Byzantium, Nea Rome

[Anonymous]

Salve<br>
<br>
what do you think about Oriental Roman Empire?<br>
<br>
<br>
....and please dont say "Greek Empire".<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

They called themselves 'Romans', their foes called them 'Romans', therefore, they were Romans, even if they spoke almost exclusively Greek!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

This is so off-topic. Moving elsewhere...<br>
<br>
I'll say this just once: be careful and civil when you discuss this issue. Modern Greek nationalist sentiments are better expressed elsewhere.<br>
<br>
The heritage of Greece, Macedon, Rome, and Byzantium belongs to everyone.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The Turks called Eastern Anatolia 'Rum', so even they saw it was 'Roman'. <p></p><i></i>

[Primitivus]

The capital city was named Nova Roma. Although the Byzantine Empire evolved into something distinct, it clearly began as a new capital of the Roman Empire.

[S SEVERUS]

To my opinion it simply developed from the eastern roman empire to a Greek medieval state after Manzikert. Not a greek nationalist state but a state where the inhabitants spoke greek. The heartland of the byzantine empire has always been anatolia not Greece and when that was lost the byzantine empire was doomed.

[Razor]

But the Byzantine empire (back in the "old days": Romania/Romaika) was still called Roman nonetheless... no matter how one might think about it nowadays.

[tlclark]

It is popular in Art History circles to speak of the "Byzantines" as "Eastern Roman Empire" since the term "byzantine" (much like "gothic") was only introduced after the fall of constantinople in 1453, and then intentionally as a perjorative term by Renaissance writers.

However, the Minoans didn't call themselves Minoans, the Aztecs didn't call themselves Aztecs and heck, Greeks don't call themselves Greeks. At a certain point, titles are just that, titles, and we probably won't be very successful in getting rid of them no matter how inaccurate or jaded.

A better exercise would be to discuss how different the Byzantines are from the Romans.

In terms of culture I think you really can see a major break in the reign of Justinian. Latin ceases to be used entirely, the senate and consuls are gone, the land reforms make people into subjects, not citizens, etc. etc.

Then there is the arrival of Islam shortly after and it really becomes a different culture.

However, I doubt the Commenians would have seen it that way. In fact one of the things that best argues for a continuity is the lack of either a Renaissance or a Reformation in the East. They thought of themselves as Romans until the very end, and it's only modern perspectives that break cutlures into distinct periods based on internal changes. Why is change necessarily a break? All cultures change and I am curious to see how future historians will break up America's history.

My feeling is that we should acknowledge native sentiments as much as possible, but we shouldn't hamstring ourselves as well.

If we are going to type the Byzantines as medieval we have to say what is "medieval" about them, and I think ultimately that leads you to a notion of when Medievalism begins. I think it is clear that a person placed in late third or early fourth century Rome would be amazed at how "medieval" it really was.

So I would look at it this way. Rather than trying to put the Byzantines into the Roman camp, why don't we try and take the Romans out of the "Roman" camp.

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

So I would look at it this way. Rather than trying to put the Byzantines into the Roman camp, why don't we try and take the Romans out of the "Roman" camp.

Well said, Travis.

It is popular in Art History circles to speak of the "Byzantines" as "Eastern Roman Empire"

Really? Wow, that makes them more enlightened, IMO.

since the term "byzantine" (much like "gothic") was only introduced after the fall of constantinople in 1453, and then intentionally as a perjorative term by Renaissance writers

It still is used to derisively refer to them, perhaps on an unconscious level, even by RAT members, IMO. I detect a hint of snobbery in the tradition of Gibbon.

the senate and consuls are gone

You mean they've been reduced to social ranks without any power behind them, right ? There was still a Senate house.

the land reforms make people into subjects, not citizens, etc. etc.

Was full-blown feudalism introduced as it was in Northern Europe ? Diocletian started this process but I don't know if it matured into the oppressive system as seen in France, Germany, and Britain.

They thought of themselves as Romans until the very end, and it's only modern perspectives that break cutlures into distinct periods based on internal changes. Why is change necessarily a break?

The only break I can possibly recognize is the Fourth Crusade.

In fact one of the things that best argues for a continuity is the lack of either a Renaissance or a Reformation in the East

You could classify the monophosite movement as a reformation since the Eastern provinces made no effort to return to the Empire based on religious grounds. As for a Renaissance, nothing was lost or forgotten in the Eastern Empire. They still had all the classical Greek literature that the West lacked.

All cultures change and I am curious to see how future historians will break up America's history.

Yeah, they'll break it up into pre and post-Civil War, which isn't unjustified, IMO. A similar but different nation emerged from the aftermath.

If we are going to type the Byzantines as medieval we have to say what is "medieval" about them, and I think ultimately that leads you to a notion of when Medievalism begins.

Maybe you can say Medievalism starts with feudalism, but feudalism/ serfdom was unknown in places like Italy and Spain. You could also say "Christianity as the dominant religion", but that would mean Medievalism starts in the 4th C. Ahhh...the whole thing is utterly subjective, as you alluded to , Travis.

[tlclark]

the senate and consuls are gone

You mean they've been reduced to social ranks without any power behind them, right ? There was still a Senate house.

No, that happened long before Justinian. After his legal reform the consuls are gone entirely.

the land reforms make people into subjects, not citizens, etc. etc.

Was full-blown feudalism introduced as it was in Northern Europe ? Diocletian started this process but I don't know if it matured into the oppressive system as seen in France, Germany, and Britain.

Well feudalism is a long slide with many sources, but the Justinian "reforms" are a big part of it. After the Justinian land reforms however the land fell under the management of the local Dux and the locals couldn't buy or sell land without consent and lower classes couldn't travel without "papers" though that's simplistic. The real situation was much more - for lack of a better word - "byzantine".

They thought of themselves as Romans until the very end, and it's only modern perspectives that break cutlures into distinct periods based on internal changes. Why is change necessarily a break?

The only break I can possibly recognize is the Fourth Crusade.

That's not a break! That's an occupation!! (Wow you'd think I was greek after an outburst like that!) Actually, the empire of Trebizond and several other smaller byzantine kingdoms maintained the continuity until the Latins were overthrown by the Paleologans.

In fact one of the things that best argues for a continuity is the lack of either a Renaissance or a Reformation in the East

You could classify the monophosite movement as a reformation since the Eastern provinces made no effort to return to the Empire based on religious grounds. As for a Renaissance, nothing was lost or forgotten in the Eastern Empire. They still had all the classical Greek literature that the West lacked.

No on the first point, yes on the second. The whole Monophysite/Dyophysite divide is very interesting, especially lately. The term preferred by coptic monks is "maiaphysite" or unified nature. In fact, all the monophysites reject the whole "monophysite" title, and always have.

Basically, the schism that followed the councils of Chaceldon were never enforced. We tend to look at the councils and say "Well I'm glad that is settled" when if fact it took centuries to sort out. Athanasius was living in the hinterland of Egypt for nearly 50 years AFTER he authored the Nicene Creed. Likewise the Egyptian and Syrian churches resisted the Patriarch of Constantinople for centuries and he pretty much had to submit since most of the grain was coming from those places.

Well this is really off topic but go read Timothy Gregory's "Vox Populi" on the subject.

Justinian is really significant in this regard because he does two things, he wipes out the Ostrogothic Arian church in Italy, and he appoints a Nestorian, Jacobeus, to be the Patriarch of Syria, guaranteeing the survival of a monophysite church for a long time to come.

It looks like the the eastern churches are coming together in fact and papering over the whole reasons for the schism.

Oh well, this is getting very OT, but let's just say that the institutional church is really something that does clearly distinguish the Byzantines from the "Romans"

Maybe you can say Medievalism starts with feudalism, but feudalism/ serfdom was unknown in places like Italy and Spain. You could also say "Christianity as the dominant religion", but that would mean Medievalism starts in the 4th C. Ahhh...the whole thing is utterly subjective, as you alluded to , Travis.

Exactly.

Basically, I would say two things.

1.) late Roman culture is far more medieval and "byzantine" than we give it credit/blame for

2.) Medieval culture is far more classical than we give it credit/blame for.

There are differences, but it is more like looking at two ends of a continuous spectrum.

Incidentally, I don't think the same is true of the modern post - renaissance period.

Travis

[hoplite14gr]

Though Greek were widely used as second official language in the Easterm parts of the Empire it became official state language by the time of Herakleios. Actually he was also responsible for the military reforms too.
They started possibly thinking themselves as Greeks by the 13th century.
The murder if Theodore Laskaris stopped that trend.
It was a "schizofrenic" state trying to hold an amgalam of peoples and places together. Deviance from Orthodoxy was agresively supressed as a threat to state unity an integrity.
It was continious stragle between the party that favored the middle class farmers as backbone of the "national" army usually headed by provincial "military" emperors and the party favoring the "roman" ideal composed usually by burokrats who liked heavy taxation and the reliance predominantly on foreign mercenaries.
Kind regards

[tlclark]

Stefanos

I would agree with most of this with the following qualifiers.

It was a "schizofrenic" state trying to hold an amgalam of peoples and places together.

The same was true of the late empire and I don't think that the byzantines were particularly schizophrenic, any more than any large empire. There ability to hold it together so long argues to the opposite conclusion, that it was actually not dysfunctional.

Deviance from Orthodoxy was agresively supressed as a threat to state unity an integrity.

They tried, but usually failed. (Still do!) I would say that this was true at times, but that it was also a disastrous failure.

After the council of ephesus the Patriarch replaced the Metropolitan of Alexandria, upon which he was summarily lynched by a mob that stopped the grain shipments which resulted in riots in Constantinople. The Patriarch capitulated. Much like Roman attempts to eradicate Christianity, all attempts to enforce orthodox were disastrous failures with the possible exception of the Arian conquests. Justinian's appointment of Jacobeus, a Nestorian, is more or less a capitulation to this fact. Where heresies arise they are not vaniquished by force, but by argument and public opinion. Only after the Muslim conquest can the capitol more or less afford to ignore the eastern schisms and it looks like those schisms may be healed.

It was continious stragle between the party that favored the middle class farmers as backbone of the "national" army usually headed by provincial "military" emperors and the party favoring the "roman" ideal composed usually by burokrats who liked heavy taxation and the reliance predominantly on foreign mercenaries.

Too true! Many blame those mercenaries for the falls of 1204 and 1453 as well. Byzantine local gov't with its endlessly complicated eparch exarchs, Dux etc is just unbelievable.

Good post!

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

No, that happened long before Justinian. After his legal reform the consuls are gone entirely.

Ok, because I remember that Justinian himself was consul before he became Emperor. I guess he was the last one to hold that rank, then ?

Though Greek were widely used as second official language in the Esteem parts of the Empire it became official state language by the time of Herakleios. Actually he was also responsible for the military reforms too.

That's what was in my mind too. I thought Heracleus was the major reformer, certainly more so than Justinian. The "theme" system is implemented under his reign as well as the use of Greek becoming the first language, as you say, Stephenos. But more than that, he was the first who had to cope with the Arab threat that would plague the Empire for the next 300+ years.

Whereas, I see Justinian as more of a transitional figure.

The whole Monophysite/Dyophysite divide is very interesting, especially lately. The term preferred by coptic monks is "maiaphysite" or unified nature.

I was wondering if they still are monophosites (or maiaphtsites). I thought perhaps there was a new understanding between them and the Orthodox churches - that there's a new recognition that the whole schism was based on a difference of semantics. Anyhow, I'll read your book on this topic, Travis. I find it interesting as well

Justinian is really significant in this regard because he does two things, he wipes out the Ostrogothic Arian church in Italy, and he appoints a Nestorian, Jacobeus, to be the Patriarch of Syria, guaranteeing the survival of a monophysite church for a long time to come.

I wonder if Justinian did the latter because he was goaded by Theodora.

After the Justinian land reforms however the land fell under the management of the local Dux and the locals

"The Powerful", as they were called ?

Quote:
The only break I can possibly recognize is the Fourth Crusade.

That's not a break! That's an occupation!!

:lol: I did qualify my statement. But "break" is probably too strong. Shall we say "interruption" ? I mean, the capital did fall and the ruling dynasty became extinct.

It's similar to how some people date the fall of the Western Empire to 410 just because Alaric sacked Rome. I don't see it that way (nor do I with the 4th Crusade either). In both cases, there were still imperial territories unconquered. The Western Empire still had parts of Italy, Sicily and much of the Dalmatian coast. In both cases there was something of a recovery.

At best (or worst) I consider those two events to be "interruptions" and not "falls".

Basically, I would say two things.

1.) late Roman culture is far more medieval and "byzantine" than we give it credit/blame for

2.) Medieval culture is far more classical than we give it credit/blame for.

There are differences, but it is more like looking at two ends of a continuous spectrum.

Kudos

If we are going to type the Byzantines as medieval we have to say what is "medieval" about them, and I think ultimately that leads you to a notion of when Medievalism begins.

The real problem is that the word "medieval" is also a pejorative term invented by an Italian wonk from the renaissance. So, why do we have to reconcile one pejorative term with another ? I think we agree that both terms are derisive and, more importantly, wildly inaccurate. Maybe we should let subscribers of the terminology wade through their own illogic :wink:

[tlclark]

The whole Monophysite/Dyophysite divide is very interesting, especially lately. The term preferred by coptic monks is "maiaphysite" or unified nature.

I was wondering if they still are monophosites (or maiaphtsites). I thought perhaps there was a new understanding between them and the Orthodox churches - that there's a new recognition that the whole schism was based on a difference of semantics. Anyhow, I'll read your book on this topic, Travis. I find it interesting as well

Well semantics aside, there are definitely "monophysites" though they prefer the term Maiaphysites, or unified nature. This semantic difference has afforded the first time in centuries a chance at rapproachment between the eastern orthodox traditions. The basic difference is that the Copts and Syrians place the emphasis on Christ's divinity, while the Greek orthodox place the emphasis on his humanity. I think a real orthodox re-unification is possible and many monks Greek, Egyptian or otherwise seem really excited about the possibility.

Justinian is really significant in this regard because he does two things, he wipes out the Ostrogothic Arian church in Italy, and he appoints a Nestorian, Jacobeus, to be the Patriarch of Syria, guaranteeing the survival of a monophysite church for a long time to come.

I wonder if Justinian did the latter because he was goaded by Theodora.

:lol: Everybody else blames Theodora for a lot of things, but this is the first time I've heard this one.

No I think it was just an intractable situation. There is a demonstrable difference between the Syrians and the Ostrogoths. The Syrians were debating about an understanding of the function of Christ's divinity and they wanted to be part of the empire. The Arians had no desire to be part of the empire and they were debating the very existence of Christ's divinity. BIG difference.

It's similar to how some people date the fall of the Western Empire to 410 just because Alaric sacked Rome. I don't see it that way (nor do I with the 4th Crusade either). In both cases, there were still imperial territories unconquered. The Western Empire still had parts of Italy, Sicily and much of the Dalmatian coast. In both cases there was something of a recovery.

You should read Averil Cameron's "The World of Late Antiquity". It has a great line "in 476, nothing happened" Which is true, but it's the traditional date of the "Fall" of the Roman Empire, despite the fact that it was still going on in the East, and all that happened was that Odacer bumped off the puppet Romulus Augustulus.

The real problem is that the word "medieval" is also a pejorative term invented by an Italian wonk from the renaissance. So, why do we have to reconcile one pejorative term with another ? I think we agree that both terms are derisive and, more importantly, wildly inaccurate. Maybe we should let subscribers of the terminology wade through their own illogic :wink:

Too late I'm afraid. The terms are sticky and hard to change. The Middle Ages is such a stupid term. Middle compared to what? No one in the Middle Ages knew the Renaissance was coming, it's like that line from the old sitcom "Dinosaurs"

"Last year was 60 million and one, this year is 60 million. What are we counting down to!"

No I'm afraid we're stuck. Best we can hope for is try to get Freshmen to realize that somethings are arbitary and that they should think for themselves.

(OMG! It IS hopeless!)

[hoplite14gr]

Some folks think it was the Dethronement of Romulous Ausotulous by Odoakros (Odaker-Otokar?)-the end of Western Empire and the start of
Medieval times but I think I will agree with Travis -no hope that freshmen will thnk for themselves.
Also cosncidering the fact that Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and most of Yugoslavia is now Orthodox, the"Byzantines" were not so unsucesfull in suppressing heretics. They did it even at the expence of the defence from external threat.
Kind regards