RAT v.3 - New Sections?

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks for the input guys.

Let me remind you this is just a discussion of ideas set off on the request of some members, not any official members vote of a future RAT.

[Marcus Julius]

A very strong point has been raised here, as to dividing the forum into periods. If we indeed do seperate Byzantine (with or without late roman), would the next step be to seperate the differenct eras of history. Republic then getting their own section, and further dividing the Empire into Julio-Claudian, Antonine, and Dominate? Where would the division end?

As for Celts having a forum, there is the Allies & Enemies section.

[Alexandr K]

Hi,

I think we shouldn't delete the Byzantine section. And yes, the current location of Byzantine discussions is inappropriate. But I also don't like the idea of merging late Roman and Byzantine discussions, since the „later“ („medieval“) Byzantine period was very different from late antiquity. So I voted to create a new Byzantine section.

As has already been mentioned, there's the obvious and difficult question, from which point should we talk about Byzantines and not about Romans (however artificial that would be). Of course, there are more possible dates. But I would prefer the turn of the sixth and seventh century to be the dividing point (and it has nothing to do with Justinian and Belisarius ). At the end of the 6th and especially in the 7th century many changes took place which distinguished the „Byzantine society“ from the „late Roman society“. The decline of cities and city life, the decline of trade and currency and the consequential more agrarian and "feudal" society, the adoption of Greek language, the theme system. I feel this to be more important. The moving of the capital to Constantinople is more of a politic and symbolic nature, while the processes of the 6th and 7th century had deep impact on the whole society.

Greetings
Alexandr

[kuura]

I voted to separate into a Byzantine section. Lumping the Byzantine and Late Roman sections together in my opinion seems a little weird although I can sort of see the logic behind it. However, it would limit the field of research and potential use of the 'New Section' as the majority of posters on the Byzantine section as it stands are debating the C10th -C13th period so how would this really fit in with the Late Roman era.
Again the cut off point for the Byzantine or late Roman would be problematic. I for one think it should be 1453 with the option of extending this date to 1461 and the fall of the empire of Trezibond.
Yes, all this appears to fall into the clanky and tinnie 'middle ages' but certainly in the C14th the Byzantines were still using tactics, organization and especially armour and weaponry employed in C10th century if not earlier.

Ok, a rather aesthetic view point, but a look back at some of the old threads in the Byzantine section proves this point of continuation.

[sonic]

Hi,

I think we shouldn't delete the Byzantine section. And yes, the current location of Byzantine discussions is inappropriate. But I also don't like the idea of merging late Roman and Byzantine discussions, since the „later“ („medieval“) Byzantine period was very different from late antiquity. So I voted to create a new Byzantine section.

As has already been mentioned, there's the obvious and difficult question, from which point should we talk about Byzantines and not about Romans (however artificial that would be). Of course, there are more possible dates. But I would prefer the turn of the sixth and seventh century to be the dividing point (and it has nothing to do with Justinian and Belisarius ). At the end of the 6th and especially in the 7th century many changes took place which distinguished the „Byzantine society“ from the „late Roman society“. The decline of cities and city life, the decline of trade and currency and the consequential more agrarian and "feudal" society, the adoption of Greek language, the theme system. I feel this to be more important. The moving of the capital to Constantinople is more of a politic and symbolic nature, while the processes of the 6th and 7th century had deep impact on the whole society.

Greetings
Alexandr

I agree that, if there is to be a split between the Late Imperial and the Byzantine periods, the cut off point should be at 610 - if only for the sake of convenience.

This, for me, is the point where the ambitions to rule the whole of the ancient Empire fall and the east turns 'Greek' rather than 'Italian'. From this point the Eastern Empire is more concerned with fighting off the 'barbarians' in the Balkans, the Sasanids and the forces of Islam than in expanding Westwards.

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, so we see people who would like to see the sections divided into period discussions:

A very strong point has been raised here, as to dividing the forum into periods. If we indeed do seperate Byzantine (with or without late roman), would the next step be to seperate the differenct eras of history. Republic then getting their own section, and further dividing the Empire into Julio-Claudian, Antonine, and Dominate? Where would the division end?

Indeed, something to think about. the divisions could be endless, so any new divisions should (I think) be well-reasoned and logical.

As for Celts having a forum, there is the Allies & Enemies section.

True, but if you reason from a ROMAN army forum, the Greeks would also have to fall into that category. If the Greeks have a separate section (now still'also 'Roman' because of the Byzantines there), the reasoning would that what's good for the Greeks would also apply to the Celts, Germans, Persians and what have you from the point of equality.

I mention this because people may not realise that.

If someone(s) wanted to have a board to include more cultures and study, I'd suggest the creation of a seperate board, but which can be mutually interactive with RAT(v3)...Something like "Ancient Warfare Talk" or some such.

Honestly, if RAT was to include any more subject matter, I'd have a hard time keeping up with all of the discussion, and I believe it would become "too busy", and as I mentioned above, it would take away from the focus of the Roman aspect.

A good call. Venturing into areas like 'period sections' could entail the dangers of losing the 'Roman core' of the forum. With the current focus on Roman times and also Greek culture we may alrady see that happening, and with 'Roman Army talk' at the moment in effect being 'Classical Army Talk'.

Opinions?

Reminder: this discussion is not an official proposal to re-organise the current section structure of the forum, but an exchange of opinions by members.

_________________
Valerius/Robert Vermaat
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)

[kuura]

Whatever is decided, a distinct, separate section is needed. This can be clearly seen in a couple of recent posts asking for information regarding Byzantine Lamellar and the Byzantine navy C7th.
Both posters appeared to be oblivious to fact that there was a Byzantine section 'HIDDEN' within the Greek section, otherwise why would they have posted in the Roman sections. Neither appeared (yet) to have had any response from any of the Byzantine regulars, which implies to me that we/they on a whole, perhaps do not look at other historical sections which can take time and helps to negate any assistance we could offer.

Just my gripe for the day, well it is Monday :evil:

[Peter Raftos]

A seperate section would be the best course IMHO. This would make it easier for users to find and explore.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hey, I didn't even know 'Late Roman' was getting its own section.

Was this decision reached based on complaints from our more 'classical' brethren ? I was comfortable without a Late Roman section but maybe that's because I do impressions for both 'periods' and even in-between periods :wink:

Personally I don't favor breaking up the forum because I feel it's unnecessary. 'Byzantine' should be integrated with 'Roman', IMO. With so few Late Roman / Byzantine enthusiasts, I estimate that 90% of all threads would still deal with the Republican / Principate eras. Would classical Romans object to this arrangement based on inconvenience or sheer snobbery ?

We don't separate 'Republic' from 'Empire' although there are many differences between those periods for reenactment purposes. Why the double standard when it comes to 'Late Roman' and 'Byzantium' ?

Vortigern, I've read books on the Late Empire and Byzantium in which history starts with Diocletian because his division of the empire into two halves was more lasting than any of the subsequent reunions under Constantine, Julian, or Theodosius the Great. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that dating but there are (or were) some scholars with that viewpoint and it seems as logical as any other view, IMO. It's simply a territorial-based division of history.

Assuming the forum will be broken up, Stephen's suggestions are quite rational :

• 'Late Roman' defined by religion - i.e. Pagan Rome and Christian Rome, and
• 'Byzantium' defined by religion and territory - i.e. the permanent loss of the Eastern provinces to Islamic Arabs during Heraclius' reign

The latter seems logical since the sudden, permanent loss of the Eastern provinces forced so many drastic changes upon the Empire in a very short time. It also marks the end of the Sassanid Persians and the rise of Islam.

For now, I abstain from voting.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Hey, I didn't even know 'Late Roman' was getting its own section.

It's not. We've been discussing things among members, but that's of course different from discussing it with jasper as a real proposal for the new RAT version. More like an exchange of ideas, not any guarantee of any change.