that resembles it. Every emperor in the 1st and 2nd centuries who tried to have a more obvious monarchic power was killed (or committed suicide) and was afterwards considered as mad (Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodius to name them). So yeah, there was a boss, but he had to respect the form.
Of course, the transition principate/dominate is arbitrary, it's the whole third century crisis that changed the system and the mentality.
(Oh, and for France, I meant 1870 of course, it's a republic since then)
The same holds for Rome, where the word imperium appeared to describe the vast and growing territory that the city was controlling, long before there were monarchs.
Why do we remember the Roman leaders as emperors then? Only because it was their first title. Usually, they were called "Imperator [...] Caesar Augustus" with the significant name in the brackets. It was to show that they had military power but it was not their main function. In fact, they should be called "princeps" (i.e. prince), their title of leader of the senate.
It's true that Augustus preserved the form of the republic.
But after a few decades had passed everyone knew that the republic was gone except in name only and that power was concentrated in the person of the emperor.
This quiz presents a simplified version suitable for a trivia website.
Of course, the transition principate/dominate is arbitrary, it's the whole third century crisis that changed the system and the mentality.
(Oh, and for France, I meant 1870 of course, it's a republic since then)