Byzantine bureaucracy and aristocracy
Through the 5th century Hellenistic political systems and philosophies along Theocratic Christian-Eastern concepts, had gained power in the Eastern Mediterranean of which important religious figures such as Eusebius of Caesarea had been key for the proper acceptance and formulation of Ancient Greek and Eastern philosophies for the constant Christianized world of late antiquity. By the 6th century they had already influenced the future structuring of the early Byzantine empire by giving definitive power to the monarch for being the representative of God on earth and his kingdom an imitation of God's holy realm. The  Byzantine empire was a monarchy theocracy, adopting, following and applying the Hellenistic political systems and philosophies, the king was the incarnation of the law ""nomos empsychos"," his power was immeasurable and divine in origin, he was the ultimate benefactor, carer and saviour of his people, ""Evergétis"", ""Philanthrōpía"" and "S"ōtēr"", the sole administrator and lawgiver of the holy "Basileia" and O"ikoumene" (Commonwealth), having the complete power to scheme and control the state, the land and his subjects of which he had gained control through God's appointment to him as king, opening a new stage of deification in which Hellenistic and  Eastern court ceremonies such as prokynesis among others that aimed to highlight the divinity of the ruler became standardized and very often mandatory. In practice, this power was exercised through the constant simplification and centralization of the administration that aimed to provide the same powers that the emperor had and make them exercise through single entities, viceroys such as the "Exarchos", Douk, Katepánō and the "Strategoi" who enjoyed the same omnipotence in their respective governorships. Such concentrations of power in entities proved to be at the same time, a great internal weakness and the cause of various coups and rebellions  in which viceroys with provincial armies and, sometimes, entire Themes would often challenge imperial power with claims of their own. It was in this way that emperors like Nikephoros II Phokas or Heraclius had achieved royal power on their own. There were no codified laws regarding imperial succession and the Roman Republic was never formally abolished, hence the Emperor was still to be elected, formally, by both Senate (Synkletos) and the Army. In reality, the Senate had lost all of its powers and was reduced to a ceremonial role mostly filled with relatives or close aristrocrats to the Emperor while  the Army practically had a monopoly regarding election. Emperors usually managed to secure succession for their children by indirect means, such as appointing them as co-Emperors thus creating various dynasties. The absence of codified succession laws and procedures, as well as the militarized state of the Empire, led to numerous coups and revolts, leading to several disastrous results, such as defeat at Manzikert. Applying the Hellenistic political schemes, the monarch's house and personal property was the kingdom ""Oikonomia"", and he was its owner and good manager "Oikonomos", which meant that no individual or institution through the history of  the empire trully owned any land. Beneath the emperor, a multitude of officials and court functionaries operated the administrative machinery who were all directly chosen by the emperor or one of his representatives which were necessary to run the empire, state officials acted not as magistrates and elected public officials of the state for the effective management of the empire, but as representatives, deputies and viceroys of the monarch in his different domains. In addition to those officials, a large number of honorific titles existed, which the emperor awarded to his subjects or to friendly foreign rulers. Over the more  than a thousand years of the empire's existence, different titles were adopted and discarded, and many lost or gained prestige. At first the various titles of the empire were the same as those in the late Roman Empire. However, by the time that Heraclius was emperor (), many of the titles had become obsolete. By the time of Alexios I (), many of the positions were either new or drastically changed. However, from that time on they remained essentially the same until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453. Background history. In the early Byzantine period (4th to late 6th  century) the system of government followed the model established in late Roman times under Diocletian and Constantine the Great, with a strict separation between civil and military offices and a scale of titles corresponding to office, where membership or not in the Senate was the major distinguishing characteristic. Following the transformation of the Byzantine state during the 7th century on account of massive territorial loss to the Muslim conquests, this system had vanished to be replaced by the thematic military system whose functions had been simplified for the rapid creation of provincial armies. As established by the Hellenistic political systems , power had been concentrated in military leaders, Strategoi who acted as viceroys in their respective ""thémata"", appointed by the emperor himself, whose main function around the different ""théma"" was the collection of taxes from the different communities ""Chora"", ""Komai"" and from the different estates ""proasteion"" as well as the creation of fast and flexible provincial armies. During the "classic" or middle period of the Byzantine state (8th-late 11th centuries), a new, court-centered system emerged. In this, the new titles derived from older, now obsolete, public offices, and dignities of a certain level were awarded with each office. A  senatorial class remained in place, which incorporated a large part of the upper officialdom as every official from the rank of "protospatharios" (Literally "first sword-bearer"; originally the head of the Emperor's bodyguards) was considered a member of it. During this period, many families remained important for several centuries, and several Emperors rose from the aristocracy. Two groups can be distinguished: a metropolitan civil nobility and a provincial military one, the latter remaining regionally based and having large land-holdings, but apparently no military forces of their own, in contrast to contemporary Western Europe. The backbone of Byzantine administration  and economy until the fall of Constantinople, relied on the Hellenistic joint tax liability system of the different towns and villages, "chora" and "komai" inside a "théma" which were carried out by provincial officials such as the epoptes, exisotes and praktores, made up of individuals and institutions such as the various lands that the many monasteries owned "episkepsis", the estates of the land owners "dynatoi" and the peasants "geōrgikē", the later making most of a village or town c"hora", "komai" and estates "proasteion" for a source of constant and rapid revenue which ultimately derived from the Hellenistic fiscal and administrative  principle of ""epibole"", that had served as an accessible tool for the Hellenistic kingdoms for the simple income and rapid collection of taxes in the war time period of which the Hellenistic times were characterized, being adopted and adapted in the late Roman and early Byzantine province of Egypt which never stopped applying said system, indirectly, a consequence of the multiple wars and invasions that Byzantium had to deal throughout its history. After the reforms of Alexios I however, the system underwent a greater simplification than it already had in which, due to the desperate state of the empire and  the urgent need for more income to finance its military campaigns and strengthen its borders, an institution or individual was allowed to catalog and group their land and through it, their fiscal obligations in a document referred as "praktikon". The new reform essentially broke with the integrity of the institution whose new main objective was the collection of the various taxes regardless of whether it was by an institution, individual or the village itself and although a simplification, it was not an improvement as it pushed a great variety of villages and towns to be eventually added to the different  episkpesis of the adjoining monasteries which would become responsible, both, for the fiscal obligations of the various towns and villages in their domain and for their fiscal obligations as monastic institutions, or of the various well-resourced "dynatoi" landowners who would also pay and be held responsible for both, the tax of the various villages in their domain and their own individual fiscal obligations. This trend culminated in the eventual disappearance of the fiscal individuality that each commune or town had enjoyed and which emperors like Basil II had fought and delayed with special taxes such as the allelengyon in  the face of their growing power, becoming one of several towns within the estates of the different institutions and individuals of the time, which in part was also a phenomenon that many communes could not bear due to the various fiscal tolerances that the "basileus" offered to the different monastic institutions and their estates, further accelerating the disappearance of the fiscal individuality of the villages and towns. The 10th and 11th centuries saw a rise in importance of the aristocracy, and an increased number of new families entering it. The catastrophic losses in the latter 11th century again prompted a  reorganization of the imperial administrative system, at the hands of the new Komnenos dynasty: the older offices and titles fell gradually into disuse, while an array of new honorifics emerged, which signified primarily the closeness of their recipient's familial relationship to the Emperor. The Komnenian-led Empire, and later their Palaiologan successors, were based primarily on the landed aristocracy, keeping the governance of state tightly controlled by a limited number of intermarrying aristocratic families. In the 11th and 12th century for instance, some 80 civil and 64 military noble families have been identified, a very small number for so  large a state. Finally, in the Palaiologan system as reported by pseudo-Kodinos one can discern the accumulated nomenclature of centuries, with formerly high ranks having been devalued and others taken their place, and the old distinction between office and dignity had vanished. Imperial titles. These were the highest titles, usually limited to members of the imperial family or to a few very select foreign rulers, whose friendship the Emperor desired. Court titles from the 8th to 11th centuries. In the 8th–11th centuries, according to information provided by the "Taktikon Uspensky", the "Klētorologion" of Philotheos (899) and the writings of  Constantine Porphyrogennetos, below the imperial titles, the Byzantines distinguished two distinct categories of dignities (): the "dignities by award" (), which were purely honorific court titles and were conferred by the award of a symbol of rank, and the "dignities by proclamation" (), which were offices of the state and were conferred by imperial pronouncement. The former were further divided into three subcategories, depending on who was eligible for them: different sets of titles existed for the "Bearded Ones" ("βαρβάτοι" from Latin "barbati", i.e. not eunuchs), the eunuchs () and women. State officials usually combined titles from both main categories, so that a high  official would be both "magistros" (an "awarded" title) and "logothetēs tou dromou" (a "proclaimed" office). Titles for the "bearded ones". The "by award" titles for the "Bearded Ones" (non-eunuchs) were, in descending order of precedence: Titles for the eunuchs. By descending order of precedence, the "by award" titles for the eunuchs were: There is also a single special title reserved for women, that of zōstē patrikia (, "Girded "patrikia""). This title was given to the empress' ladies of honour, and, according to Philotheos, ranked very high in hierarchy, above even the "magistros" and "proedros" and just below the "kouropalates". The  title is known from the early 9th century, and disappeared in the 11th century. Otherwise women bore the female forms of their husbands' titles. From 14th to 15th century. "Book of Offices" ranks the order of command below the emperor: Administrative offices. The vast Byzantine bureaucracy had many titles, and varied more than aristocratic and military titles. In Constantinople there were normally hundreds, if not thousands, of bureaucrats at any time. Like the Church and the military, they wore elaborately differentiated dress, often including huge hats. These are some of the more common ones, including non-nobles who also directly  served the emperor. Logothetes originally had some influence on the emperor, but they eventually became honorary posts. In the later empire the Grand Logothete was replaced by the "mesazōn" ("mediator"). Other administrators included: The "protasekretis", "logothetes", prefect, praetor, quaestor, "magister", and "sakellarios", among others, were members of the senate. Court life. At the peaceful height of Middle Byzantium, court life "passed in a sort of ballet", with precise ceremonies prescribed for every occasion, to show that "Imperial power could be exercised in harmony and order", and "the Empire could thus reflect the motion of the Universe as it was made  by the Creator", according to the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote a "Book of Ceremonies" describing in enormous detail the annual round of the Court. Special forms of dress for many classes of people on particular occasions are set down; at the name-day dinner for the Emperor or Empress various groups of high officials performed ceremonial "dances", one group wearing "a blue and white garment, with short sleeves, and gold bands, and rings on their ankles. In their hands they hold what are called "phengia"". The second group do just the same, but wearing "a garment of green and  red, split, with gold bands". These colours were the marks of the old chariot-racing factions, the four now merged to just the Blues and the Greens, and incorporated into the official hierarchy. As in the Versailles of Louis XIV, elaborate dress and court ritual probably were at least partly an attempt to smother and distract from political tensions. Eunuchs also participated in court life, typically serving as attendants to noble women or assisting the emperor when he took part in religious ceremonies or removed his crown. Eunuchs in the early Byzantine Empire were usually foreigners, and they were often  seen as having a low status. This changed in the 10th century, when the social status of eunuchs increased and members of the educated Byzantine upper class began to become eunuchs. However, even by the time of Anna Comnena, with the Emperor away on military campaigns for much of the time, this way of life had changed considerably, and after the Crusader occupation it virtually vanished. A French visitor was shocked to see the Empress going to church far less well attended than the Queen of France would have been. The Imperial family largely abandoned the Great Palace for the  relatively compact Palace of Blachernae.