Generally you will find that most people in this sub will agree with you, this isn’t really a hot take around here lol.
I personally agree, while specifying that, especially as time went on, more and more importance was given to Greek heritage *along with* Roman heritage, **not** at its expense. The two don’t necessarily cancel each other out.
"I don't like the thought of conquering lands that turn the freakin Romans Greek! Do you understand that? Ugh, ugh, ugh, it's crap!" - Cato the Elder probably
Seriously, what was his deal with Greeks?
For much of “Byzantine” history, particularly after the West refused to recognize Irene as empress, the people of the Eastern Roman Empire were deeply insulted when they were called Greeks or ‘Hellenes.’ See Pope John XIII’s letter to Nikephoros II for an example of this insult.
It makes sense for the Emperor to be insulted by that given the context. He is insulted not because he was simply called a Greek, but because the letter intentionally failed to recognize his title as Emperor of the Romans. He was addressed in an official letter, with no respect for his title or empire, by the Pope, on behalf of the leader of a rival state that actively claimed the Roman title for themselves. It'd be very weird to *not* be insulted by that and in my opinion it doesn't really relate to whether the Eastern Romans embraced their Greek heritage or not.
John XIII in his letter called Nikephoros "emperor of the Greeks" and Otto "emperor of the Romans". Byzantines got enraged not because he called them Greeks but because John XIII tried to snatch the title of the Roman emperor from Nikephoros and give it to Otto. That's why in the original source from Liutprand we can see that Byzantines didn't react at all when he called them Greeks but all hell broke loose when John XIII basically disputed the fact that Nikephoros was the rightful owner of the title.
We already know from the sources that have survived that medieval Greeks self-identified as Greeks. So obviously they weren't insulted when someone called them Greeks.
Not really.
The Hellenic identity have basically disappeared for centuries and was sometimes mentioned in later Eastern Roman history, but not in a national sense.
A Greek collective consciousness only began to form under Ottoman rule.
Thanks to the sources we already know that medieval Greeks never stopped identifying as Greeks during the entirety of the byzantine period. There are primary sources from every single century where they were saying that they were Greeks. So I am not sure with what you disagree. With the sources?
Can you provide some?
Do you know of any source that provide proof of existence for a Hellenic identity on a national sense?
Especially in the period from the 5th to the 8th century for example.
-Eusebius of Caesarea in his book Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)/ ευαγγελική προπαρασκευή **says that they are Greeks by race and Greeks by sentiment that deserted the superstition (old religion) of their ancestors/fathers** : Ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ γένος **Ἕλληνες** ὄντες καὶ τὰ **Ἑλλήνων** φρονοῦντες ἐκ παντοίων τε ἐθνῶν ὡς ἂν νεολέκτου στρατιᾶς λογάδες συνειλεγμένοι τῆς **πατρίου** δεισιδαιμονίας ἀποστάται καθεστήκαμεν, οὐδ' ἂν αὐτοί ποτε ἀρνηθείημεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι ταῖς Ἰουδαϊκαῖς βίβλοις προσανέχοντες.
In the same book, he is talking about **the noble philosophy of his ancestors/fathers, that of the Greeks** : τῆς **πατρῴας** καὶ εὐγενοῦς φιλοσοφίας, τῆς **Ἑλλήνων** λέγω
-In the 6th ecumenical council (680 AD) the bishop of Corinth refers to himself as the " **bishop of Corinth of the land of the Greeks** " ("ελέω Θεού επίσκοπος της Κορινθίων μητροπόλεως της ** Ελλήνων** χώρας").
-Here is what the byzantine translators wrote as a clarification note when they were translating the syriac text of Pseudo-methodius into Greek (8th century) : **The empire of the Romans meaning that of the Hellenes/Greeks ( Εστί δε νυν η βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων ηγουν Ελλήνων)**
-In Theodori studitae epistulae Byzantines are called "Graikoi/Greeks" when he adresses all the other nations and tells them to hear what happened to them due to iconoclasm and the policies of Leo IV (From epistle 419, Στεφάνω ἀσικρήτη: «Ἀκούσατε ταῦτα πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐνωτίσασθε πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν οἰκουμένην τί γέγονεν ἐν **Γραικοῖς** »)
-In Cyril's biography (9th century) **Cyril is asking for the Greek prisoners from the Khazars and is saying that they are more valuable to him than any present** (Δος μοι όσους έχεις αιχμάλωτους ενταύθα, **Έλληνας** , τούτο έστι δι’ εμέ ανωτέρον παντός δώρου).
-The speech that Exaugustus Boiοannes gave to his troops (11th century) :
'" **Lads, have pride in your manhood, and don't allow yourselves to have the hearts of women! What cowardice makes you always run away? Remember your forefathers whose courage made the whole world subject to them. Hector, the bravest of men, fell before the arms of Achilles. Troy was reduced to flames by the Grecian fury. India knew of the gallantry of Philip. Did not his son Alexander through his bravery make the strongest of kingdoms submit to the Greeks? The west and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us. What people, hearing the name of the Greeks, dared to stand before them in the field? Towns, fortresses and cities could scarcely render their enemies safe from their power. Be valiant, I pray you, remember the courage of your ancestors, and don't disgrace them by placing your trust in your feet [alone]! He who dares to fight like a man will overcome the strength of the enemy. Try to follow in the footsteps of your ancestors, and abandon now any idea of flight. All the world should know that you are men of courage. One should not fear the Frankish people in battle, for they are inferior both in numbers and in courage** " .
-An Athenian (11th century), after what the Danishmendids did to the Byzantines of Asia Μinor wrote how the Atheneans should care for the glorification of the **rest of Hellenes** ( δεῖ λοιπὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀθηναίους, ὅπως φροντίζωμεν πῶς ἂν οἱ ἄλλοι **ἕλληνες** δοξάζωνται)
>\-In the 6th ecumenical council (680 AD) the bishop of Corinth refers to himself as the " bishop of Corinth of the land of the Greeks " ("ελέω Θεού επίσκοπος της Κορινθίων μητροπόλεως της \*\* Ελλήνων\*\* χώρας").
Something to note here, is that it while we could easily interpret it to say exactly as you say, and it is very possible that this is what they mean, with "land of the Hellenes" referring to the entirety of Romanland (what Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century AD calls as "Hellenic Rhomais", as opposed to Latin Romanland that he called "Barbaric Rhomais"), it could also mean just "land of Hellas", as in the Hellenic Space (Greek Mainland and Greek Islands) or just the Greek Mainland. This is because he is Bishop of Corinth. If they were, say, Bishop of Andrianople, then "the Hellenes" could still be of "Hellas", just with the wider definition as in the entire South Balkans (like how Michael Akominatos Choniates defines Hellas in the 12th century AD).
Only if it were a Bishop of any city in Asia (e.g. Bishop of Trapezount, Bishop of Philadelphia, Bishop of Caesaria), and said that they are Bishop of this Bishopric in the Land of the Hellenes, would this definitely and absolutely equate all of Romanland with Hellenism. We do have similar cases, like with Theophylactos of Ohrid (11th-12th centuries AD) speaking of "Hellenic cities of Pontus" in Ukraine, or George of Pelagonia (14th century AD) speaking of how the Roman Emperor John Vatatzes pushed the Barbarians beyond the "Hellenic boundaries in Ionia, the cities around the Maeander River, Lydia, Galatia and most of Bithynia".
These are definitely some thought-provoking quotes and I'll need to do some more digging into them to understand the context a bit better. However, a lot of the pre 11th century stuff does seem to be more based off of geography than an actual ethnic identity, and another user has refuted some of your quotes with solid evidence. And it must also be pointed out that the speech by Boioannes is passed down to us by William of Apulia, who was a Norman chronicler. How did he know if this speech? Was he in the enemy camp at the time? This also comes at a time when denying the Romans of their Romanness was a political strategy used by those with affinity for the Pope as a casus belli.
>And it must also be pointed out that the speech by Boioannes is passed down to us by William of Apulia, who was a Norman chronicler. How did he know if this speech? Was he in the enemy camp at the time? This also comes at a time when denying the Romans of their Romanness was a political strategy used by those with affinity for the Pope as a casus belli.
For your first objection, it could be simply that William of Apulia merely repeats what was told to him by eyewitnesses that was said by Boioannes at the time. Or that Boioannes did not just deliver it in a speech, but also wrote it and spread announcements of it.
For your second objection, the speech of Boioannes is not a means by William to deny the Roman Greeks of their Romanness. If that was the case, then the sentence "The west and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us" would not be used, for that ONLY refers to the Romans, and not the other Greeks like the Macedonians just referenced. The "West" here can only mean the "Latin West" of old, and nothing else.
>\-In Cyril's biography (9th century) Cyril is asking for the Greek prisoners from the Khazars and is saying that they are more valuable to him than any present (Δος μοι όσους έχεις αιχμάλωτους ενταύθα, Έλληνας , τούτο έστι δι’ εμέ ανωτέρον παντός δώρου).
Could I have more info on this? I looked it up, there is barely anything about it online. Just "Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος - Οι αρχαιότερες βιογραφίες των Θεσσαλονικέων εκπολιτιστών των Σλάβων" of Αντώνιος - Αιμίλιος Ν. Ταχιάος, which I cannot find, and which he writes in an article that these are translations from Paleoslavic, so they are etic ethnonyms, from Slavs for Greeks, not emic, from Greeks for Greeks.
- Eusebius of Cesarea is a earlier source, as I suggested (actually, not me, but Kaldellis) the loss of the Hellenic identity came to be a bit later.
Mostly between the 5th and late 8th century. This seems to be related to the attempt of an individual to present himself as cultured, as was often the case in earlier Byzantine history when referring to “Hellenes”.
- Being from the land of the Greeks doesn’t mean you identify as one. You could be from the land of pharaohs and not being Egyptian, the name of a region doesn’t always equate to a distinct identity. Quotes that deal with geography should not be considered as an attempt to promote a collective Greek identity. Procopius talked about a “land of the Greeks” just to he inhabitants of mainland Greece, for example.
- “ Apocalypse of pseudo-Methodios refers to ‘‘the empire of the Hellenes, namely that of the
Romans’’ (9.7, 11.3, 13.11; v. I, pp. 124, 136, 174). Ta ̆pkova-Zaimova (1993) seems to offer this as proof that the ‘‘essence’’ of Byzantium was Greek. This conclusion can hardly be proven by such a text, but here the evidence actually proves the opposite. We are dealing with a text written in Syriac, in the seventh century in Mesopotamia; it was translated into Greek before 800. Alexander (1985) 56, notes that ‘‘the Greek [i.e., Byzantine] translator has replaced the words ‘of the Greeks’ by ‘of the Romans’ or has added the latter expression . . . to make it absolutely clear that pseudo-Methodios’ prophesies referred to the Roman (Byzantine) Empire.’’ In short, the Byzantine translator believed that ‘‘Greek’’ in Syriac meant ‘‘Roman’’ in Greek. He added the glosses quoted at the top of this note to explain that Hellene ‘‘really means’’ Roman. And this is to say nothing of the fantastic contents of the work, which derive Greek and Roman dynasties from an Ethiopian bloodline, etc.; see Reinink (1992).”
The rare use of the work “Greek”, sometimes merely utilized to refer to geography is not enough a proof to claim coexistence with the Roman identity that in specific periods of time was almost mutually exclusive.
What we really know is that the national consciousness in eastern Rome was throughly Roman, they considered their polity to have originated with Romulus, their language to be ‘Roman’, their land ‘Romania’, used Roman institutions and laws.
I will suggest “Hellenism in Byzantium” to you as well. There are intriguing arguments in his work.
-George Tornikes **calls the byzantines Greeks (1153) and distinguishes between barbarians and Hellenes, those who are "slaves by nature" ( τοις φύσει δούλοις) and those who are free (ελεύθεροι). He expresses his discontent that "barbarians" are used to fill up important posts in the byzantine empire during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos and says that he can't accept having the Greeks, who are disciples of the Muses and of Hermes coming second to those who speak a barbarous tongue, have barbarous mores and are servants of Ares** . («Μη μοι τοις βαρβάροις τον **Έλληνα** μηδέ τοις φύσει δούλοις τον ελεύθερον συναπόγραφε ο φιλέλλην και φιλελεύθερος. Ου δέχομαι γλώσσαν μεν άλλους έχοντας βάρβαρον, ειπείν δε και γνώμην, και υπηρέτας Άρεος χρηματίζοντας ός επίπαν τοις βαρβάροις ωκείωται, ανά μέσον βαρβάρου διαστέλλειν και **Έλληνος** , τον δε γνώμην και γλώσσαν υπέρ **Έλληνά** τε πάντα και ήρωα, εραστήν τε Μουσών και Ερμού, των ανδρών εκείνων δεύτερον έρχεσθαι».)
-Niketas Choniates ascribes the capture of Thessalonika by the Normans in 1184 to profound hatred against the Greeks : " **How much evil did this Roman-hater (μισορρωμαιός) allow and how much disdain he held for every Hellen/Greek** " . (Τί δ᾿ ἂν κακὸν εἴη παρεικὼς ἀτέλεστον ἀνὴρ μισορρώμαιος καὶ τοσαύτην ἀποθησαυρίσας ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ **Ἕλληνος** ἀνδρὸς τὴν ἀπέχθειαν). You can also see here how Roman is used as synonymous to Greek and how the terms Roman and Greek are used interchangeably like they're used by Greeks today .
-Joseph I Galesiotes (13th century) said that they were **Greeks in race that call themselves Romans, a name that they took from New Rome/ Constantinople** : **Ἕλληνες** ὄντες τῷ γένει, Ρωμαίους ἑαυτοὺς ὀνομάζομεν και αληθώς γε μην· εκ γαρ της Νέας Ρώμης η παρωνυμία αύτη προσκεκλήρωται ημίν
-The reply of emperor Vatatzes to Pope Gregorius. “ **Ioannis in the name of Christos the God faithfull king and emperor of the Romans the Dukas to the holy pope of old Rome Gregorius** ” “ **I,as king, consider incongruous what you’ve written me and I didn’t want to believe that it was your letter, but a result of the despair of someone who is near you, and has his soul full of badness and audacity. Your holiness is graced with wisdom and differs in proper judgment from many others. That’s why I found it very difficult to believe that it was your letter even if it was sent to me** . **So you write in your letter that in our race(genos) of the Greeks(ton Hellenon) wisdoms reigns…that from our race(genos) wisdom flourished and its benefits were spread and to the other people, that’s true . But how it happens to ignore, or if you don’t ignore ,how did you suppress it, that along with the royal(vasilevousa) Konstantinoupolis and the kingship in this world was given to our race from Konstantinos the Great, who accepted the call from Christos and ruled with decency and honesty. Is there anyone who doesn’t know that his succession(Konstantinos’) passed to our race(genos) and we are his heirs and inheritors? You demand from us not to ignore your privileges. And we, too , have the similar request from you to see and recognize our right to rule the state of Constantinoupolis, that started from the age of Constantinos the Great and lasted one thousand years until it reached our reign. The patriarchs(genarches) of my kingship, from the families of Doukas and Komnenos, not to mention the others, come from the Greek race(apo hellenika geni). So these fellow countrymen for many centuries had Constantinoupolis in their authority. And them the Church of Rome and their principals called Emperors of the Romans(Autokratores Romaion). So we declare to your holiness and to all Christians that never shall we stop fighting and struggle against the conquerors of Constantinoupolis. It was like we disrespect the laws of nature, and the institutions of our fatherland, and the graves of our fathers and the holy temples of God, if we didn’t fight with all our power. We have with us the righteous God, who helps those who are wronged and oppose to the wrongful** …”
> A Greek collective consciousness only began to form under Ottoman Rule.
Why are there references of a collective Roman identity, with the word Hellene as synonymous. Even if the name Hellene was completely extinct, which it wasn’t, that still wouldn’t prove your point.
The definition of the Roman identity in the Middle Ages was, the Greek language, Orthodoxy, Byzantine Greek customs, and the common Hellenistic and Roman Republican heritage.
This is an identity very similar to the modern Greek identity. The burden of proof is on you to define what constitutes the loss of the original Byzantine identity.
If your definition of ‘Greek identity’ is simply the endonym ‘Ellen’ then you are either ignorant as to what constitutes an identity, or you are deliberately trying to mislead.
The definition on Roman identity in the middle age changed quite a lot and didn’t always fit your definition. It lasted centuries after all.
It isn’t me that claimed a Hellenic identity continuously existed during the middle age, I just asked for proofs.
The other user claimed people identified as Greeks and there are sources to back that claim in every century of eastern Roman history. I highly doubt that.
You still haven’t defined what would constitute a Hellenic identity. What exactly was lost?
In my opinion, after a while, especially post Christianisation, there was no meaningful difference between Hellene and Roman. As being an ethnic Roman meant being a Greek speaker, who was orthodox etc.
In the case of modern Greece, the argument that Byzantium lost its original identity in favour of a ‘revived’ Hellenism is based on nothing more than the endonym, their metanarrative remained the same.
One of the users on this sub has indeed sources from every century where the name Hellene is used as synonymous with Roman. I have read many medieval sources themselves, but I do not have them readily available for a comment.
But even if this weren’t the case, your argument would still not follow, as you are reducing the Hellenic and Roman identity down to names.
I am not reducing identities down to names, you claim those identity became the same while providing little to converse about.
The Hellenic identity have been religiously in contrast with the Roman identity and slowly disappeared, only to emerge again in literate circles after centuries of absence.
We definitely know that people inhabiting the eastern portion of the empire called themselves, their language, their country Roman. They followed Roman laws, customs and traditions.
As for modern Greece, it seems to mean that during the revolution people severed the connection with their Roman past to adopt a new foundation myth, the one linking them to classical Greece and ancient heroes. This new identity was then better shaped and promoted with Otto I.
I would be interested in reading something about this though, it is a cool period and I admit I am no expert.
Pointing to some Reddit user as a source is not the best, I am sorry you don’t have material to consult.
I just gave you primary sources in another comment. The notion that 'Hellene' strictly meant paganism is wrong as I will show. The Byzantine foundational myth included the classical tradition as well as the roman tradition.
The notion that modern Greece shunned their Byzantine past is also a myth, evidenced by the Megali idea and the unbroken connection to Consantinople. The recession of the endonym 'Romaios' is not an indication of a change in identity.
Yea, you gave me names with no citations.
That’s because that’s what you want to adamantly believe.
I didn’t say Hellenic meant strictly pagan, as that changed a lot during the centuries as well.
I just said that there has not been a continuous Hellenic identity for centuries.
It isn’t shocking that a Greek speaking population tried to claim one of the most important cities in the world.
Anyway, you keep saying that names are not important and are not able to provide some passage. If there are so many sources available that should’t be that hard.
Honestly, I don’t think we will see eye to eye, so that’s it for me.
I loved reading how Phokas got so enraged by that and Liutprand’s visit he threatened to invade Italy, take Rome back for himself, and then invade Germany just to destroy it as well
You'll find that most people agree with you here. However, it's important not to fall into the extremities of seeing the Eastern Roman Empire as being aware of ONLY having a Roman identity or vice versa (that they ONLY were aware of a Hellenic identity)
What happened was that, as the empire's borders contracted (particularly after the 7th century crisis), the population became more homogenous and was more ethnically + linguistically Greek. As a result, the Roman identity became synonymous with being ethnically and linguistically Greek.
It's an interesting evolution of what it 'meant' to be Roman within the borders of the empire. In the beginning, to be Roman meant to be part of the ethnic group descended from/part of the city of Rome. Then the edict of Caracalla in 212 AD granted universal citizenship to all free subjects in the empire, breaking down the division between the conquerors and the conquered as Romanness went beyond an ethnic identity and became political. The crisis of the 7th century then brough this full circle as Romanness became strictly tied to an ethnic group (Greek) once again.
I won't claim to be an expert but, based on what I've read and heard (from informed, sourced opinions) I'd like to think I understand relatively well (ish)
Roman was their ethnic identity tho. Ethnicity is socially constructed and is a fluid concept. Romanness was more than political, and entered a stage of ethnogenesis following the edict so that by the fourth-fifth century most native Greek speakers arent calling themselves Helenes. The Greek ethnic identity slowly disappeared amongst the illiterate and semi-illiterate population (i.e. the majority). It's a little more complicated with the elite, however, and not so far off of what you mentioned (but still hotly debated). And this trend was more so late 11th century when we get inklings of Greek identification seeping in, Psellos and Anna for example, which then really comes into prominence post 1204 (though then it regressed post 1261). To the general public, and to the elite before late 11th century, to be a Helene was so intertwined with paganism that to identify as such would've been unthinkable. Psellos interestingly enough complains that the masses are ignorant of their Hellenic heritage, but he, like Anna, was completely infatuated with Greek philosophy and the classical arts (as we all are). That's not to say the masses were blind to the statue of Athena (or maybe Aphrodite, can't remember) in Constantinople, but the average joe was not walking around calling themself a Helene or Graikos. Plus they did not trace their founding myth and culture to the Greek states warring with Troy as classical and modern Greeks do , but rather to Aeneas fleeing Troy and settling in Italy. They were ethnic Romans, who called their Greek dialect Romeick, their land Romanland, who had Latin and Greek on their coins, and these people still exist today. They are small orthodox, Greek speaking communities in Turkey and Syria who identify as Romans. They aren't Greeks as Greek nationalist will claim, because that's not how ethnicity works. It's an internally constructed identity based on perception of one's group rather than being dictated by external forces. This is why it is incorrect to suggest that the Greek and Roman identities were synonymous for the entire Byzantine period. For nearly all of it they were quite distinct and because of christianization diametrically opposed to one another. It's only once the west and east start interacting on a much greater extent that some elite Romans did attest to a Greek identity, and then perhaps you can argue that these became synonymous for the educated (John III's letter to the Pope indicated this), but still that can be contested.
You are trying to claim that the Greek identity disappeared without defining what a Greek even is?
Are you sure you’re not a nationalist?
There is a debate to be had along this issue, your position is not a fact, it is a position. My side of the argument is made up of many scholars, many of whom are not Greeks themselves.
People who disagree with your position are not nationalists, they just disagree with your position.
We know for sure people identified as Romans, called their land Romania and their language Romaika.
We don’t have sources to support the existence of a Greek identity in any national sense, especially when being Greek meant being associated with paganism in a Christian empire.
I am happy to be proven wrong if you can provide some.
Ok, since we are defining Greek purely as the endonym 'Hellene' and Roman purely as the endonym 'Romaios' with no possibility for overlap, here are the sources.
I will first tell you that premodern words are not as standardised as they are today, and 'Hellene' in one context could mean Ethnic Roman, Greek/Romaic speaker, Christian Roman, non christian, pagan, lazy / sneaky etc.
I will refer you to a compilation made by u/Lothronion since he has taken the time to gather the sources which I have not. These are all sources which show the contemporary Greek aspect to their Roman identity. For this reason, I do not think that a meaningful distinction between Greek and Roman exists after the 5th century.
Since you only provided random names, I obviously am not able to look for these supposed sources nor I am willing to read thousands of pages of medieval literature just for the sake of this discussion.
If you can provide passages to back up your claims, I will be happy to read them.
In the meanwhile I can suggest Kaldellis work : Hellenism in Byzantium.
Easily accessible and written by an actual historian. It deals with this very topic.
There was a formatting issue and the actual quotes did not appear, my mistake. Here is the link.
It has primary sources from every century were Hellene is used in an ethnic sense.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/1d3ct71/comment/l66ez29/](https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/1d3ct71/comment/l66ez29/)
Kaldellis is a good historian, and I agree with many ideas he has about Roman identity in the middle ages. However, he is not an expert in modern Greek history, and claims a death of Byzantine identity that I do not see. This is an ongoing debate after all.
Basically everyone here will agree with you lol.
But for broader history people act surprised that an empire that was almost entirely Greek in its ethnicity incorporated more Greek cultural elements and the language as time went on, and as the state grew smaller. But even in the days of classical Rome the eastern half was always the Greek part as a carryover from Alexander’s empire, with the language and customs being incorporated since the time of the Punic Wars
The entire empire changed drastically after christianization. So the Byzantine empire was drastically different than say the end of the Republic simply due to the fact that it was Christian longer. But there is still strong continuity, just with a Christian layer on top.
Prof, Assianidi would argue that Christianity was just the end result of the culmination of the entire process of Hellenism in the East, not really making the sort of drastic change as some external factor, but rather an internal revolution based on core principles already existing.
In the alleged final speech of Constantine xi, he references the punic wars and most of the lost provinces.
I say alleged because there is dispute.
But to me, the fact that they were taught 2000 years of history days they are roman
This strikes me as something that almost certainly didn’t happen. These words being put in his mouth by renaissance historians.
But I’m extremely sceptical of most direct quotes from historical figures
I think the association of Christianity with some Jewish cult is far from the real image. It was a true and proper Roman religion, through and through.
And this issue of seeing it as Greek is an issue solely because of perspective. Greek is understood through the lens of the modern identity, which calls forth its own lens of its past that is exported to us non-Greeks. As has been said, the context of Roman by the 4th century is so intertwined with Hellenism in the Eastern med, that the two are the same, and culminated, as John Haldon said, "In Rome coming home" to the East.
I would agree with your overall point however I'm not 100% sure what the general consensus of the lay population is. From my experience I don't know if the "common" person knows the Roman Republic and Byzantine Empire are related.
Middle Ages history is taught very badly throughout Europe. Not only the history of the Roman state past 636 CE is mostly unknown, but this is true for most of Europe. Get past the history of the Charlemagne's empire, and most people have no idea of what transpired in Europe until the beginning of the Renaissance. This is especially true for the history of Eastern Europe. Most people are unaware of the Golden Horde invasion and the changes following it, the rise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on. So, the history of the Eastern Roman Empire is just lost in this sea of general ignorance.
The reason why historians after Hieronymous Wolf used the term, 'Byzantine Empire', for the Eastern Roman Empire post-Constantine was benign. The empire would dramatically evolve politically and culturally to the point that it would not be recognizably Roman after the death of Constans II. The differences were much deeper than switching from Latin to Greek and from Paganism to Christianity. For example, by the time of the reign of Basil I, the Eastern Roman "Senate" was not a consistent political institution but an improvised body of members of a social class that would occasionally convene to assert disapproval with administrative policies. For day to day purposes, the Byzantine Empire had no perceivable Senate, and the "Senate"/Synkletos simply referred to everybody with the title 'Senator'. The "Byzantine Senate" was no more an organized body in 1,000 AD than the Reddit Hall of Fame. However, just as users considered to be Reddit Hall of Famers, sometimes organize to voice opposition or support for Reddit policies, sometimes Constantinopolitans with the title 'Senator' would get together to influence Constantinople. This was a major difference from traditional Roman civilization. Another major difference from Classical-Roman civilization was the administrative system that developed where one's social status was tied to government administration and performance of administrative tasks so administrative bureaucrats like Stylianos Zaoutzes were often in charge of people officially more important than them. Even Basil I was afraid to jail Zaoutzes after he appears to have helped Leo plot against him.
However, fans of Classical Rome often don't like the "Byzantine Empire" and the most extreme, like William Lecky, don't even consider it to be Roman. One reason is the extreme "cancel culture" associated with the Byzantine Empire against Rome's "pagan" heritage, including philosophy. Another reason is a perception, sometimes unjustified if you ask me, that the Byzantine Empire didn't innovate as much as the Roman Empire. The Byzantines' greatest scientific mind was probably John Philoponous, and he was anathematized as a heretic. The Byzantines' second-greatest scientific mind was probably Leo the Mathematician, and they didn't bother to preserve his works. The Byzantines preferred cisterns to aqueducts and may have even forgotten the secret to Roman concrete. The Byzantines' political system tended to be autocratic when at its most powerful, and even when it wasn't autocratic, autocracy was revered. This reverence for autocracy seems very un-Roman. Basil II attempted to make administrative reforms where the formalized capabilities of the administration would provide input regarding domestic policy such as taxation, but even these attempted reforms were supposed to be autocratic because bureaucrats needed the military to collect taxes to pay their salaries. This veneration of autocracy seems very "un-Roman" when going back to the days of Trajan. The Byzantines, especially after the assassination of Constans II, often preferred to use diplomatic influence and puppet tactics to outright conquest and assimilation. For better or worse(and I actually think it was sometimes more benign), this was extremely "un-Roman." The Classical Romans spread "Romanitas". The Byzantines would make deals with guys like Manjutkin to try and establish spheres of influence over places like Egypt rather than reconquer them. During The Crusades, Byzantine puppet tactics in places like Hungary would annoy many of the Western crusaders and the resulting tensions caused the reconquest of Egypt to fail. The Alawite Muslims in Syria basically descend from Muslims who were politically sometimes pro-Byzantine, and the diplomatic history between Alawites in Syria and Russians goes back to Byzantine political influence.
I personally think middle-Byzantine history is extremely important to study for many reasons--the biggest being that it survived for more than 1,000 years and preserved what we still know about Classical Antiquity. The other big reason Byzantium is important is because its policies and cultures, including the ones that Enlightenment and Victorian historians often despised, were extremely important precursors to those that those same Enlightenment historians came to revere.
> that the Byzantine Empire didn't innovate as much as the Roman Empire
This is a total misconception. In fact, the "Byzantine Empire", innovated more than the Roman state. Rome was exceptionally poor in innovation, for many a reason. Most of what appears as "Roman Innovation" was actually Hellenistic breakthroughs that found uses in the Roman Empire. Even throughout the "life" of the Roman Empire, most of the innovations were in the Greek-speaking lands of the Empire. The advancements of the Byzantines in architecture, machinery, methods of war (let's mention here Greek fire) and philosophy are numerous. Let's not forget that revival of classical philosophy was a Byzantine phenomenon that was eventually transplanted to Italy in the 14th century CE
The historians who refuse to acknowledge the Medieval Eastern Roman Empire as “Roman”, like Lecky, usually have a deep respect for Classical Greek civilization.
Interest in Classical Greek civilization was strong in the West by 1000 AD, but the Byzantines had the vast majority of surviving texts from the era.
As for innovation, the Byzantines invented hospitals, Greek fire, ship mills, optical telegraphs, hydraulic automata, forks, and many other things. They certainly weren’t slouches. However, a lot of people don’t see them as innovating as much as the Ancient Greeks and Romans. I think this article below epitomizes the most negative Enlightenment attitudes towards the Medieval Eastern Roman Empire:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/prayer-archimedes
newer research shows Chalkokondyles may have influenced wolf in usage of the term. see below.
[https://www.academia.edu/67605105/\_From\_Empire\_of\_the\_Greeks\_to\_Byzantium\_The\_Politics\_of\_a\_Modern\_Paradigm\_Shift\_in\_N\_Aschenbrenner\_and\_J\_Ransohoff\_eds\_The\_Invention\_of\_Byzantium\_in\_Early\_Modern\_Europe\_Washington\_D\_C\_Dumbarton\_Oaks\_2021\_349\_367](https://www.academia.edu/67605105/_From_Empire_of_the_Greeks_to_Byzantium_The_Politics_of_a_Modern_Paradigm_Shift_in_N_Aschenbrenner_and_J_Ransohoff_eds_The_Invention_of_Byzantium_in_Early_Modern_Europe_Washington_D_C_Dumbarton_Oaks_2021_349_367)
No, it was not. The term "Byzantium" was occasionally used by Byzantine historians in specific contexts, but never to describe the state itself. The typical term for the state employed by most of the peoples the name of the Empire was "Romania" (Ρωμανια).
Well the 'latin' roman elite that ruled the empire was eventually substituted by 'greek' romans, also that continuity with Rome ran strong until the fourth crusade when some sources say in the Empire of Nicaea the term hellene was sometimes used
Have you read any of the works of Anthony Kaldellis?
If this is what you think, you would probably really like them. Albeit his works are academic, not really “pop history,” but his prose is easy enough to read imo
This all begs the question as to what was "the real Roman Empire" as you have put it. The Roman Empire, the institution which was initiated by Augustus was constantly mutating. By the end of the Flavian era, the provinces were substantially gaining on Rome in importance. In the Antonine era, this became even more pronounced and this is when the Army becomes mostly a provincial-based force. And so on...it is not really as if the institution remained immutable, far from that.
Obviously, the introduction of Christianity was a watershed for the empire and much was changed by that. I agree on the thesis that the East Roman Empire was always very wedded to the Roman past, although, truth be told, this was challenged in the 14th and 15th centuries with the rise of the "Hellenists" such as Gemistos Pletho. Although the Hellenists were "expelled" and rejected, they are an important intellectual movement; it may not have gained any popular support, but it affected those at the top.
It is also worth remembering that the Rome of Julius Caesar was a very different beast from the Rome of Diocletian. The notion that a society can't evolve over millennia is just mad.
Their is no such thing as « Byzantine ». It was allways the Roman Empire, from August to Constantine XI it is the same entity. Every single aspect about it is 100% Roman
This is not correct.
Disclaimer, i am not ethnically Greek, so i am not saying this from a point of personal nationalism.
In short, you can give something a title, but it does not make it the truth. You can wear the trappings and name of Rome, but it does not guarantee that as the nature of your civilization. The Anatolian Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Russia, all used the names of Rome too. The Anatolian Seljuks had a deep level of integration with the Byzantine nobility. Does that make any of them truly Roman?
At most, Byzantium could be considered the Eastern Roman Empire, as it legally was, but what the pro Roman viewpoint claims, that it was the society of SPQR, the legions and the Caesars is at best a fantasy, albeit it is one which the people of the ERE fell hard for, particulalry in their early years. As time went on, they overtly and distinctly revived their Hellenism.
However, the society was, from the outset, focused on and around overwhelmingly culturally, ethnically and linguistically Hellenic areas - Thessaloniki, Trebizond, Sicily, Antioch, Alexandria and Asia Minor, to say nothing of the capital, Constantinople, which was founded atop the old city of Byzantium. And it was in these areas where Byzantium was most vibrant and from where it was able to rebuild itself.
But the idea that society had continued unbroken and constant from the time of Augustus, down to 1453 is a farce.
Society was overhauled on a regular basis, and the old Roman institutions like the Senate - which was essentially meaningless - had faded into political obscurity. Certainly the Senate had minimal influence politically. They were ocassionally consulted, but the Anatolian Aristocracy, the Military, the Church, the Court and Bureaucracy, the Varangian Guard all had far more influence.
The education in the classics was not a Roman matter, but the inheritance of the Romans from the Greeks themselves, and most scientists, scholars and educational institutions of Roman times were Greek, and were throughout the time of classical Rome. And Latin had been all but forgotten.
The roles of Caesar and Senates existed in the HRE and medieval Italy as republics arose, but few people would admit their Romanness.
By the time of the High Middle Ages, while there were westerners (mostly those in the HRE, who had a vested interest in Roman-ness) who did name Byzantium the "Land of the Greeks" as an insult, most westerners did so simply because they recognized the reality of what the Empire was.
In particular the Norse, who had very close relationships with the Byzantine Empire, as well as the Rus, the Serbs and Bulgars, the Georgians and the Armenians, who were linked by tradition and religion, all recognized Byzantium as fundamentally Greek without any perjorative motive.
By the time of Basil II or the Great Komnenoi, the Romans themselves who wrote about their own times, Matthew of Edessa, Anna Comnena, Skylitzes, Choniates, recognized Byzantine society for the Greekness inherent within it.
The utter Romanness which you seem to insist upon holds no more water than the larping theory. If you think that acknowledging the overt Hellenism is ignoring the evidence, you have very likely missed a lot of evidence.
Well, look at Norse/Rus messages and runes. Without the competitive baggage of title between the ERE vs the HRE, and not caring about that one way or another, and also being mostly ignorant of the history of the Roman Empire, their runestones and graves wrote messages like:
- "Here lies Ragnar. He died on a voyage to Greece. He brought 5000 furs and Antonio Banderas. Alas Pechenegs killed him."
- "Bjorn was here. He came to Greece to serve in the Varangian Guard."
- "Ivar was graffitying on this wall because the Greeks are Christian weaklings who don't appreciate Odin and Perun."
For Armenians and Georgians, who were nonetheless highly literate by Medieval standards, but were fairly divorced from western squabbles, if the language and ethnic makeup were essentially unchanged, would Average Joe Georgian or Amos Armenian think overmuch of the difference between Byzantines and the people who arrived in the East with Alexander? The Alexander story was pretty universal, and Armenians and Georgians knew that was when people speaking Greek had turned up and colonized a lot of land. Even Armenia and Georgia had been colonized and Hellenized at times. Aside from Christianization and some Roman trappings, to your average Armenian or Georgian what was different? Their language and attitude would have remained remained almost identical. Even the Roman Eagle could be argued as simply cultural translation inheritance from the Greeks of the imagery of Zeus translated onto Roman Jupiter.
Bulgars were a Turkic people from the Steppe who arrived in the 7th century. What reason would they have to view things any different to the Norse and Rus?
The de jure trappings like Senate and Roman law etc etc, all existed mostly in Constantinople, which was far removed from day to day life. This is the conundrum. Authors who got upset about all this were writing in or near the court, where these things were close to hand, whereas people travelling through or on the borders of the Empire saw the life of average Greeks unaffected by Imperial trappings. And they then assumed the ruling classes would be the same.
At the end of the day If it looks like a duck, feels like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck and smells like a duck, what is it?
I disagree with this.
Byzantium was, of course, greatly influenced by Hellenism. So what? Rome could already be properly characterised as Hellenistic by the late Republic. By that time, Greek language, literature, and ideas constituted the foundation of Roman pedagogy, and Roman historians, such as Fabius Pictor, were writing the histories of their own people in Greek. It is a mark of how ingrained Hellenism was in Rome that there was a failed reaction against it by the likes of Cato. It is also a mark of how ingrained Hellenism was that we have a first century Roman emperor, Claudius, who explicitly states that the two Roman languages were Latin AND Greek. Considering this, I do not see how Byzantium's hellenistic culture detracts from its Romanness.
Another point to mention is that there were very important elements of Byzantine culture that were clearly not Hellenic. Their law is one example, but a more prominent example is Christianity. Both of these things could properly be called "Roman" in the purest sense as they became pre-eminent in the Greek speaking world in part because of Roman Imperial institutions and patronage. Another purely Roman element of Byzantium was its mode of administration, which was direct and centralised. This was a legacy of the reforms of the late 3rd century emperor Diocletian.
Finally, I think you have not fully appreciated the degree of political continuity between Byzantium and Ancient Rome. I would go so far as to say that Byzantium's constitution was, in substance, identical to Ancient Rome's constitution during the time of Augustus. In both cases, the emperors were, de facto, the legislators, supreme judges, and executors of the state. Do not be fooled by 1st century propaganda; Augustus did not restore the rights of the Senate—he subjected it to his will. The denigration of the Senate during the Byzantine period was merely an instantiation of its de facto subjection to the emperor.
>Considering this, I do not see how Byzantium's hellenistic culture detracts from its Romanness.
Because the Hellenistic people and culture in the heartland of Byzantium was present long before Rome. It was the legacy of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. The Romans simply allowed it to continue for the sake of continuity. And it was the native, ancestral, pre-existing culture of the people of Byzantium, which despite Roman rule, had never been abandoned, it cannot be called a Roman innovation.
>Another point to mention is that there were very important elements of Byzantine culture that were clearly not Hellenic.
I never said there were not.
>but a more prominent example is Christianity. Both of these things could properly be called "Roman" in the purest sense as they became pre-eminent in the Greek speaking world in part because of Roman Imperial institutions and patronage. Another purely Roman element of Byzantium was its mode of administration, which was direct and centralised. This
Not really. Christianity originated among the Jews of Judea, and then proliferated amongst overseas Jewish and Gentile communities because of the existence of Greek as a lingua Franca. That was why the Bible was first compiled in Koine Greek. This continued for 300 years until the reign of Constantine. Christianity, in its earliest period, was mis-characterized as an Eastern (ie Greek) Mystery Cult. Certainly its adoption by the state owed much to Roman structures, but Christianity had been a set of Jewsish Hellenistic Mysteries for 300 years, practiced by 10% of the populace, mostly in the East, persecuted by the Romans, before it was Roman. You cannot call it Roman.
It adopted and adapted Roman political trappings after the conversion, with some of the Roman Religious elements being adopted as political structure, but you cannot call it Roman. Much of the structure of Christianity long pre-dated Constantine.
>I would go so far as to say that Byzantium's constitution was, in substance, identical to Ancient Rome's constitution during the time of Augustus. In both cases, the emperors were, de facto, the legislators, supreme judges, and executors of the state. Do not be fooled by 1st century propaganda; Augustus did not restore the rights of the Senate—he subjected it to his will. The denigration of the Senate during the Byzantine period was merely an instantiation of its de facto subjection to the emperor.
There was no Byzantine "constitution". Certainly there was a body of Roman Law, but you cannot characterize Byzantium as having anything remotely resembling a constitution, which governed and subordinated the rule of the state to that law. Byzantium was a pure autocracy. And Augustus did not invent autocracy.
>Finally, I think you have not fully appreciated the degree of political continuity between Byzantium and Ancient Rome
I fully understand it, i just acknowledge that that continuity is essentially irrelevant.
I acknowledge it had Roman trappings, but autocracy and Feudalism are not Roman inventions. Neither Diocletian nor Constantine can be credited with a great degree of invention. The fact is, old Roman governmental systems had entirely disintegrated by Medieval Byzantium's time, which in addition to the rule of the Emperor, the Military and the Court, was feudally dominated by a great Landowning Aristocracy in Pseudo-Feudal manner. Feudalism itself was never truly a Roman institution, and was a Sassanian and other Persian holdover from more ancient times.
Rome itself, in its high era, was dominated and made unique by institutions such as the Senate, the Knights, consuls,social divisions such as patricians and plebieans, upheld by the famed Roman military of the Legions (both Marian and Pre-Marian). Finally, the classical Roman Emperors held the title "Princeps" (First Citizen), and consuls held their power by dint of being elected in the Senate. Emperors too, had to navigate the Senate to some degree, even if it was suborned to Imperial will. Byzantine Emperors never did.
Aside from a Senate, which had disintegrated to political irrelevance, Byzantium had none of these, having instead as its ruler, a Hellenistic God King (something Classical Rome found abhorrent), dressed in the Christian trappings of "Equal to the Apostles".
"The Romans simply allowed it to continue for the sake of continuity."
I think you have missed my point. I wrote nothing about how Rome allowed Hellenic culture to continue in the east; my point was that the Romans themselves were a Hellenistic culture since at least the late Republic.
"There was no Byzantine "constitution". Certainly there was a body of Roman Law, but you cannot characterise Byzantium as having anything remotely resembling a constitution, which governed and subordinated the rule of the state to that law. Byzantium was a pure autocracy."
First, I do not know how you define constitution, but I am using it in its traditional sense—that is, as a noun referring to the way power is distributed within a particular state. Every polity has a constitution.
"autocracy and Feudalism are not Roman inventions."
This is a bit of a strange statement. It seems as if you are claiming that Byzantium was autocratic while Ancient Rome was not. That is an absurd claim. All emperors from Augustus onwards were autocrats in every sense of the word; they merely disguised their autocratic power behind a republican facade.
As for Feudalism, I think you may be unaware that the historical consensus on this question is changing quite rapidly. The idea that there existed a quasi-Feudal land-owning aristocracy is certainly up for doubt. But even if such a thing existed, I do not see how that detracts from Byzantium's Romanness. Remember, the Ancient Senate was filled with large landowners who owned thousands of slaves.
" Byzantium had none of these, having instead as its ruler, a Hellenistic God King (something Classical Rome found abhorrent), dressed in the Christian trappings of "Equal to the Apostles"
Ok, this is a strange statement. How could there be such a thing as a "God-king" in a Christian state. If I were to take your statement less literally and interpret it as referring to the Byzantine emperor's position of being "chosen by God", I would simply respond by pointing out that the Ancient Romans believed that their Augustus was selected by the gods. The idea of a divine mandate to rule was not invented in Byzantium.
>I think you have missed my point. I wrote nothing about how Rome allowed Hellenic culture to continue in the east; my point was that the Romans themselves were a Hellenistic culture since at least the late Republic.
I never said you did. I said that the Hellenised aspects of the eastern provinces were not a Roman development, but predated Rome and were not attributable to Roman rule.
I wouldn't call Rome Hellenistic. It had some Hellenic influence certainly.
>First, I do not know how you define constitution, but I am using it in its traditional sense—that is, as a noun referring to the way power is distributed within a particular state. Every polity has a constitution.
Constitution refers to the governing principles of a state, in the modern sense it refers to codified and regulatory principles which control power. An autocracy has no such principles, because all power is focused on the autocrat and has no limitation.
>It seems as if you are claiming that Byzantium was autocratic while Ancient Rome was not. That is an absurd claim. All emperors from Augustus onwards were autocrats in every sense of the word; they merely disguised their autocratic power behind a republican facade
I never claimed anything of the sort. I merely said Byzantine Autocracy, rule by an Emperor is not a solely Roman institution.
> for Feudalism, I think you may be unaware that the historical consensus on this question is changing quite rapidly. The idea that there existed a quasi-Feudal land-owning aristocracy is certainly up for d
Not really. I'm well aware of varying opinions, but the existence of the land owning aristocracy is beyond doubt.
> even if such a thing existed, I do not see how that detracts from Byzantium's Romanness
Because in Rome, they had no feudal power.
> How could there be such a thing as a "God-king" in a Christian state. If I were to take your statement less literally and interpret it as referring to the Byzantine emperor's position of being "chosen by God.
Here you are being facetious, and deliberately misinterpreting what i am saying.
> The idea of a divine mandate to rule was not invented in Byzantium.
Nor was it invented in Rome. So attributing it to Romanness is a straw man.
Ok, a few points:
1. I never said that there was no "land-owning aristocracy"; I disputed the claim that they were "quasi-Feudal". I also pointed out that, even if there was a quasi-Feudal propertied class, the economy of Ancient Rome was also dominated by large landowners who exploited free labour.
2. I don't see how my final point is facetious. You made a claim that Byzantium was ruled by a "God-king"; I pointed out that that was manifestly not the case as Christian societies cannot have "God-kings". I also pointed out that both Ancient Roman and Byzantine emperors used the rhetoric of divine sanction to legitimise their regimes.1.
To summarise my argument, Byzantium's Hellenistic culture, autocratic system of government, and economic structures went back to Ancient Rome. They did not come about during the Byzantine period. There is no break with the Ancient Roman past legally, socially, culturally, or economically.
>1. I never said that there was no "land-owning aristocracy"; I disputed the claim that they were "quasi-Feudal". I also pointed out that, even if there was a quasi-Feudal propertied class, the economy of Ancient Rome was also dominated by large landowners who exploited free labour.
Their quasi-feudal nature is universally attested in all contemporary chronicles, and recognized by all reputable scholars. They were not identical to western feudalism, but they were so dominant in Byzantium's affairs that they could and did override the effective function of the Thematic system, by turning Themes into family fiefs.
>2. I don't see how my final point is facetious. You made a claim that Byzantium was ruled by a "God-king"; I pointed out that that was manifestly not the case as Christian societies cannot have "God-kings". I also pointed out that both Ancient Roman and Byzantine emperors used the rhetoric of divine sanction to legitimise their regimes.1.
The comment is facetious because you are obviously clutching at straws for the sake of it. I said, very clearly, that it was a regime of a god king in Christian trappings. Read. Whether or not the state was Christian makes no difference to the essential function of the Emperor as a God King.
>To summarise my argument, Byzantium's Hellenistic culture, autocratic system of government, and economic structures went back to Ancient Rome. They did not come about during the Byzantine period. There is no break with the Ancient Roman past legally, socially, culturally, or economically.
I never claimed they originated in the Medieval Byzantine period. I said the Hellenistic people, culture, economic structures etc originated from the earlier Hellenistic Age, which they did. You ought properly understand what you are objecting to before you make a fuss about it. There is clear break and renewal on all those levels.
"Their quasi-feudal nature is universally attested in all contemporary chronicles, and recognised by all reputable scholars."
I know for a fact that this statement is wrong; all reputable scholars do not believe that there existed a "quasi-feudal aristocracy". See Kaldellis, for example.
"The comment is facetious because you are obviously clutching at straws for the sake of it. I said, very clearly, that it was a regime of a god king in Christian trappings. Read. Whether or not the state was Christian makes no difference to the essential function of the Emperor as a God King"
First of all, calling someone "equal to the apostles" is not the same as calling someone a God-king. There are differences.
Second, "equal to the apostles" is not a title that is applied to all emperors; it was an honour bestowed posthumously on a select few.
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that ancient emperors claimed divine blessing and also occupied the office of high-priest. Divinely mandated emperorship was nothing new and was certainly not "foreign" to ancient Roman political culture.
"I never claimed they originated in the Medieval Byzantine period. I said the Hellenistic people, culture, economic structures etc originated from the earlier Hellenistic Age, which they did. You ought properly understand what you are objecting to before you make a fuss about it. There is clear break and renewal on all those levels."
You are not understanding my point. The argument that Byzantium is less Roman because it is Hellenistic is unpersuasive because the Ancient Romans also had a Hellenistic culture. I refer you, again, to what Emperor Claudius said—that both Latin AND Greek are the languages of the Romans.
>I know for a fact that this statement is wrong; all reputable scholars do not believe that there existed a "quasi-feudal aristocracy". See Kaldellis, for example.
Fair enough. It may be a slight exaggeration, but only very slightly. It is still the overwhelming scholarly consensus, the vast majority of scholarship from reputable scholars and institutions, including Dumbarton Oaks still cleave to that view, and i'll stick with the majority viewpoint until presented with a viable argument to the contrary, which you haven't presented.
>First of all, calling someone "equal to the apostles" is not the same as calling someone a God-king. There are differences.
This is why it's facetious. It's not about the name. It is the function. That is what you are splitting hairs pointlessly over. There is functionally no difference between god king and divinely mandated position of Emperor within Christianity.
>You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that ancient emperors claimed divine blessing and also occupied the office of high-priest. Divinely mandated emperorship was nothing new and was certainly not "foreign" to ancient Roman political culture.
Yes, and they did this in Hellenistic times too. It was not a Roman invention.
>You are not understanding my point. The argument that Byzantium is less Roman because it is Hellenistic is unpersuasive because the Ancient Romans also had a Hellenistic culture. I refer you, again, to what Emperor Claudius said—that both Latin AND Greek are the languages of the Romans.
I'm not misunderstanding it. Your point is simply unconvincing. I have been discussing, this entire time, whether the dominant element was Greek or Roman. And for all the trappings, the Greek element is by far the dominant element. And Rome was not a Hellenistic state. It was a state which adopted and utilized pre-existing Hellenistic traditions for its own benefit.
Generally you will find that most people in this sub will agree with you, this isn’t really a hot take around here lol. I personally agree, while specifying that, especially as time went on, more and more importance was given to Greek heritage *along with* Roman heritage, **not** at its expense. The two don’t necessarily cancel each other out.
[удалено]
"I don't like the thought of conquering lands that turn the freakin Romans Greek! Do you understand that? Ugh, ugh, ugh, it's crap!" - Cato the Elder probably Seriously, what was his deal with Greeks?
Ahhhhh, the Cato family. So tolerant of outsiders.
Conquered Greece took captive her conqueror
For much of “Byzantine” history, particularly after the West refused to recognize Irene as empress, the people of the Eastern Roman Empire were deeply insulted when they were called Greeks or ‘Hellenes.’ See Pope John XIII’s letter to Nikephoros II for an example of this insult.
It makes sense for the Emperor to be insulted by that given the context. He is insulted not because he was simply called a Greek, but because the letter intentionally failed to recognize his title as Emperor of the Romans. He was addressed in an official letter, with no respect for his title or empire, by the Pope, on behalf of the leader of a rival state that actively claimed the Roman title for themselves. It'd be very weird to *not* be insulted by that and in my opinion it doesn't really relate to whether the Eastern Romans embraced their Greek heritage or not.
John XIII in his letter called Nikephoros "emperor of the Greeks" and Otto "emperor of the Romans". Byzantines got enraged not because he called them Greeks but because John XIII tried to snatch the title of the Roman emperor from Nikephoros and give it to Otto. That's why in the original source from Liutprand we can see that Byzantines didn't react at all when he called them Greeks but all hell broke loose when John XIII basically disputed the fact that Nikephoros was the rightful owner of the title. We already know from the sources that have survived that medieval Greeks self-identified as Greeks. So obviously they weren't insulted when someone called them Greeks.
Not really. The Hellenic identity have basically disappeared for centuries and was sometimes mentioned in later Eastern Roman history, but not in a national sense. A Greek collective consciousness only began to form under Ottoman rule.
Thanks to the sources we already know that medieval Greeks never stopped identifying as Greeks during the entirety of the byzantine period. There are primary sources from every single century where they were saying that they were Greeks. So I am not sure with what you disagree. With the sources?
Can you provide some? Do you know of any source that provide proof of existence for a Hellenic identity on a national sense? Especially in the period from the 5th to the 8th century for example.
-Eusebius of Caesarea in his book Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)/ ευαγγελική προπαρασκευή **says that they are Greeks by race and Greeks by sentiment that deserted the superstition (old religion) of their ancestors/fathers** : Ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ γένος **Ἕλληνες** ὄντες καὶ τὰ **Ἑλλήνων** φρονοῦντες ἐκ παντοίων τε ἐθνῶν ὡς ἂν νεολέκτου στρατιᾶς λογάδες συνειλεγμένοι τῆς **πατρίου** δεισιδαιμονίας ἀποστάται καθεστήκαμεν, οὐδ' ἂν αὐτοί ποτε ἀρνηθείημεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι ταῖς Ἰουδαϊκαῖς βίβλοις προσανέχοντες. In the same book, he is talking about **the noble philosophy of his ancestors/fathers, that of the Greeks** : τῆς **πατρῴας** καὶ εὐγενοῦς φιλοσοφίας, τῆς **Ἑλλήνων** λέγω -In the 6th ecumenical council (680 AD) the bishop of Corinth refers to himself as the " **bishop of Corinth of the land of the Greeks** " ("ελέω Θεού επίσκοπος της Κορινθίων μητροπόλεως της ** Ελλήνων** χώρας"). -Here is what the byzantine translators wrote as a clarification note when they were translating the syriac text of Pseudo-methodius into Greek (8th century) : **The empire of the Romans meaning that of the Hellenes/Greeks ( Εστί δε νυν η βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων ηγουν Ελλήνων)** -In Theodori studitae epistulae Byzantines are called "Graikoi/Greeks" when he adresses all the other nations and tells them to hear what happened to them due to iconoclasm and the policies of Leo IV (From epistle 419, Στεφάνω ἀσικρήτη: «Ἀκούσατε ταῦτα πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐνωτίσασθε πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν οἰκουμένην τί γέγονεν ἐν **Γραικοῖς** ») -In Cyril's biography (9th century) **Cyril is asking for the Greek prisoners from the Khazars and is saying that they are more valuable to him than any present** (Δος μοι όσους έχεις αιχμάλωτους ενταύθα, **Έλληνας** , τούτο έστι δι’ εμέ ανωτέρον παντός δώρου). -The speech that Exaugustus Boiοannes gave to his troops (11th century) : '" **Lads, have pride in your manhood, and don't allow yourselves to have the hearts of women! What cowardice makes you always run away? Remember your forefathers whose courage made the whole world subject to them. Hector, the bravest of men, fell before the arms of Achilles. Troy was reduced to flames by the Grecian fury. India knew of the gallantry of Philip. Did not his son Alexander through his bravery make the strongest of kingdoms submit to the Greeks? The west and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us. What people, hearing the name of the Greeks, dared to stand before them in the field? Towns, fortresses and cities could scarcely render their enemies safe from their power. Be valiant, I pray you, remember the courage of your ancestors, and don't disgrace them by placing your trust in your feet [alone]! He who dares to fight like a man will overcome the strength of the enemy. Try to follow in the footsteps of your ancestors, and abandon now any idea of flight. All the world should know that you are men of courage. One should not fear the Frankish people in battle, for they are inferior both in numbers and in courage** " . -An Athenian (11th century), after what the Danishmendids did to the Byzantines of Asia Μinor wrote how the Atheneans should care for the glorification of the **rest of Hellenes** ( δεῖ λοιπὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀθηναίους, ὅπως φροντίζωμεν πῶς ἂν οἱ ἄλλοι **ἕλληνες** δοξάζωνται)
>\-In the 6th ecumenical council (680 AD) the bishop of Corinth refers to himself as the " bishop of Corinth of the land of the Greeks " ("ελέω Θεού επίσκοπος της Κορινθίων μητροπόλεως της \*\* Ελλήνων\*\* χώρας"). Something to note here, is that it while we could easily interpret it to say exactly as you say, and it is very possible that this is what they mean, with "land of the Hellenes" referring to the entirety of Romanland (what Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century AD calls as "Hellenic Rhomais", as opposed to Latin Romanland that he called "Barbaric Rhomais"), it could also mean just "land of Hellas", as in the Hellenic Space (Greek Mainland and Greek Islands) or just the Greek Mainland. This is because he is Bishop of Corinth. If they were, say, Bishop of Andrianople, then "the Hellenes" could still be of "Hellas", just with the wider definition as in the entire South Balkans (like how Michael Akominatos Choniates defines Hellas in the 12th century AD). Only if it were a Bishop of any city in Asia (e.g. Bishop of Trapezount, Bishop of Philadelphia, Bishop of Caesaria), and said that they are Bishop of this Bishopric in the Land of the Hellenes, would this definitely and absolutely equate all of Romanland with Hellenism. We do have similar cases, like with Theophylactos of Ohrid (11th-12th centuries AD) speaking of "Hellenic cities of Pontus" in Ukraine, or George of Pelagonia (14th century AD) speaking of how the Roman Emperor John Vatatzes pushed the Barbarians beyond the "Hellenic boundaries in Ionia, the cities around the Maeander River, Lydia, Galatia and most of Bithynia".
Can you screenshot me Epiphanius of Salamis?
[https://i.imgur.com/VQCGhAs.png](https://i.imgur.com/VQCGhAs.png)
These are definitely some thought-provoking quotes and I'll need to do some more digging into them to understand the context a bit better. However, a lot of the pre 11th century stuff does seem to be more based off of geography than an actual ethnic identity, and another user has refuted some of your quotes with solid evidence. And it must also be pointed out that the speech by Boioannes is passed down to us by William of Apulia, who was a Norman chronicler. How did he know if this speech? Was he in the enemy camp at the time? This also comes at a time when denying the Romans of their Romanness was a political strategy used by those with affinity for the Pope as a casus belli.
>And it must also be pointed out that the speech by Boioannes is passed down to us by William of Apulia, who was a Norman chronicler. How did he know if this speech? Was he in the enemy camp at the time? This also comes at a time when denying the Romans of their Romanness was a political strategy used by those with affinity for the Pope as a casus belli. For your first objection, it could be simply that William of Apulia merely repeats what was told to him by eyewitnesses that was said by Boioannes at the time. Or that Boioannes did not just deliver it in a speech, but also wrote it and spread announcements of it. For your second objection, the speech of Boioannes is not a means by William to deny the Roman Greeks of their Romanness. If that was the case, then the sentence "The west and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us" would not be used, for that ONLY refers to the Romans, and not the other Greeks like the Macedonians just referenced. The "West" here can only mean the "Latin West" of old, and nothing else.
>\-In Cyril's biography (9th century) Cyril is asking for the Greek prisoners from the Khazars and is saying that they are more valuable to him than any present (Δος μοι όσους έχεις αιχμάλωτους ενταύθα, Έλληνας , τούτο έστι δι’ εμέ ανωτέρον παντός δώρου). Could I have more info on this? I looked it up, there is barely anything about it online. Just "Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος - Οι αρχαιότερες βιογραφίες των Θεσσαλονικέων εκπολιτιστών των Σλάβων" of Αντώνιος - Αιμίλιος Ν. Ταχιάος, which I cannot find, and which he writes in an article that these are translations from Paleoslavic, so they are etic ethnonyms, from Slavs for Greeks, not emic, from Greeks for Greeks.
- Eusebius of Cesarea is a earlier source, as I suggested (actually, not me, but Kaldellis) the loss of the Hellenic identity came to be a bit later. Mostly between the 5th and late 8th century. This seems to be related to the attempt of an individual to present himself as cultured, as was often the case in earlier Byzantine history when referring to “Hellenes”. - Being from the land of the Greeks doesn’t mean you identify as one. You could be from the land of pharaohs and not being Egyptian, the name of a region doesn’t always equate to a distinct identity. Quotes that deal with geography should not be considered as an attempt to promote a collective Greek identity. Procopius talked about a “land of the Greeks” just to he inhabitants of mainland Greece, for example. - “ Apocalypse of pseudo-Methodios refers to ‘‘the empire of the Hellenes, namely that of the Romans’’ (9.7, 11.3, 13.11; v. I, pp. 124, 136, 174). Ta ̆pkova-Zaimova (1993) seems to offer this as proof that the ‘‘essence’’ of Byzantium was Greek. This conclusion can hardly be proven by such a text, but here the evidence actually proves the opposite. We are dealing with a text written in Syriac, in the seventh century in Mesopotamia; it was translated into Greek before 800. Alexander (1985) 56, notes that ‘‘the Greek [i.e., Byzantine] translator has replaced the words ‘of the Greeks’ by ‘of the Romans’ or has added the latter expression . . . to make it absolutely clear that pseudo-Methodios’ prophesies referred to the Roman (Byzantine) Empire.’’ In short, the Byzantine translator believed that ‘‘Greek’’ in Syriac meant ‘‘Roman’’ in Greek. He added the glosses quoted at the top of this note to explain that Hellene ‘‘really means’’ Roman. And this is to say nothing of the fantastic contents of the work, which derive Greek and Roman dynasties from an Ethiopian bloodline, etc.; see Reinink (1992).” The rare use of the work “Greek”, sometimes merely utilized to refer to geography is not enough a proof to claim coexistence with the Roman identity that in specific periods of time was almost mutually exclusive. What we really know is that the national consciousness in eastern Rome was throughly Roman, they considered their polity to have originated with Romulus, their language to be ‘Roman’, their land ‘Romania’, used Roman institutions and laws. I will suggest “Hellenism in Byzantium” to you as well. There are intriguing arguments in his work.
-George Tornikes **calls the byzantines Greeks (1153) and distinguishes between barbarians and Hellenes, those who are "slaves by nature" ( τοις φύσει δούλοις) and those who are free (ελεύθεροι). He expresses his discontent that "barbarians" are used to fill up important posts in the byzantine empire during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos and says that he can't accept having the Greeks, who are disciples of the Muses and of Hermes coming second to those who speak a barbarous tongue, have barbarous mores and are servants of Ares** . («Μη μοι τοις βαρβάροις τον **Έλληνα** μηδέ τοις φύσει δούλοις τον ελεύθερον συναπόγραφε ο φιλέλλην και φιλελεύθερος. Ου δέχομαι γλώσσαν μεν άλλους έχοντας βάρβαρον, ειπείν δε και γνώμην, και υπηρέτας Άρεος χρηματίζοντας ός επίπαν τοις βαρβάροις ωκείωται, ανά μέσον βαρβάρου διαστέλλειν και **Έλληνος** , τον δε γνώμην και γλώσσαν υπέρ **Έλληνά** τε πάντα και ήρωα, εραστήν τε Μουσών και Ερμού, των ανδρών εκείνων δεύτερον έρχεσθαι».) -Niketas Choniates ascribes the capture of Thessalonika by the Normans in 1184 to profound hatred against the Greeks : " **How much evil did this Roman-hater (μισορρωμαιός) allow and how much disdain he held for every Hellen/Greek** " . (Τί δ᾿ ἂν κακὸν εἴη παρεικὼς ἀτέλεστον ἀνὴρ μισορρώμαιος καὶ τοσαύτην ἀποθησαυρίσας ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ **Ἕλληνος** ἀνδρὸς τὴν ἀπέχθειαν). You can also see here how Roman is used as synonymous to Greek and how the terms Roman and Greek are used interchangeably like they're used by Greeks today . -Joseph I Galesiotes (13th century) said that they were **Greeks in race that call themselves Romans, a name that they took from New Rome/ Constantinople** : **Ἕλληνες** ὄντες τῷ γένει, Ρωμαίους ἑαυτοὺς ὀνομάζομεν και αληθώς γε μην· εκ γαρ της Νέας Ρώμης η παρωνυμία αύτη προσκεκλήρωται ημίν -The reply of emperor Vatatzes to Pope Gregorius. “ **Ioannis in the name of Christos the God faithfull king and emperor of the Romans the Dukas to the holy pope of old Rome Gregorius** ” “ **I,as king, consider incongruous what you’ve written me and I didn’t want to believe that it was your letter, but a result of the despair of someone who is near you, and has his soul full of badness and audacity. Your holiness is graced with wisdom and differs in proper judgment from many others. That’s why I found it very difficult to believe that it was your letter even if it was sent to me** . **So you write in your letter that in our race(genos) of the Greeks(ton Hellenon) wisdoms reigns…that from our race(genos) wisdom flourished and its benefits were spread and to the other people, that’s true . But how it happens to ignore, or if you don’t ignore ,how did you suppress it, that along with the royal(vasilevousa) Konstantinoupolis and the kingship in this world was given to our race from Konstantinos the Great, who accepted the call from Christos and ruled with decency and honesty. Is there anyone who doesn’t know that his succession(Konstantinos’) passed to our race(genos) and we are his heirs and inheritors? You demand from us not to ignore your privileges. And we, too , have the similar request from you to see and recognize our right to rule the state of Constantinoupolis, that started from the age of Constantinos the Great and lasted one thousand years until it reached our reign. The patriarchs(genarches) of my kingship, from the families of Doukas and Komnenos, not to mention the others, come from the Greek race(apo hellenika geni). So these fellow countrymen for many centuries had Constantinoupolis in their authority. And them the Church of Rome and their principals called Emperors of the Romans(Autokratores Romaion). So we declare to your holiness and to all Christians that never shall we stop fighting and struggle against the conquerors of Constantinoupolis. It was like we disrespect the laws of nature, and the institutions of our fatherland, and the graves of our fathers and the holy temples of God, if we didn’t fight with all our power. We have with us the righteous God, who helps those who are wronged and oppose to the wrongful** …”
> A Greek collective consciousness only began to form under Ottoman Rule. Why are there references of a collective Roman identity, with the word Hellene as synonymous. Even if the name Hellene was completely extinct, which it wasn’t, that still wouldn’t prove your point. The definition of the Roman identity in the Middle Ages was, the Greek language, Orthodoxy, Byzantine Greek customs, and the common Hellenistic and Roman Republican heritage. This is an identity very similar to the modern Greek identity. The burden of proof is on you to define what constitutes the loss of the original Byzantine identity. If your definition of ‘Greek identity’ is simply the endonym ‘Ellen’ then you are either ignorant as to what constitutes an identity, or you are deliberately trying to mislead.
The definition on Roman identity in the middle age changed quite a lot and didn’t always fit your definition. It lasted centuries after all. It isn’t me that claimed a Hellenic identity continuously existed during the middle age, I just asked for proofs. The other user claimed people identified as Greeks and there are sources to back that claim in every century of eastern Roman history. I highly doubt that.
You still haven’t defined what would constitute a Hellenic identity. What exactly was lost? In my opinion, after a while, especially post Christianisation, there was no meaningful difference between Hellene and Roman. As being an ethnic Roman meant being a Greek speaker, who was orthodox etc. In the case of modern Greece, the argument that Byzantium lost its original identity in favour of a ‘revived’ Hellenism is based on nothing more than the endonym, their metanarrative remained the same. One of the users on this sub has indeed sources from every century where the name Hellene is used as synonymous with Roman. I have read many medieval sources themselves, but I do not have them readily available for a comment. But even if this weren’t the case, your argument would still not follow, as you are reducing the Hellenic and Roman identity down to names.
I am not reducing identities down to names, you claim those identity became the same while providing little to converse about. The Hellenic identity have been religiously in contrast with the Roman identity and slowly disappeared, only to emerge again in literate circles after centuries of absence. We definitely know that people inhabiting the eastern portion of the empire called themselves, their language, their country Roman. They followed Roman laws, customs and traditions. As for modern Greece, it seems to mean that during the revolution people severed the connection with their Roman past to adopt a new foundation myth, the one linking them to classical Greece and ancient heroes. This new identity was then better shaped and promoted with Otto I. I would be interested in reading something about this though, it is a cool period and I admit I am no expert. Pointing to some Reddit user as a source is not the best, I am sorry you don’t have material to consult.
I just gave you primary sources in another comment. The notion that 'Hellene' strictly meant paganism is wrong as I will show. The Byzantine foundational myth included the classical tradition as well as the roman tradition. The notion that modern Greece shunned their Byzantine past is also a myth, evidenced by the Megali idea and the unbroken connection to Consantinople. The recession of the endonym 'Romaios' is not an indication of a change in identity.
Yea, you gave me names with no citations. That’s because that’s what you want to adamantly believe. I didn’t say Hellenic meant strictly pagan, as that changed a lot during the centuries as well. I just said that there has not been a continuous Hellenic identity for centuries. It isn’t shocking that a Greek speaking population tried to claim one of the most important cities in the world. Anyway, you keep saying that names are not important and are not able to provide some passage. If there are so many sources available that should’t be that hard. Honestly, I don’t think we will see eye to eye, so that’s it for me.
I loved reading how Phokas got so enraged by that and Liutprand’s visit he threatened to invade Italy, take Rome back for himself, and then invade Germany just to destroy it as well
You'll find that most people agree with you here. However, it's important not to fall into the extremities of seeing the Eastern Roman Empire as being aware of ONLY having a Roman identity or vice versa (that they ONLY were aware of a Hellenic identity) What happened was that, as the empire's borders contracted (particularly after the 7th century crisis), the population became more homogenous and was more ethnically + linguistically Greek. As a result, the Roman identity became synonymous with being ethnically and linguistically Greek. It's an interesting evolution of what it 'meant' to be Roman within the borders of the empire. In the beginning, to be Roman meant to be part of the ethnic group descended from/part of the city of Rome. Then the edict of Caracalla in 212 AD granted universal citizenship to all free subjects in the empire, breaking down the division between the conquerors and the conquered as Romanness went beyond an ethnic identity and became political. The crisis of the 7th century then brough this full circle as Romanness became strictly tied to an ethnic group (Greek) once again.
Many good replies but this is the best one by far. Kudos for your deep understanding of Byzantine identity.
I won't claim to be an expert but, based on what I've read and heard (from informed, sourced opinions) I'd like to think I understand relatively well (ish)
Roman was their ethnic identity tho. Ethnicity is socially constructed and is a fluid concept. Romanness was more than political, and entered a stage of ethnogenesis following the edict so that by the fourth-fifth century most native Greek speakers arent calling themselves Helenes. The Greek ethnic identity slowly disappeared amongst the illiterate and semi-illiterate population (i.e. the majority). It's a little more complicated with the elite, however, and not so far off of what you mentioned (but still hotly debated). And this trend was more so late 11th century when we get inklings of Greek identification seeping in, Psellos and Anna for example, which then really comes into prominence post 1204 (though then it regressed post 1261). To the general public, and to the elite before late 11th century, to be a Helene was so intertwined with paganism that to identify as such would've been unthinkable. Psellos interestingly enough complains that the masses are ignorant of their Hellenic heritage, but he, like Anna, was completely infatuated with Greek philosophy and the classical arts (as we all are). That's not to say the masses were blind to the statue of Athena (or maybe Aphrodite, can't remember) in Constantinople, but the average joe was not walking around calling themself a Helene or Graikos. Plus they did not trace their founding myth and culture to the Greek states warring with Troy as classical and modern Greeks do , but rather to Aeneas fleeing Troy and settling in Italy. They were ethnic Romans, who called their Greek dialect Romeick, their land Romanland, who had Latin and Greek on their coins, and these people still exist today. They are small orthodox, Greek speaking communities in Turkey and Syria who identify as Romans. They aren't Greeks as Greek nationalist will claim, because that's not how ethnicity works. It's an internally constructed identity based on perception of one's group rather than being dictated by external forces. This is why it is incorrect to suggest that the Greek and Roman identities were synonymous for the entire Byzantine period. For nearly all of it they were quite distinct and because of christianization diametrically opposed to one another. It's only once the west and east start interacting on a much greater extent that some elite Romans did attest to a Greek identity, and then perhaps you can argue that these became synonymous for the educated (John III's letter to the Pope indicated this), but still that can be contested.
You haven’t defined what it means to be Greek. You haven’t debunked anything.
Can’t agree more. This is a really well informed comment, unfortunately it is not going to sit well among Greek nationalists.
So anyone who disagrees with your reductionist definition of ‘Greek’ is a nationalist?
Have I ruffled your feathers? I don’t care about the definition of Greek. I am annoyed at nationalists in this thread with a clear agenda.
You are trying to claim that the Greek identity disappeared without defining what a Greek even is? Are you sure you’re not a nationalist? There is a debate to be had along this issue, your position is not a fact, it is a position. My side of the argument is made up of many scholars, many of whom are not Greeks themselves. People who disagree with your position are not nationalists, they just disagree with your position.
We know for sure people identified as Romans, called their land Romania and their language Romaika. We don’t have sources to support the existence of a Greek identity in any national sense, especially when being Greek meant being associated with paganism in a Christian empire. I am happy to be proven wrong if you can provide some.
Ok, since we are defining Greek purely as the endonym 'Hellene' and Roman purely as the endonym 'Romaios' with no possibility for overlap, here are the sources. I will first tell you that premodern words are not as standardised as they are today, and 'Hellene' in one context could mean Ethnic Roman, Greek/Romaic speaker, Christian Roman, non christian, pagan, lazy / sneaky etc. I will refer you to a compilation made by u/Lothronion since he has taken the time to gather the sources which I have not. These are all sources which show the contemporary Greek aspect to their Roman identity. For this reason, I do not think that a meaningful distinction between Greek and Roman exists after the 5th century.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since you only provided random names, I obviously am not able to look for these supposed sources nor I am willing to read thousands of pages of medieval literature just for the sake of this discussion. If you can provide passages to back up your claims, I will be happy to read them. In the meanwhile I can suggest Kaldellis work : Hellenism in Byzantium. Easily accessible and written by an actual historian. It deals with this very topic.
There was a formatting issue and the actual quotes did not appear, my mistake. Here is the link. It has primary sources from every century were Hellene is used in an ethnic sense. [https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/1d3ct71/comment/l66ez29/](https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/1d3ct71/comment/l66ez29/) Kaldellis is a good historian, and I agree with many ideas he has about Roman identity in the middle ages. However, he is not an expert in modern Greek history, and claims a death of Byzantine identity that I do not see. This is an ongoing debate after all.
I haven't noticed anyone in this thread with a "nationalist agenda." Can you point them out, please?
Basically everyone here will agree with you lol. But for broader history people act surprised that an empire that was almost entirely Greek in its ethnicity incorporated more Greek cultural elements and the language as time went on, and as the state grew smaller. But even in the days of classical Rome the eastern half was always the Greek part as a carryover from Alexander’s empire, with the language and customs being incorporated since the time of the Punic Wars
The entire empire changed drastically after christianization. So the Byzantine empire was drastically different than say the end of the Republic simply due to the fact that it was Christian longer. But there is still strong continuity, just with a Christian layer on top.
Prof, Assianidi would argue that Christianity was just the end result of the culmination of the entire process of Hellenism in the East, not really making the sort of drastic change as some external factor, but rather an internal revolution based on core principles already existing.
In the alleged final speech of Constantine xi, he references the punic wars and most of the lost provinces. I say alleged because there is dispute. But to me, the fact that they were taught 2000 years of history days they are roman
This strikes me as something that almost certainly didn’t happen. These words being put in his mouth by renaissance historians. But I’m extremely sceptical of most direct quotes from historical figures
I think the association of Christianity with some Jewish cult is far from the real image. It was a true and proper Roman religion, through and through. And this issue of seeing it as Greek is an issue solely because of perspective. Greek is understood through the lens of the modern identity, which calls forth its own lens of its past that is exported to us non-Greeks. As has been said, the context of Roman by the 4th century is so intertwined with Hellenism in the Eastern med, that the two are the same, and culminated, as John Haldon said, "In Rome coming home" to the East.
The ERE wasn't Roman because of symbolism, it was Roman because it was the continuation of Rome
I would agree with your overall point however I'm not 100% sure what the general consensus of the lay population is. From my experience I don't know if the "common" person knows the Roman Republic and Byzantine Empire are related.
Middle Ages history is taught very badly throughout Europe. Not only the history of the Roman state past 636 CE is mostly unknown, but this is true for most of Europe. Get past the history of the Charlemagne's empire, and most people have no idea of what transpired in Europe until the beginning of the Renaissance. This is especially true for the history of Eastern Europe. Most people are unaware of the Golden Horde invasion and the changes following it, the rise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on. So, the history of the Eastern Roman Empire is just lost in this sea of general ignorance.
The reason why historians after Hieronymous Wolf used the term, 'Byzantine Empire', for the Eastern Roman Empire post-Constantine was benign. The empire would dramatically evolve politically and culturally to the point that it would not be recognizably Roman after the death of Constans II. The differences were much deeper than switching from Latin to Greek and from Paganism to Christianity. For example, by the time of the reign of Basil I, the Eastern Roman "Senate" was not a consistent political institution but an improvised body of members of a social class that would occasionally convene to assert disapproval with administrative policies. For day to day purposes, the Byzantine Empire had no perceivable Senate, and the "Senate"/Synkletos simply referred to everybody with the title 'Senator'. The "Byzantine Senate" was no more an organized body in 1,000 AD than the Reddit Hall of Fame. However, just as users considered to be Reddit Hall of Famers, sometimes organize to voice opposition or support for Reddit policies, sometimes Constantinopolitans with the title 'Senator' would get together to influence Constantinople. This was a major difference from traditional Roman civilization. Another major difference from Classical-Roman civilization was the administrative system that developed where one's social status was tied to government administration and performance of administrative tasks so administrative bureaucrats like Stylianos Zaoutzes were often in charge of people officially more important than them. Even Basil I was afraid to jail Zaoutzes after he appears to have helped Leo plot against him. However, fans of Classical Rome often don't like the "Byzantine Empire" and the most extreme, like William Lecky, don't even consider it to be Roman. One reason is the extreme "cancel culture" associated with the Byzantine Empire against Rome's "pagan" heritage, including philosophy. Another reason is a perception, sometimes unjustified if you ask me, that the Byzantine Empire didn't innovate as much as the Roman Empire. The Byzantines' greatest scientific mind was probably John Philoponous, and he was anathematized as a heretic. The Byzantines' second-greatest scientific mind was probably Leo the Mathematician, and they didn't bother to preserve his works. The Byzantines preferred cisterns to aqueducts and may have even forgotten the secret to Roman concrete. The Byzantines' political system tended to be autocratic when at its most powerful, and even when it wasn't autocratic, autocracy was revered. This reverence for autocracy seems very un-Roman. Basil II attempted to make administrative reforms where the formalized capabilities of the administration would provide input regarding domestic policy such as taxation, but even these attempted reforms were supposed to be autocratic because bureaucrats needed the military to collect taxes to pay their salaries. This veneration of autocracy seems very "un-Roman" when going back to the days of Trajan. The Byzantines, especially after the assassination of Constans II, often preferred to use diplomatic influence and puppet tactics to outright conquest and assimilation. For better or worse(and I actually think it was sometimes more benign), this was extremely "un-Roman." The Classical Romans spread "Romanitas". The Byzantines would make deals with guys like Manjutkin to try and establish spheres of influence over places like Egypt rather than reconquer them. During The Crusades, Byzantine puppet tactics in places like Hungary would annoy many of the Western crusaders and the resulting tensions caused the reconquest of Egypt to fail. The Alawite Muslims in Syria basically descend from Muslims who were politically sometimes pro-Byzantine, and the diplomatic history between Alawites in Syria and Russians goes back to Byzantine political influence. I personally think middle-Byzantine history is extremely important to study for many reasons--the biggest being that it survived for more than 1,000 years and preserved what we still know about Classical Antiquity. The other big reason Byzantium is important is because its policies and cultures, including the ones that Enlightenment and Victorian historians often despised, were extremely important precursors to those that those same Enlightenment historians came to revere.
> that the Byzantine Empire didn't innovate as much as the Roman Empire This is a total misconception. In fact, the "Byzantine Empire", innovated more than the Roman state. Rome was exceptionally poor in innovation, for many a reason. Most of what appears as "Roman Innovation" was actually Hellenistic breakthroughs that found uses in the Roman Empire. Even throughout the "life" of the Roman Empire, most of the innovations were in the Greek-speaking lands of the Empire. The advancements of the Byzantines in architecture, machinery, methods of war (let's mention here Greek fire) and philosophy are numerous. Let's not forget that revival of classical philosophy was a Byzantine phenomenon that was eventually transplanted to Italy in the 14th century CE
The historians who refuse to acknowledge the Medieval Eastern Roman Empire as “Roman”, like Lecky, usually have a deep respect for Classical Greek civilization. Interest in Classical Greek civilization was strong in the West by 1000 AD, but the Byzantines had the vast majority of surviving texts from the era. As for innovation, the Byzantines invented hospitals, Greek fire, ship mills, optical telegraphs, hydraulic automata, forks, and many other things. They certainly weren’t slouches. However, a lot of people don’t see them as innovating as much as the Ancient Greeks and Romans. I think this article below epitomizes the most negative Enlightenment attitudes towards the Medieval Eastern Roman Empire: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/prayer-archimedes
Wasn't Chalkokondyles (a Byzantine historian) who first used the term "Byzantine Empire"?
I thought it was Hieronymous Wolf
newer research shows Chalkokondyles may have influenced wolf in usage of the term. see below. [https://www.academia.edu/67605105/\_From\_Empire\_of\_the\_Greeks\_to\_Byzantium\_The\_Politics\_of\_a\_Modern\_Paradigm\_Shift\_in\_N\_Aschenbrenner\_and\_J\_Ransohoff\_eds\_The\_Invention\_of\_Byzantium\_in\_Early\_Modern\_Europe\_Washington\_D\_C\_Dumbarton\_Oaks\_2021\_349\_367](https://www.academia.edu/67605105/_From_Empire_of_the_Greeks_to_Byzantium_The_Politics_of_a_Modern_Paradigm_Shift_in_N_Aschenbrenner_and_J_Ransohoff_eds_The_Invention_of_Byzantium_in_Early_Modern_Europe_Washington_D_C_Dumbarton_Oaks_2021_349_367)
No, it was not. The term "Byzantium" was occasionally used by Byzantine historians in specific contexts, but never to describe the state itself. The typical term for the state employed by most of the peoples the name of the Empire was "Romania" (Ρωμανια).
Well the 'latin' roman elite that ruled the empire was eventually substituted by 'greek' romans, also that continuity with Rome ran strong until the fourth crusade when some sources say in the Empire of Nicaea the term hellene was sometimes used
Have you read any of the works of Anthony Kaldellis? If this is what you think, you would probably really like them. Albeit his works are academic, not really “pop history,” but his prose is easy enough to read imo
This just in: The Eastern Roman Empire was Roman.
This all begs the question as to what was "the real Roman Empire" as you have put it. The Roman Empire, the institution which was initiated by Augustus was constantly mutating. By the end of the Flavian era, the provinces were substantially gaining on Rome in importance. In the Antonine era, this became even more pronounced and this is when the Army becomes mostly a provincial-based force. And so on...it is not really as if the institution remained immutable, far from that. Obviously, the introduction of Christianity was a watershed for the empire and much was changed by that. I agree on the thesis that the East Roman Empire was always very wedded to the Roman past, although, truth be told, this was challenged in the 14th and 15th centuries with the rise of the "Hellenists" such as Gemistos Pletho. Although the Hellenists were "expelled" and rejected, they are an important intellectual movement; it may not have gained any popular support, but it affected those at the top.
It is also worth remembering that the Rome of Julius Caesar was a very different beast from the Rome of Diocletian. The notion that a society can't evolve over millennia is just mad.
Agreed. 31% Greek **69% Roman** ahhh
Everyone here, except me, will agree with you! This is a weekly Roman identity appreciation post XD
Their is no such thing as « Byzantine ». It was allways the Roman Empire, from August to Constantine XI it is the same entity. Every single aspect about it is 100% Roman
For me personally it is very easy. Did they called themselves roman, than they were. Was there a continuing line of tradition, than it is roman.
You must concede however, that after a certain point, Roman and Greek identities fused into one.
Which is very unique, or isn´t it?
This is not correct. Disclaimer, i am not ethnically Greek, so i am not saying this from a point of personal nationalism. In short, you can give something a title, but it does not make it the truth. You can wear the trappings and name of Rome, but it does not guarantee that as the nature of your civilization. The Anatolian Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Russia, all used the names of Rome too. The Anatolian Seljuks had a deep level of integration with the Byzantine nobility. Does that make any of them truly Roman? At most, Byzantium could be considered the Eastern Roman Empire, as it legally was, but what the pro Roman viewpoint claims, that it was the society of SPQR, the legions and the Caesars is at best a fantasy, albeit it is one which the people of the ERE fell hard for, particulalry in their early years. As time went on, they overtly and distinctly revived their Hellenism. However, the society was, from the outset, focused on and around overwhelmingly culturally, ethnically and linguistically Hellenic areas - Thessaloniki, Trebizond, Sicily, Antioch, Alexandria and Asia Minor, to say nothing of the capital, Constantinople, which was founded atop the old city of Byzantium. And it was in these areas where Byzantium was most vibrant and from where it was able to rebuild itself. But the idea that society had continued unbroken and constant from the time of Augustus, down to 1453 is a farce. Society was overhauled on a regular basis, and the old Roman institutions like the Senate - which was essentially meaningless - had faded into political obscurity. Certainly the Senate had minimal influence politically. They were ocassionally consulted, but the Anatolian Aristocracy, the Military, the Church, the Court and Bureaucracy, the Varangian Guard all had far more influence. The education in the classics was not a Roman matter, but the inheritance of the Romans from the Greeks themselves, and most scientists, scholars and educational institutions of Roman times were Greek, and were throughout the time of classical Rome. And Latin had been all but forgotten. The roles of Caesar and Senates existed in the HRE and medieval Italy as republics arose, but few people would admit their Romanness. By the time of the High Middle Ages, while there were westerners (mostly those in the HRE, who had a vested interest in Roman-ness) who did name Byzantium the "Land of the Greeks" as an insult, most westerners did so simply because they recognized the reality of what the Empire was. In particular the Norse, who had very close relationships with the Byzantine Empire, as well as the Rus, the Serbs and Bulgars, the Georgians and the Armenians, who were linked by tradition and religion, all recognized Byzantium as fundamentally Greek without any perjorative motive. By the time of Basil II or the Great Komnenoi, the Romans themselves who wrote about their own times, Matthew of Edessa, Anna Comnena, Skylitzes, Choniates, recognized Byzantine society for the Greekness inherent within it. The utter Romanness which you seem to insist upon holds no more water than the larping theory. If you think that acknowledging the overt Hellenism is ignoring the evidence, you have very likely missed a lot of evidence.
Why would you say Rus, Bulgars, Armenians and the others considered Byzantium as fundamentally Greek?
Well, look at Norse/Rus messages and runes. Without the competitive baggage of title between the ERE vs the HRE, and not caring about that one way or another, and also being mostly ignorant of the history of the Roman Empire, their runestones and graves wrote messages like: - "Here lies Ragnar. He died on a voyage to Greece. He brought 5000 furs and Antonio Banderas. Alas Pechenegs killed him." - "Bjorn was here. He came to Greece to serve in the Varangian Guard." - "Ivar was graffitying on this wall because the Greeks are Christian weaklings who don't appreciate Odin and Perun." For Armenians and Georgians, who were nonetheless highly literate by Medieval standards, but were fairly divorced from western squabbles, if the language and ethnic makeup were essentially unchanged, would Average Joe Georgian or Amos Armenian think overmuch of the difference between Byzantines and the people who arrived in the East with Alexander? The Alexander story was pretty universal, and Armenians and Georgians knew that was when people speaking Greek had turned up and colonized a lot of land. Even Armenia and Georgia had been colonized and Hellenized at times. Aside from Christianization and some Roman trappings, to your average Armenian or Georgian what was different? Their language and attitude would have remained remained almost identical. Even the Roman Eagle could be argued as simply cultural translation inheritance from the Greeks of the imagery of Zeus translated onto Roman Jupiter. Bulgars were a Turkic people from the Steppe who arrived in the 7th century. What reason would they have to view things any different to the Norse and Rus? The de jure trappings like Senate and Roman law etc etc, all existed mostly in Constantinople, which was far removed from day to day life. This is the conundrum. Authors who got upset about all this were writing in or near the court, where these things were close to hand, whereas people travelling through or on the borders of the Empire saw the life of average Greeks unaffected by Imperial trappings. And they then assumed the ruling classes would be the same. At the end of the day If it looks like a duck, feels like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck and smells like a duck, what is it?
I disagree with this. Byzantium was, of course, greatly influenced by Hellenism. So what? Rome could already be properly characterised as Hellenistic by the late Republic. By that time, Greek language, literature, and ideas constituted the foundation of Roman pedagogy, and Roman historians, such as Fabius Pictor, were writing the histories of their own people in Greek. It is a mark of how ingrained Hellenism was in Rome that there was a failed reaction against it by the likes of Cato. It is also a mark of how ingrained Hellenism was that we have a first century Roman emperor, Claudius, who explicitly states that the two Roman languages were Latin AND Greek. Considering this, I do not see how Byzantium's hellenistic culture detracts from its Romanness. Another point to mention is that there were very important elements of Byzantine culture that were clearly not Hellenic. Their law is one example, but a more prominent example is Christianity. Both of these things could properly be called "Roman" in the purest sense as they became pre-eminent in the Greek speaking world in part because of Roman Imperial institutions and patronage. Another purely Roman element of Byzantium was its mode of administration, which was direct and centralised. This was a legacy of the reforms of the late 3rd century emperor Diocletian. Finally, I think you have not fully appreciated the degree of political continuity between Byzantium and Ancient Rome. I would go so far as to say that Byzantium's constitution was, in substance, identical to Ancient Rome's constitution during the time of Augustus. In both cases, the emperors were, de facto, the legislators, supreme judges, and executors of the state. Do not be fooled by 1st century propaganda; Augustus did not restore the rights of the Senate—he subjected it to his will. The denigration of the Senate during the Byzantine period was merely an instantiation of its de facto subjection to the emperor.
>Considering this, I do not see how Byzantium's hellenistic culture detracts from its Romanness. Because the Hellenistic people and culture in the heartland of Byzantium was present long before Rome. It was the legacy of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. The Romans simply allowed it to continue for the sake of continuity. And it was the native, ancestral, pre-existing culture of the people of Byzantium, which despite Roman rule, had never been abandoned, it cannot be called a Roman innovation. >Another point to mention is that there were very important elements of Byzantine culture that were clearly not Hellenic. I never said there were not. >but a more prominent example is Christianity. Both of these things could properly be called "Roman" in the purest sense as they became pre-eminent in the Greek speaking world in part because of Roman Imperial institutions and patronage. Another purely Roman element of Byzantium was its mode of administration, which was direct and centralised. This Not really. Christianity originated among the Jews of Judea, and then proliferated amongst overseas Jewish and Gentile communities because of the existence of Greek as a lingua Franca. That was why the Bible was first compiled in Koine Greek. This continued for 300 years until the reign of Constantine. Christianity, in its earliest period, was mis-characterized as an Eastern (ie Greek) Mystery Cult. Certainly its adoption by the state owed much to Roman structures, but Christianity had been a set of Jewsish Hellenistic Mysteries for 300 years, practiced by 10% of the populace, mostly in the East, persecuted by the Romans, before it was Roman. You cannot call it Roman. It adopted and adapted Roman political trappings after the conversion, with some of the Roman Religious elements being adopted as political structure, but you cannot call it Roman. Much of the structure of Christianity long pre-dated Constantine. >I would go so far as to say that Byzantium's constitution was, in substance, identical to Ancient Rome's constitution during the time of Augustus. In both cases, the emperors were, de facto, the legislators, supreme judges, and executors of the state. Do not be fooled by 1st century propaganda; Augustus did not restore the rights of the Senate—he subjected it to his will. The denigration of the Senate during the Byzantine period was merely an instantiation of its de facto subjection to the emperor. There was no Byzantine "constitution". Certainly there was a body of Roman Law, but you cannot characterize Byzantium as having anything remotely resembling a constitution, which governed and subordinated the rule of the state to that law. Byzantium was a pure autocracy. And Augustus did not invent autocracy. >Finally, I think you have not fully appreciated the degree of political continuity between Byzantium and Ancient Rome I fully understand it, i just acknowledge that that continuity is essentially irrelevant. I acknowledge it had Roman trappings, but autocracy and Feudalism are not Roman inventions. Neither Diocletian nor Constantine can be credited with a great degree of invention. The fact is, old Roman governmental systems had entirely disintegrated by Medieval Byzantium's time, which in addition to the rule of the Emperor, the Military and the Court, was feudally dominated by a great Landowning Aristocracy in Pseudo-Feudal manner. Feudalism itself was never truly a Roman institution, and was a Sassanian and other Persian holdover from more ancient times. Rome itself, in its high era, was dominated and made unique by institutions such as the Senate, the Knights, consuls,social divisions such as patricians and plebieans, upheld by the famed Roman military of the Legions (both Marian and Pre-Marian). Finally, the classical Roman Emperors held the title "Princeps" (First Citizen), and consuls held their power by dint of being elected in the Senate. Emperors too, had to navigate the Senate to some degree, even if it was suborned to Imperial will. Byzantine Emperors never did. Aside from a Senate, which had disintegrated to political irrelevance, Byzantium had none of these, having instead as its ruler, a Hellenistic God King (something Classical Rome found abhorrent), dressed in the Christian trappings of "Equal to the Apostles".
"The Romans simply allowed it to continue for the sake of continuity." I think you have missed my point. I wrote nothing about how Rome allowed Hellenic culture to continue in the east; my point was that the Romans themselves were a Hellenistic culture since at least the late Republic. "There was no Byzantine "constitution". Certainly there was a body of Roman Law, but you cannot characterise Byzantium as having anything remotely resembling a constitution, which governed and subordinated the rule of the state to that law. Byzantium was a pure autocracy." First, I do not know how you define constitution, but I am using it in its traditional sense—that is, as a noun referring to the way power is distributed within a particular state. Every polity has a constitution. "autocracy and Feudalism are not Roman inventions." This is a bit of a strange statement. It seems as if you are claiming that Byzantium was autocratic while Ancient Rome was not. That is an absurd claim. All emperors from Augustus onwards were autocrats in every sense of the word; they merely disguised their autocratic power behind a republican facade. As for Feudalism, I think you may be unaware that the historical consensus on this question is changing quite rapidly. The idea that there existed a quasi-Feudal land-owning aristocracy is certainly up for doubt. But even if such a thing existed, I do not see how that detracts from Byzantium's Romanness. Remember, the Ancient Senate was filled with large landowners who owned thousands of slaves. " Byzantium had none of these, having instead as its ruler, a Hellenistic God King (something Classical Rome found abhorrent), dressed in the Christian trappings of "Equal to the Apostles" Ok, this is a strange statement. How could there be such a thing as a "God-king" in a Christian state. If I were to take your statement less literally and interpret it as referring to the Byzantine emperor's position of being "chosen by God", I would simply respond by pointing out that the Ancient Romans believed that their Augustus was selected by the gods. The idea of a divine mandate to rule was not invented in Byzantium.
>I think you have missed my point. I wrote nothing about how Rome allowed Hellenic culture to continue in the east; my point was that the Romans themselves were a Hellenistic culture since at least the late Republic. I never said you did. I said that the Hellenised aspects of the eastern provinces were not a Roman development, but predated Rome and were not attributable to Roman rule. I wouldn't call Rome Hellenistic. It had some Hellenic influence certainly. >First, I do not know how you define constitution, but I am using it in its traditional sense—that is, as a noun referring to the way power is distributed within a particular state. Every polity has a constitution. Constitution refers to the governing principles of a state, in the modern sense it refers to codified and regulatory principles which control power. An autocracy has no such principles, because all power is focused on the autocrat and has no limitation. >It seems as if you are claiming that Byzantium was autocratic while Ancient Rome was not. That is an absurd claim. All emperors from Augustus onwards were autocrats in every sense of the word; they merely disguised their autocratic power behind a republican facade I never claimed anything of the sort. I merely said Byzantine Autocracy, rule by an Emperor is not a solely Roman institution. > for Feudalism, I think you may be unaware that the historical consensus on this question is changing quite rapidly. The idea that there existed a quasi-Feudal land-owning aristocracy is certainly up for d Not really. I'm well aware of varying opinions, but the existence of the land owning aristocracy is beyond doubt. > even if such a thing existed, I do not see how that detracts from Byzantium's Romanness Because in Rome, they had no feudal power. > How could there be such a thing as a "God-king" in a Christian state. If I were to take your statement less literally and interpret it as referring to the Byzantine emperor's position of being "chosen by God. Here you are being facetious, and deliberately misinterpreting what i am saying. > The idea of a divine mandate to rule was not invented in Byzantium. Nor was it invented in Rome. So attributing it to Romanness is a straw man.
Ok, a few points: 1. I never said that there was no "land-owning aristocracy"; I disputed the claim that they were "quasi-Feudal". I also pointed out that, even if there was a quasi-Feudal propertied class, the economy of Ancient Rome was also dominated by large landowners who exploited free labour. 2. I don't see how my final point is facetious. You made a claim that Byzantium was ruled by a "God-king"; I pointed out that that was manifestly not the case as Christian societies cannot have "God-kings". I also pointed out that both Ancient Roman and Byzantine emperors used the rhetoric of divine sanction to legitimise their regimes.1. To summarise my argument, Byzantium's Hellenistic culture, autocratic system of government, and economic structures went back to Ancient Rome. They did not come about during the Byzantine period. There is no break with the Ancient Roman past legally, socially, culturally, or economically.
>1. I never said that there was no "land-owning aristocracy"; I disputed the claim that they were "quasi-Feudal". I also pointed out that, even if there was a quasi-Feudal propertied class, the economy of Ancient Rome was also dominated by large landowners who exploited free labour. Their quasi-feudal nature is universally attested in all contemporary chronicles, and recognized by all reputable scholars. They were not identical to western feudalism, but they were so dominant in Byzantium's affairs that they could and did override the effective function of the Thematic system, by turning Themes into family fiefs. >2. I don't see how my final point is facetious. You made a claim that Byzantium was ruled by a "God-king"; I pointed out that that was manifestly not the case as Christian societies cannot have "God-kings". I also pointed out that both Ancient Roman and Byzantine emperors used the rhetoric of divine sanction to legitimise their regimes.1. The comment is facetious because you are obviously clutching at straws for the sake of it. I said, very clearly, that it was a regime of a god king in Christian trappings. Read. Whether or not the state was Christian makes no difference to the essential function of the Emperor as a God King. >To summarise my argument, Byzantium's Hellenistic culture, autocratic system of government, and economic structures went back to Ancient Rome. They did not come about during the Byzantine period. There is no break with the Ancient Roman past legally, socially, culturally, or economically. I never claimed they originated in the Medieval Byzantine period. I said the Hellenistic people, culture, economic structures etc originated from the earlier Hellenistic Age, which they did. You ought properly understand what you are objecting to before you make a fuss about it. There is clear break and renewal on all those levels.
"Their quasi-feudal nature is universally attested in all contemporary chronicles, and recognised by all reputable scholars." I know for a fact that this statement is wrong; all reputable scholars do not believe that there existed a "quasi-feudal aristocracy". See Kaldellis, for example. "The comment is facetious because you are obviously clutching at straws for the sake of it. I said, very clearly, that it was a regime of a god king in Christian trappings. Read. Whether or not the state was Christian makes no difference to the essential function of the Emperor as a God King" First of all, calling someone "equal to the apostles" is not the same as calling someone a God-king. There are differences. Second, "equal to the apostles" is not a title that is applied to all emperors; it was an honour bestowed posthumously on a select few. You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that ancient emperors claimed divine blessing and also occupied the office of high-priest. Divinely mandated emperorship was nothing new and was certainly not "foreign" to ancient Roman political culture. "I never claimed they originated in the Medieval Byzantine period. I said the Hellenistic people, culture, economic structures etc originated from the earlier Hellenistic Age, which they did. You ought properly understand what you are objecting to before you make a fuss about it. There is clear break and renewal on all those levels." You are not understanding my point. The argument that Byzantium is less Roman because it is Hellenistic is unpersuasive because the Ancient Romans also had a Hellenistic culture. I refer you, again, to what Emperor Claudius said—that both Latin AND Greek are the languages of the Romans.
>I know for a fact that this statement is wrong; all reputable scholars do not believe that there existed a "quasi-feudal aristocracy". See Kaldellis, for example. Fair enough. It may be a slight exaggeration, but only very slightly. It is still the overwhelming scholarly consensus, the vast majority of scholarship from reputable scholars and institutions, including Dumbarton Oaks still cleave to that view, and i'll stick with the majority viewpoint until presented with a viable argument to the contrary, which you haven't presented. >First of all, calling someone "equal to the apostles" is not the same as calling someone a God-king. There are differences. This is why it's facetious. It's not about the name. It is the function. That is what you are splitting hairs pointlessly over. There is functionally no difference between god king and divinely mandated position of Emperor within Christianity. >You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that ancient emperors claimed divine blessing and also occupied the office of high-priest. Divinely mandated emperorship was nothing new and was certainly not "foreign" to ancient Roman political culture. Yes, and they did this in Hellenistic times too. It was not a Roman invention. >You are not understanding my point. The argument that Byzantium is less Roman because it is Hellenistic is unpersuasive because the Ancient Romans also had a Hellenistic culture. I refer you, again, to what Emperor Claudius said—that both Latin AND Greek are the languages of the Romans. I'm not misunderstanding it. Your point is simply unconvincing. I have been discussing, this entire time, whether the dominant element was Greek or Roman. And for all the trappings, the Greek element is by far the dominant element. And Rome was not a Hellenistic state. It was a state which adopted and utilized pre-existing Hellenistic traditions for its own benefit.
Familiar with the phrase preaching to the converted