Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

  1. #41
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Megas-Doux View Post
    Regarding the Holy Roman Empire as an entity. The Roman Catholic church recognised a need for a protector as it did not want to be subordinated to the Orthadox Catholic Church or the actual Roman Emperor. Regardless of time frame distance from antiquity the Pope was still the major leader of Rome the city and they wanted allies who were strong. The Pope litrally created a new tradition when he Crowned Charlemagne as Emperor. Whether he had the authority to do so was debatable. That this new or revived crown was later dormant and revived or not always recognised may hold some sway regarding the self identity. The King of the Franks was the first Emperor and his authority within his realm was undisputed. His actual realm was not even changed in name from Kingdom of the Franks to Empire of the Romans. Yet he was the one with the greatest claim of all those who held the Title to actually having control of most of the former Western Roman part of the Empire.

    The Conradin Emperors did not control West Francia and their successors barely controlled Italy. It is arguable that since the Pope created this title that unless the Pope Crowned you then you were not Emperor of the Romans merely King of the Germans. The German King rarely had control over all of Italy or even the majority of it and Rome was not always co-operative. In comparison to the Roman Empire called Byzantine no matter what they controlled they were always Roman in their identity even when they were Isurian, Macedonian or whatever. The lands were Roman, the administration was Roman the people were transient and still called Roman. In what you call the Holy Roman Empire the people were settled, the lands were local and the government was transient. As institutions they were the polar opposites to each other. The Holy Roman Empire existed at the convenience or a strong secular leader or the Pope. The Roman Empire which historians call Byzantine Empire existed in undisputable fact.
    Not going to write full development on every bit of disagreement as I feel it would dilute the initial discussion in never ending details arguments. So please accept the few sentences I am going to formulate in response to this quote as simple explanation of my personal opinion and not argument.

    - I disagree that the Pope created a completely new tradition when he made Charlemagne Emperor. I think on the opposite that what he did is a synthesis of past tradition with present realities. This enable the most powerful ruler in the West since Romans rulers (and arguably a good deal of them were less powerful in their times) to recreate the ideal of the universal Empire that never disappeared.
    - I don't think the agreement of the official who initially created/affirmed a title or his successor is needed. Otherwise things would be incredibly problematic with all the Romans usurpers. Beside it, a large part if not the majority of a title existance is how people recognize it or not. The one who initially created the title is just a single person even if he might bear a lot of influence.
    - The Holy Roman Empire (forgive me but I don't wish to be drag into this historic conflict on the name) was not working as fundamentaly differently as you would like to portrait it compare to the Roman Empire. Or more precisely compare to the Roman Empire when the destiny of the East and the West varied dramatically. The aftermath of Andrinople (378 AD) initiate a tradition of existing kings retaining their power over their people who kept all their tradition and a great deal of independence while being part of the Empire and integrate into it. While


    Quote Originally Posted by G-Megas-Doux View Post
    Yes the way people see themselves is part of identity however we do have to look at the Holy Roman Empire as a sporadic institution with only the secondary claim on Roman behind the actual Roman Empire which is popularly called Byzantine. A comparison analogy would be China. Who know themselves as the Middle Kingdom who has had territory shift many times throughout its history and has been divided and reconquered by different parts more than once. Some parts are considered direct continuations of Chinese government and culture and others transgressions before cultural assimilation occurred. In Europe there is considered to be a greater heritage on both Greek and Roman culture and that is because of the consistant back referencing to those identities, cultures and institutions. As such western culture still claims those inheritances due to multiple embryonic splits and cultural osmosis. Cultural plurality exists in all states and that is important to know. What we are trying to trace is the main line of inheritance from Rome.

    This means that the actual Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire until it fell. Trezibond was the nearest relative and when it fell the Muscovites claimed that inheritance on the main line. The West claim their inheritance from an earlier scion line that gained its own authority and power as such in the Holy Roman Empire.
    All this passage makes me think that if we appear to be in disagrement, that's before anything else because we are not even discussing the same thing. While you did not state it explicitly in bold, you appear to focus your development on the sole line of political inheritance from Rome while what I am been arguing from the beginning is that the Roman identity is something by far greater than the political identity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The term "Byzantine" when used to describe the East Roman Empire originates among 17th century French historians. This isn't a controversial point, and I'm surprised you question it? I'm less aware of current French historiography but it has no bearing in this case..
    Sorry but what ?

    Let's forget that the small remaining part you quote doesn't seem to be linked with your response but what non controversial point I am questioning ?
    For sure what terms contemporaries historians use has a fair bearing if we are to discuss the use of x or y term.

    Anyway my main point is that the name Byzantine is an excepted term and in fact the most used to refer to the identity that spam from the Late Antiquity to the Late Middle Age across the East Mediterranean Sea, at some point controlling a territory going from North Africa (and even small enclaves in the Iberian Peninsula) to Syria.
    In addition to the previous point, I would remind everyone that in all Period, varying names are used to refer to unique events, identities while other names are artificially created as to allow quicker and more precise comprehension.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    As for "Byzantine" history commencing with Constantine, thats certainly one milestone but of course there is so much continuity. I'm with the camp that suggests the slow transition between the classical and medieval Roman states has crossed a real threshold with Heraclius.
    Never claimed the rule of Constantine must be seen as the starting point of the Byzantine history. I was just pointing that the use of the name "Byzantine" does not prevent history book to start the Byzantine history with Emprerors indisputably described as Romans leading the Roman State. In fact all the books I had the luck to read on the Byzantine History stress the slow and progressive evolution of the Ancient Rome to the Medieval Byzance. Starting from varying date depending of the specific subject studied.

    While the name "Byzantine Empire" came from an biased opinion, it has been a long time since this name no longer carry this bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Certainly Stilicho seems to have been Roman but that doesn't change the fact legal and social institutions were severely disrupted in the West and institutions like the Frankish state were definitely seperate developments to the continuing polity based on the Bosphorus. Charles the Great was born a Frank and died a Frank. The Roman Empire of the German nation (only much later was it called Holy) was an elective kingship based on Germanic duchies and prince bishops.
    You sound as if Stilicho was but an exemption while a great deal of Roman military officers were Germanics in the IV and the V centuries. Not only that but others Romans personalities who were born in Roman territories from families who always lived in Romans territories were described by their contemporaries as more that just Romans but with regional identities too. Be it Gaulish, Illyrians, Isaurians, Syrians, etc ...
    Why does this specific identity suddenly becomes problematic when it is a Germanic identity ?

    And how could the Frankish identity not incorporate or even merge with the Roman one ? It almost sound as if Charlemagne Frank identity was the same as the 300 AD Frank Identity while in truth Charlemagne came from a world as much Germanic as it was Latin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    We are all Romans in some sense, but to claim Roman identity for modern states is foolish and to deny it to a state that directly continued the political, legal and social traditions of Rome is plainly wrong.
    I don't see where I have claimed Roman identity for modern states. The Byzantine states was the political continuation of a part of the Roman Empire and legally was the Roman Empire in this region but was arguably not the legally the Roman Empire in its previous totality as the Justinian Reconquest failed and a ruler from an other states managed to recreate in most geographical part and in essence the Western half of the Roman Empire.

    More importantly the Byzantine slowly diverted dramatically from say, the 400 AD Roman society and a Byzantine identity came to existence.
    Last edited by Anna_Gein; July 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM.

  2. #42
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    Sorry Anna I have misunderstood your original post, and I'm struggling with what you say here.

    "Byzantine" is not a word the Romani used for themselves. Its like calling modern Italians "Romans" or modern French "Lutetians".

    Byzantine is a charged word, with negative overtones (meaning corrupt, dishonest, overly bureaucratic and devious). We'd all be better off calling them Rhomaoi or Romans or East Romans.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #43
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,193

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    God, Fomenko is, without a doubt, an idiot. But the problems I refer to are mainly those cause by the extent of diglossia that was present in Greek society up to the 70s. Wikipedia has a huge article on it (no clue who took the time to write that in the English wiki; pretty weird) but I suggest checking it out. I wonder if anything similar ever happened to your country, NikeBG, seeing how Bulgarian has an extensive literary history.
    Somewhat, though not in the same way - linguists had long been arguing about the "disappearance" of medieval-Bulgarian (old- and middle-Bulgarian/Old Church Slavonic) during Ottoman times and whether it had been more of a liturgical language even by the Late Middle Ages or not. The actual question at the time was mostly between the two main dialectic groups - Western and Eastern. Eventually, soon after the Liberation, in the 1880s or so, the Eastern dialects were chosen to solely form the official, literary language, as most of the higher literature and press was published on those dialects in the previous decades and were thus seen to have a higher standing. Also, the Western dialects were perceived as somewhat "unpure", with "too much" Serbian influences, even though the Eastern dialects on the other hand had considerable Russian influences themselves (though I guess they viewed that as a good thing). I guess it's indeed something every nation/language goes through, especially during the age of nationalism, when language reforms are common (though our 14th c. Patriarch Evtimiy also conducted a language reform, sweeping away the remains of the archaic old-Bulgarian from the times of the first empire, in favour of the second empire's common middle-Bulgarian).

  4. #44

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    When looking at identity, there are two things to examine:

    What the population considers themselves

    Is there any connection between that population and earlier cultures.

    For example, can we say that the Iran today is the continuation of the Sassanians?

    Certainly, the Iranian people consider themselves Iranian, and more importantly through their language and culture have a connection to the Sassanian Iran. However, linguistics is not the sole determinant.

    Now lets look at Byzantium.

    Did the Byzantines consider themselves Roman? Hell yes. Did they have any connection? Hell yes. They were connected by religion, legal traditions and state structure to the Roman Empire. Though they spoke Greek, they were still very much Roman because the Roman identity no longer had a linguistic basis.

  5. #45

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    www.google.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Sorry Anna I have misunderstood your original post, and I'm struggling with what you say here.

    "Byzantine" is not a word the Romani used for themselves. Its like calling modern Italians "Romans" or modern French "Lutetians".

    Byzantine is a charged word, with negative overtones (meaning corrupt, dishonest, overly bureaucratic and devious). We'd all be better off calling them Rhomaoi or Romans or East Romans.
    I agree with you, but I grew up with the term Byzantium. The word "Byzantine" actually got me studying that civilization and was thus partly responsible for me completing an Honours degree in medieval history, so use of the name is hard to shake.
    Last edited by The Byzantine Basileus; October 19, 2015 at 05:50 AM.

  6. #46
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,816

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    The term 'Byzantine' does sound cooler in english

    Especially with some pronounciations where "y" sounds like "i", and the stress is on the letter "a".
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  7. #47

    Default Re: A few word about the Byzantine Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    The term 'Byzantine' does sound cooler in english

    Especially with some pronounciations where "y" sounds like "i", and the stress is on the letter "a".
    Yup, it was the unusual nature of the name that first sparked my interest!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •