+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Community (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Round Table (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: RAT v.3 - New Sections? (/showthread.php?tid=11738)
Pages:
1
2
RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Robert Vermaat - 02-09-2008
I have been asked in the past and also more recently to contemplate/start a discussion about a rethink of the sections as we have them today.
Most questions seem to have been about the historical/cultural division that we use, especially the Greek/Roman/Byzantine division. We have discussed part of these problems before, but with the development of RAT v.3 going on, some say we should do the discussion again.
So let me ask the question: should there be a separate Byzantine section, like there is a separate Greek section?
The pros (but you can probably find more) are:
1) The Greek section does not identify with the Byzantine section, and in the past several members have asked to separate the two.
2) The Byzantines hardly identify with the Greek section either.
3) Discussions in that section are (apart from the Greek terminology) very different, after all there’s often a 1000-year gap or more between them.
The origins of the current section are of course dating back to the (brief) existence of the Greek Army Talk forum, which originated from RAT and later was ‘taken back in’ when RAT moved to the current format. The same thing happened with the Civilian section, but that seems not to have bothered anyone since.
There are, of course, also reasons NOT to separate Byzantine from Greek.
The cons (but you can probably find more) are:
1) Without the Byzantines, the Greeks have no real connection to the ‘Roman’ period anymore, save of course their role as ‘allies and enemies’ of Rome, which should place them in that section. Because if there is a separate section for the Greeks, some have argued already, why not a separate section for the Persians, the Celts, the Germans, the Spanish? And indeed, why not?
2) Without the Greeks, the Byzantines have the problem that while they still are Roman, they venture deep into the Middle Ages, as some have argued. Too far for many, who like to see the ‘Roman’ in Roman Army Talk as limited to the times from the Republic to the fall of Rome.
I’ve created a poll to answer some simple questions, but I would like to hear your input about this. Input about other sectional problems is also welcome.
I would venture to put forward a possible solution (in part), for the creation of a Byzantine section: it could be combined, possibly, with the Late Roman part of the forum. A Byzantine section could start with the creation of Constantinople, which would give it at least more of a ‘Roman’ anchor.
I know, that does not solve some of the problems I’ve mentioned above. Another solution would be to leave things as they currently are.
I welcome all contributions to the discussion.
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 02-09-2008
I voted to separate the Byzantines in a new section.However i could have voted for the comination of late Romans and Byzantines.The fact is that I don't know enough about the late periods,and I don't know for how long Byzantines and Romans were considered the same thing in terms of reconstuctions and appearence. But since Byzantines follow their own evolution in history and far after what you'd call late Romans,I think a separate section is more appropriate.
I don't think there is so strong connection between the Greek and Byzantine sections. I find it highly irrelevant in the greek section as it is now.It doesn't relate to any other threads in the greek section,nor is there a direct link from greek warfare into the byzantine one.
Why not Celtic,Spanish,Germanic sections? I wouldn't bother of course(since i'm not moderator of all the mess), but is there that much f interest and request about these cultures as there is for the Byzantine and Greek section?
Khaire
Giannis
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - sonic - 02-09-2008
I've voted to group the Late Roman with the Byzantine. The main difficulty will always be of when the separation occurs, as whatever date is chosen will still result in possible overlaps between the different 'sections'.
However, if there is to be a divide between Late Roman/Byzantine and the earlier periods, I would suggest starting it with Diocletian in 284. since at this point the Empire becomes the 'Dominate' and the sources tend to polarise between the Earlier (up to 235) and Later (post 284) Empire. Why not use the relative dearth of sources inherent in the '3rd Century Crisis' as the cut-off point, since this would appear to minimise the amount of confusion?
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - hoplite14gr - 02-09-2008
I belive it is worth t o go serately.
Ians proposal need consideration though.
Kind regards
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Robert Vermaat - 02-09-2008
Although the point is minor to the 'shall we split off the Byzantine section', a comment anyway.
The Dominate period as such is not seen as the start of the 'Byzantine period', neither was the split of east and West very effective - during the 4th c. the Empire was often ruled by a single emperor.
The 3rd c. may have been a time of change, that change did not take effect untiol after the period of troubles. Too much of the 3rd c. is tied to the period before that for my taste to 'lob it' with the later period.
However, it's the creation of Constantinople as the new capital (favoured above Rome, with many of the senatorial families moving, plus loads of artwork and portable architecture) that's mostly taken as the start of the 'Byzantine' period. The Goths did not do Rome in, the Romans moved long before that.
But like I said, a minor point.
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - sonic - 02-09-2008
Quote:Although the point is minor to the 'shall we split off the Byzantine section', a comment anyway.
The Dominate period as such is not seen as the start of the 'Byzantine period', neither was the split of east and West very effective - during the 4th c. the Empire was often ruled by a single emperor.
The 3rd c. may have been a time of change, that change did not take effect untiol after the period of troubles. Too much of the 3rd c. is tied to the period before that for my taste to 'lob it' with the later period.
However, it's the creation of Constantinople as the new capital (favoured above Rome, with many of the senatorial families moving, plus loads of artwork and portable architecture) that's mostly taken as the start of the 'Byzantine' period. The Goths did not do Rome in, the Romans moved long before that.
But like I said, a minor point.
I completely agree on all points.
Yet one of the options is to join the 'Byzantine' section to the Late Roman section. As I said, the major difficulty in such a split is to define/decide when the division between 'Early' and 'Late Roman'/Byzantine should be.
For the purposes of the forum, I believe that it should be from Diocletian onwards. This is mainly because whatever date is chosen is arbitrary and there will always be questions/posts/discussions which 'straddle' the chosen division point. By choosing Diocletian as a dividing line, there may be less of a clash re sources as, on the whole, they are either pre- or post- Diocletian.
It is easier to lump the Third Century in with the period that it affected - as a precursor to the Dominate - than it is to attach it to the 'secure and peaceful' earlier centuries - especially those of the so-called 'golden age' of the Second century.
Let's be honest - whichever date is chosen, there will be arguments both for and against it. In many respects it would be easier to keep the Byzantines in with the Late Romans, but this also seems to be the cause of some disagreement, as 1453 (or 1461) is a long time after what most people would call the end of the Roman Empire.
I'd still say that the Byzantines could be put in with the Late Romans, then any topics that are considered to be 'too late' for the majority can be ignored by them and left to those who are interested.
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 02-09-2008
I'm afraid this last option will cause the same as witht he Greek-Byzantine threads.There will be whole numbers of discussions that will be completely irrelevant,and may cause confusion.As for the date separation,I tend to believe that the members themselves will automatically ask-respond in the sections they choose as most appropriate.If separated,an early byzantine re-enactor can contribute to the Byzantine section,where he will also find reference for all the range of things other members consider Byzantine.If one judges that his question-topic,although of the Eastern Empire,has more to gain in the late Roman section,then they can contribute there.Do you thing this will cause that much of confusion?As Ian said,there will always be overlapping dates and subjects.But the 3rd with the 14th centuy have a loooong gap between them!
Khairete
Giannis
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-09-2008
I voted fo separating them, then realsed the first choice was to combine the lates with the byzantine. That would be the logical choice, as pointed out more eloquently by Ian.
I should slow down a little, I'm afraid the Delete Greek...etc caught my eye and drew me down increulously until I saw seperate the Byzantines and click......it was done :roll:
RAT v3 - new sections? - Paullus Scipio - 02-10-2008
I have voted to separate the Byzantines into a separate section also, since to have them lumped into a single section with Greeks/Hellenistic period makes even less sense than combining them with Roman.
One factor not mentioned here is that source material throughout the Graeco-Roman-Byzantine period is not uniform, but patchy. If you look at Historical literature, we have reasonable sources for Classical Greece and Alexander, patchy sources for the Hellenistic period, reasonable sources for Republican and early Imperial Romans, patchy again from Trajan/Hadrian onward, reasonable for Late Roman and again for relatively early Byzantine and so on.The same is true for icongraphic and archaeological sources - not uniform but patchy.These provide 'natural' breaks, and should be considered when trying to define 'periods'.
Robert wrote:-
Quote:1) Without the Byzantines, the Greeks have no real connection to the ‘Roman’ period anymore, save of course their role as ‘allies and enemies’ of Rome, which should place them in that section.
That's a rather surprising statement - and completely untrue! They are not merely 'Allies and Enemies of Rome', say rather that from the earliest days, Greek and Roman culture are inter-twined inextricably, to the extent that it would be truer to categorize 'Mediterranean Culture 500B.C - 500A.D.' as the core period of RAT.
And that brings us to another point. How far are you going to extend 'Byzantine'? To the final fall in 1453 ? To the first fall of Constantinople, to the Crusaders in April 1203 ? Or arbitrarily split the whole "Byzantine period" which one might define as 330AD to 1453 AD?
Perhaps just include the overlap with Late Roman? Defined as ? Beginning when? Ending with the Gothic sack of Rome 410 AD?...or The Last Emperor, Augustulus and 476 AD ? Do we define Late Roman as 'ending' and 'Byzantine' as beginning when it becomes the dominant Mediterranean power with the wars of Justinian and Belisarius (526-565 AD) ?
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Marcus Julius - 02-10-2008
I voted to seperate Byzantines, and I have to agree with Robert that the moving of the capitol seems like the right time for division. Certainly, there will be resistance and well evidenced arguments against any date set. However, it's my opinion that moving the center of Rome out of Rome was the straw that broke the empire's back. Honestly, how can you call yourself a Roman, when you swear your allegiance to a place called Constantinople?
Re: RAT v3 - new sections? - Robert Vermaat - 02-10-2008
Quote: Robert wrote:-
Quote:1) Without the Byzantines, the Greeks have no real connection to the ‘Roman’ period anymore, save of course their role as ‘allies and enemies’ of Rome, which should place them in that section.That's a rather surprising statement - and completely untrue! They are not merely 'Allies and Enemies of Rome', say rather that from the earliest days, Greek and Roman culture are inter-twined inextricably, to the extent that it would be truer to categorize 'Mediterranean Culture 500B.C - 500A.D.' as the core period of RAT.
Only surprising if you look at the forum as a place where "Mediterranean culture 500BC-500AD" is discussed. It's not - the core of RAT originally was and still is the discussion of the Roman Army, and up until now that's how the sections are divided. Discussion of the Greek army once had it's own forum, but if one would choose for a separate Greek section, there would also be reason to discuss a Celtioc section.
But I'm not arguing for or against here, just voicing arguments made by others.
Quote:One factor not mentioned here is that source material throughout the Graeco-Roman-Byzantine period is not uniform, but patchy. [..] These provide 'natural' breaks, and should be considered when trying to define 'periods'.Sure Paul, but that's not how this forum is set up. The Greek section always was something of a 'favoured section', not 'one of the periods'. Are you saying you would like to see RAT divided into periodical sections in future?
Quote:And that brings us to another point. How far are you going to extend 'Byzantine'? To the final fall in 1453 ? To the first fall of Constantinople, to the Crusaders in April 1203 ? Or arbitrarily split the whole "Byzantine period" which one might define as 330AD to 1453 AD?That is one of the problems that I mentioned in the first post. Some people might see the 'Byzantine' period as going way too far into medieval times.
But then again, we also discuss Bronze Age Greece here, so yes, why not? Up until the fall of the last Byzantine town, I guess.
Quote:Perhaps just include the overlap with Late Roman? Defined as ? Beginning when? Ending with the Gothic sack of Rome 410 AD?...or The Last Emperor, Augustulus and 476 AD ? Do we define Late Roman as 'ending' and 'Byzantine' as beginning when it becomes the dominant Mediterranean power with the wars of Justinian and Belisarius (526-565 AD) ?'Byzantine' is defined since the 16th c. (?) as the period dating from the start of an Eastern Roman empire until the fall of the last East Roman/Byzantine region. Justinian in my book would be as Roman as his 4th and 5th-c. predecessors.
Why not extend this to the end of the Byzantines? Do we think it somehow alien? Unrecognisable? Then also consider how unrecognisable Constantine's empire would have been to Julius Caesar, or to Sulla.
It 's a question of definition, I guess.
But, again - this is an exchange of ideas - keep 'em coming!
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 02-10-2008
As I said,I favour the separate section.However,we should consider that from Nov 2006 all the contributors of the Byzantine thread ("Byzantine weapons and Warfare") have filled about 18 pages of discussion.Does this show enough interest for a separate byzantine section? Perhaps it's because the byzantine re-enactors and enthusiasts around the world consider themselves closer to medieval times,and thus do not contribute that much in RAT?
And yet the most fanatical members of the byzantine thread,other than Stafanos and Paul M have not added their opinions.Perhaps they're just waiting for the new forum to start again the discussion and they don't bother where this is going to be :lol:
Khairete
Giannis
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - Ioannes_Ahenobarbus - 02-10-2008
For someone who specializes in Byzantine studies, I would certainly be in favor of the formation of a separate "Byzantine" section. All I have to say in support of this is simply that the Eastern Roman Empire is a continuation of the "Roman" Roman Empire, and thus should be included, but also apart from the Classical Greece section, as the latter has little to no official continuity with the Eastern Empire.
Re: RAT v.3 - New Sections? - egfroth - 02-10-2008
Well, as I see it the lumping of Byzantium into the Greek section has no real logic apart from a common language (and classical Greek and mediaeval Greek are so different the Ancient Greeks and the Byzantines probably couldn't have understood each other anyway!)
The Byzantines certainly regarded themselves as Roman right up till 1453. I think there is a case to be made for putting Byzantium and "Late Rome" together, but even that is a bit iffy. As others have stated, late Byzantium had very little in common with "Late Rome".
But if we have them separate there's the problem of the demarcation between "Byzantine" and "Late Roman". Not surprisingly, adherents of both want to claim Justinian as their own. But if Justinian is Late Roman, what does that make Maurice, whose Strategikon is commonly accepted as being a Byzantine text, but who lived only a few decades later?
Accepting that all demarcations are pretty damned artificial, because the changes were more evolutionary than revolutionary, it's my contention that the major things that separate "Byzantium" from "Rome" are
1. moving the capital to Constantinople
2. The adoption of Christianity (I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this so far).
Which is why I'd plump for 330 AD as the demarcation point. But then, I may be biased - maybe I just want Belisarius and Theodora to be "ours".
Other major points of difference are
1. The adoption of Greek as the official language of the Empire, which IIRC, happened under Justinian, and
2. the gradual change (and I realise I'm oversimplifying here) from an empire based on unfortified cities (except near the borders) to one based on fortress cities, with an almost feudal power structure and districts under, not governors, but strategoi.
Last point, mentioned by others - there's not all that many of us Byzantine freaks on this forum, (though we might make up for that by enthusiasm!). Do our numbers really justify a separate forum?
My conclusion is that, given the difficulty of drawing a line of demarcation everybody can agree on, (even though the final days of Byzantium are rather a stretch), Byzantium should be merged with "Late Roman". Apart from anything else, it keeps us Byzantines in contact with what makes us Roman even as late as the 15th century AD.
RAT v3 - New sections? - Paullus Scipio - 02-10-2008
Robert wrote:-
Quote:Only surprising if you look at the forum as a place where "Mediterranean culture 500BC-500AD" is discussed. It's not - the core of RAT originally was and still is the discussion of the Roman Army, and up until now that's how the sections are divided. Discussion of the Greek army once had it's own forum, but if one would choose for a separate Greek section, there would also be reason to discuss a Celtioc section.......I think you may have misunderstood here, Robert. I was trying to make the point that the culture we discuss is "inextricably intertwined", not RAT itself. Any 'divisions' of subject matter here on RAT are going to be fairly arbitrary, in any event. I was simply suggesting we should recognise that what we discuss here is in reality a sort of homogenous whole, and that how we divide it up is always going to be 'artificial', and hence does not matter overly much - think of how many times a particular thread begins in one section, and is then moved (often arbitrarily) to another that 'suits it better'. It is simply for convenience that we have 'sections' at all......
Quote:Are you saying you would like to see RAT divided into periodical sections in future?No, but perhaps given the vast number of threads we now have, it might be worth considering.....and isn't that what is being suggested here? A separate section for 'Byzantine', which raises the problem of where 'Late Roman' stops and 'Byzantine' starts( and ends! ).
What I was trying to get across is that there are 'natural' breaks in our information e.g. the wealth of information for the first century AD, compared to the little for the second, and even less for the third century....which provides a sort of natural break, so that we all understand what is meant by 'Early Imperial' and 'Late Roman'.I was suggesting that this type of 'natural break' should be considered when trying to decide limits to 'Byzantine'.
Quote:'Byzantine' is defined since the 16th c. (?) as the period dating from the start of an Eastern Roman empire until the fall of the last East Roman/Byzantine region. Justinian in my book would be as Roman as his 4th and 5th-c. predecessors....so you would advocate 330-1453 AD then, as I mentioned ? Also, something of a contradiction, since you place Justinian firmly into this 'Byzantine' period, and then promptly decide he is as Roman as his predecessors......which simply demonstrates my point about any 'division' being arbitrary/artificial.....
Quote:Why not extend this to the end of the Byzantines? Do we think it somehow alien? Unrecognisable?Not at all....any objection to extending our discussions is perhaps the purely practical one that we are venturing into a field of history ( mediaeval) that conjures up a vast wealth of information to discuss, which might swamp the (by comparison) meagre information we have concerning the Roman Army.....and where does one stop? The "Holy Roman Empire" continued into the 20th century!!........
hock: hock: :lol: Quote:It 's a question of definition, I guess.Yup! ....and there's the problem, and perhaps one that should not be decided by us present members, for, on the principle of 'build it and they will come' a new Byzantine section is bound to attract new members interested in the period, and surely they will decide for themselves what to discuss?
In which case, we have only to set up the separate new section, sit back ; and see where it goes........no need to worry ! :wink: :lol: