Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 141 to 153 of 153

Thread: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

  1. #141
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,057

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    A very good post, Cyclops.
    You know a lot about the history of Byzantium!

    "Roman" was synonymous with Hellenic Orthodox Christian, and people not meeting all those criteria became marginalised
    In fact, from my previous link:

    "The Byzantine Empire was not, like the kingdoms or principalities of antiquity, a temporary phenomenon which would one day come to an end. It was a realm foreseen in the plan of the Creator, anchored in Christian eschatology, organically involved in the age-old history of mankind and destined to endure until the Second Coming...Those who affected to challenge or ignore this divinely ordained scheme of things were guilty of a form of heresy. They were either to be pitied or condemned.
    The Arabs, for example, and the Turks might be pitied as the victims of invincible ignorance; the Slavs might be thought to have the baptism of desire; but the peoples of western Europe, at least after the ninth century, were condemned as wilful and unrepentant deviationists.

    .... The heterogeneous mixture of races that made up the Byzantine Empire has sometimes been compared with that which constitutes the United States of America, and with some justice.
    But the analogy should not be pressed too far. American citizens of whatever racial origin are conscious of a common nationality; but they are also conscious of the existence and of the rights of other nations on more or less equal terms. This was a concept foreign to the Byzantine mind"
    .
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  2. #142

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    @Ludicius

    I'm currently travelling so I don't have the time to properly respond to multiple giant comments at the moment. I promise I'll get back to you once I have the time, and I do think that we don't actually disagree as much as it looks like, but I don't really have that many resources on hand, so for now I'll address @Cyclops' response:

    The elite culture was classical Hellenic, once again a Mediterranean rather than a European identity
    Some aristocrats, depending on when you're talking about, Hellenized, but their culture was not Hellenic; a very important distinction. Elites with a "Greek education", which wasn't actually many it should be pointed out, might emulate ancient authors and reference Homeric poems on paper, maybe even use some rare ancient words in their speech if they wanted to be haughty, but that was the extent of their "Hellenism".

    They were Roman Orthodox, not Pagan, wore Roman clothes, not himatioi and chitoi, identified as Romans, not Hellenes, looked to Trajan and Scipio as models of rule, not Pericles or Leonidas, celebrated Brumalia, not the Olympic games, lived in a centralized nation-state, not individual city-states, and believed in the Res Publica and the common good, not democracy, oligarchy, or hereditary autocracy. And this is just the consciously hellenizing aristocracy were's talking about; there were many in the elite who didn't see much of a connection between themselves and the ancient Greeks at all. Kekaumenos, for example, generally well educated, a decent writer, and an aristocrat by any definition, states:

    "I am devoid of learning; for I have not studied Greek culture, so that I might obtain tricks of speech, and be taught eloquence."

    This quote exemplifies the way the Romans of the 10th and 11th centuries viewed "Hellenism", that is, as a certain exceptionally sophisticated way of expressing oneself, but almost entirely divorced from what we would consider "culture", which was Roman.

    Christian identity was at the heart of many ERE identities, especially the soldier farmers of the Thematic and Tagmatic armies. "Roman" was synonymous with Hellenic Orthodox Christian, and people not meeting all those criteria became marginalised

    If by "Hellenic" you mean Greek-speaking, then that's not entirely true. "Roman" was a culturo-poltical identity that became associated with the Greek language and Christianity, stemming from neither, and as such Greek-speakers who weren't culturally Roman weren't, well, Roman, and heathens who were culturally Roman were still thought of as Roman in most regards. Constantine VII's De Administrando Imperio provides examples of both.

    Regarding the former, the Emperor describes Basil's baptism of a Slavic tribe in Roman Dalmatia, and mentions that he "made them [into] Graikoi", that is, he taught them Greek, but they weren't culturally Roman. "Graikos" was a lingual term, though sometimes with pejorative connotations, borrowed from Latin, that was generally used to refer to non-Roman Greek-speakers or differentiate between Latin and Greek-speaking Romans, in this case the former. Later on in the text, a village of practicing pagans in Achaea are described, also baptized by Basil I, and are referred to as "of Roman stock", that is to say culturally and perhaps ethnically Roman, even if religiously Hellenic. As you can see, being a Greek-speaking Orthodox christian didn't necessarily make you a Roman, and being a Pagan didn't necessarily disqualify you from being one; it was ultimately all down to culture and citizenship.

    As for Christian identity in the military, it was certainly there (as in all Byzantine Christians), but if anything national Roman identity was stronger in the military than among the rest of the citizenry. Most battle addresses that survive start off with a "Roman men!" or something to that degree, go on to emphasize the role of the army as defender of the Roman people, and often make references to the inherent strength and courage of the Romans. Take Constantine VII's speech to the assembled Anatolian soldiery, which includes such lines as:


    "How indeed could one not exult and rejoice and be gladdened when God has bestowed upon His inheritance such armies, such a courageous and valiant host, such champions and defenders of the Romans?"


    "When several contingents of these foreign peoples recently joined you on campaign, they were amazed to see with their own eyes the courage and valour of the other soldiers who performed heroically in earlier expeditions; let them now be astonished at your audacity, let them marvel at your invincible and unsurpassable might against the barbarians. Be for me the wonder and amazement of the nations, and the might and strength of our people."

    "and I am bolstered by the hope that you will not dishonour my expectation of you, that you will not extinguish my hopes, that you will not dull my consideration, that you will not debase your service; but because as true and most faithful servants and subjects of Our Majesty, as sturdy and invincible champions of the Roman people, you have now shown this kind and this degree of courage and all manner of audacity and valour, we will embrace you as victors appearing as triumphant conquerors against the enemy and receive you with joyful acclamations as you return."


    And, though these are probably less authentic, Leo the deacon records a few generic speeches by Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes:

    "Therefore you should beware of the fate of your comrades, keep sober and remain attentive, and with all speed and strength search out and track down the barbarous wild beasts who are lying in ambush here, draw them out of their dens and lairs and destroy them. Let us not waste our time in idleness and drunkenness, but acting like Romans we will demonstrate the vigorous and brave spirit of our noble people in [military] contests."

    "I myself would say that your army was brave and vigorous in strength and in spirit, but no one would argue that it has sufficient numbers and divisions. Therefore, inasmuch as we are Romans, we must prepare and plan properly, so as to find a good solution to a difficult problem, and choose an expedient rather than a dangerous course of action. So let us not rush headlong into certain disaster with a reckless assault and hazardous endeavors. For an unbridled act of daring usually thrusts one into danger, whereas a reasoned delay can save the lives of those who make use of it.
    [...]

    Therefore, men, I urge you not to endanger yourselves by unrestrained attacks against the barbarians in level areas, but to lie in ambush in these steep places, waiting for them to arrive and pass through; then attack them vigorously and fight bravely. For I think that in this way (let me say,with the help of God) we will overcome the enemy, and will recover all the plunder that was taken from our fellow countrymen. For the enemy can usually be defeated by unexpected attacks, and their insolent and arrogant attitude is likely to be shattered by sudden assaults. Therefore, upon my signal with the trumpets, go forth to meet the enemy, maintaining your innate valor and the courage that is your companion in battle."

    "Race" or ethnos was not the most important category in ERE identity, religion, and specifically Orthodox Christian religious identity, was.
    This depends on how you define "important". Religion in general has a unique importance to a person's worldview, but it isn't a stronger unifying force than culture is divisive. That the Romans of the medieval period were Christian was a coincidence; it didn't define them. Isaurians, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Russians, even Armenians, even in Orthodoxy all were despised by the Romans at various times for cultural reasons, "half-barbarians" at best. Ethno-cultural identity and religion operated at different, if occasionally interacting, levels in the Byzantine period, each indispensable in its own way.

    However ethnic identity mattered, and Hellenic identity was privileged.
    Hellenic identity didn't exist in the Byzantine empire until the 13th century. Romans, a category that included most Greek-speakers (although not slaves, it should be noted), were certainly privileged by the Roman government though, both systematically and informally.
    Last edited by JeanDukeofAlecon; March 20, 2018 at 01:42 AM.

  3. #143
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Jean that's a long and thoughtful post and has informed me and changed some of my views. I agree with most of it, but one or two points are worth teasing out.

    I think I have expressed myself clumsily about "Hellenic culture": I do not intend to suggest these Hellenic speaking people were identical with their pre-Roman ancestors, so not Hellenic or Hellenistic in the strictest sense.
    I do contend nearly all ERE citizens spoke a Hellenic tongue, and were Hellenic Christian by culture, not merely "Hellenised" which is an odd term to use for citizens of Thrace, Hellas and coastal Asia Minor whose Hellenic culture was surely derived in most cases without interruption from as far back as the Helladic period, and distinct fro Roman Christin which I see as an identity developed by the Patriarch of Rome. So apologies for the confusion, I am using clumsy terminology of my own coining.

    I agree of course that only the elite aspired to the classical education in what we would call "classics" but that was also the case in Periklean Athens (if not more so). The literate outside educated circles enjoyed heroic lays (like the one about Digenes Akritas), which I guess were an international form rather than specifically Hellenic, and religious songs and stories (I think Heraclius instituted cantors to inspire his troops with hymns as they marched into battle, surely an innovation unknown to the pagan Legions or early Christians). However the educated classes in administration were exposed to classical forms, above all rhetoric which (for all its windy verbosity) infiltrated public announcements, official correspondence and even private letters. Administrators were not rare, the East Roman state was capable of feats of organisation beyond the abilities of contemporary states eg the simultaneous arrest of Venetians across the Empire by Manuel I, so there was a fairly large class with some classical education (at least in the period of ascendancy and immediate aftermath, I guess 900-1200?).

    Of course I agree that the ERE citizens were all more or less Romaioi (great example of Achaean pagans, thx) but I do think that for many centuries the Basileus thought of all Christians (even many heretics) as his subjects despite living under (for example) the rule of the Caliph: I seem to recall a treaty (maybe from the time of Tzimisces? Not sure) explicitly recognising this. This notion faded possibly even before the rise of the Makedonian dynasty (it was dented by events like Irene's recognition of Charlemagne's status as Imperator, but that was quickly denied in Konstantinople because of this doctrine) and definitely died a death after Manzikert. That said, for the period between Heraclius and Basil II I would argue religious identity, especially Orthodox identity was probably the supreme Roman identifier in the minds of nearly all of the ERE people, and in the ERE theory of state. The Basileus was Autokrator but (at times) more importantly the Isapostolos.

    Its worth acknowledging your point that identity in the ERE was mutable, evolving, contested and sometimes a matter of personal choice, and I agree fully. The Georgian example I mentioned above was a minority view denigrating Hellenic speakers in the Empire (and firmly supports your point about ethnos trumping religion). Plethon saw his true identity as a neo (neo-neo?) Platonist and about as Christian as Perikles (in huis own mind atrue Hellene, and not Christian so that supports your view also).

    The Isaurian Iconoclasts saw a particular strand of religious thought as critical, some Iconodules were as strict in their opposition but later the issue was politely ignored. Egyptian and Syrian Miaphysites demonstrated convincingly they did not share East Roman notions about religion indicating citizenship, but there were political elements in play as well as strictly religious points (partially agrees with my view).

    So I partially disagree when you say religion was less important than ethnos: at times religious identity was of supreme importance, for example under the Isaurians.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  4. #144
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,057

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    I would like to hear your opinion.
    Warren Treadgold (History of Byzantine State and Society) says that the Byzantine empire never depended on perceptions of racial or linguistic unity, the Ottoman Sultanate was as multiethnic and polyglot as the Byzantine empire it replaced, and like Byzantine emperors, the sultans paid scant attention to race or language when resettling people or allowing them to migrate (1); and he adds that the linguistic map of Greek speaking population, who still called them Rhõmaioi or Byzantines, is difficult to draw, even for the early 20th century.
    What do you say?
    (1) In fact, the history of Sephardic Jews who escaped Portugal is a fine example.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  5. #145
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I would like to hear your opinion.
    Warren Treadgold (History of Byzantine State and Society) says that the Byzantine empire never depended on perceptions of racial or linguistic unity, the Ottoman Sultanate was as multiethnic and polyglot as the Byzantine empire it replaced, and like Byzantine emperors, the sultans paid scant attention to race or language when resettling people or allowing them to migrate (1); and he adds that the linguistic map of Greek speaking population, who still called them Rhõmaioi or Byzantines, is difficult to draw, even for the early 20th century.
    What do you say?
    (1) In fact, the history of Sephardic Jews who escaped Portugal is a fine example.
    That's a generally true statement, but with variations over time. So in the 19th century with the emergence of national nationalist identities ethnos became at times of critical importance in the Ottoman state. In its dying days the Ottoman state even legislated Turkish as the official language, a sign of terrible uncertainty for a polity in which the ruler's cultural identity was so firmly established that in the west he could be known as "the Grand Turk".

    The Roman, East Roman and Ottoman states were highly centralised in the person of the ruler, probably in ascending order (the Roman state being vested primarily in Roman law and citizenship, so strongly that element persisted across all three Empires) and fairly plural religious identity allowed. The Ottoman state privileged multiple cultural identities, with Turkish language, strong Arabic and Iranian cultural forms (despite historic rivalry with Iranian states) and well established religious/cultural administrative units (millets) that were not exclusive: famously Phanariots were able to adopt Rumanian identity to rule as Hospodars in the Danubian vilayets. However for theory of state the Sultan is also the Caliph and rules in that role, so religious identity is critically important, and religious identity equated national and legal identity very firmly eg in the payment of jizya.

    I think the ERE sits in the middle, religious identity mattered more than for the Roman Empire (I think the tipping point is in the person of Heraclius and the almost crusading spirit that animates his rule), but that autocracy is tempered by Justinian's code, unlike the Caliph who is almost untrammelled in his rule (in theory dhimmi being his slaves).

    The ethnic maps of all three Empires were like scattered confetti, and individuals could cross lines: Saul of Tarsus was a Jews and a servant of the Temple, a Christian and an apostle of Christ, and a Roman citizen who conversed in Koine.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  6. #146
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I think the tipping point is in the person of Heraclius and the almost crusading spirit that animates his rule
    Well Sassanid had been persecuting Christians on and off several times (with the goal seems chiefly wanting to piss off Byzantium), so religious war existed long before Heraclius. However, Constantinople's serious attempt of trying to control church (by imposing undisputed authority over church) seems only starting after Islamic Conquest, perhaps in order to face the challenge of Islam (which did look like some sore of hivemind initially). Unsurprisingly, the harsh measurement of imposing authority over church only earned the irk of Rome, ultimately leaded to Rome's attempt to cut off its tie with Constantinople.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  7. #147
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Well Sassanid had been persecuting Christians on and off several times (with the goal seems chiefly wanting to piss off Byzantium), so religious war existed long before Heraclius. However, Constantinople's serious attempt of trying to control church (by imposing undisputed authority over church) seems only starting after Islamic Conquest, perhaps in order to face the challenge of Islam (which did look like some sore of hivemind initially). Unsurprisingly, the harsh measurement of imposing authority over church only earned the irk of Rome, ultimately leaded to Rome's attempt to cut off its tie with Constantinople.
    Constantine did take the church by the scruff of its neck and give it a god shake at Nicaea, so there's an argument to put the date earlier. The ecclesiastical tail may have wagged the Imperial dog under Constans and other pagan persecuting emperors, but I think Caesaropapism predates Heraclius. I think Heraclius sees the closest identification of the two, and their interests do coincide at that time.

    Prior to the Lombard invasion the Roman patriarch is fairly solidly behind the Emperor's authority, and did not dispute conciliar decisions, even when not invited. Once Belisarios fell and with it the majority of the exarchate they looked to their own political devices, I think it was as much a political as a religious betrayal of the Emperor.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  8. #148

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    I do contend nearly all ERE citizens spoke a Hellenic tongue
    Most Romans of the medieval period spoke Greek, but that doesn't, on it's own, make them "Greek", just like the Irish aren't English just because most of them speak it. Something interesting to note about the relationship between the Romans and the Greek language in the medieval period is that, as the current language of the Roman people, the latter was actually popularly known as "Romaikos", "Roman"; referring to it as "Greek" was an elite classicism. To an extent then, even calling it a "Hellenic tongue" is something of an anachronism, perhaps comparable to calling medieval Scots "English".

    and were Hellenic Christian by culture
    And on what basis do you claim this? No consistent historical methodology that I've seen ends up with the conclusion that the Byzantine Romans were culturally "Hellenic"; if you draw that conclusion on the basis of language and a few specific customs partially confined to the elite then you would also have to claim the Irish, Scottish, Americans, Canadians, and half the Welsh are indeed English, Mexicans and Peruvians are Castilian, the Swiss are German, Moroccans are Arabs, and Pakistanis are Hindi.

    not merely "Hellenised"
    To "Hellenise" isn't the same as to be "Hellenised"; the former refers to the performance of certain aspects of Greek culture in certain contexts, while the latter means to partially or wholly adopt and internalize Greek culture, generally against the backdrop of Greek imperialism. Certain sections of the medieval Roman aristocracy would "hellenise", that is, show off their learning through imitation of classical Greek forms in writing or oration, but culturally they were neither Hellenic nor themselves Hellenised.

    which is an odd term to use for citizens of Thrace, Hellas and coastal Asia Minor whose Hellenic culture was surely derived in most cases without interruption from as far back as the Helladic period
    Just because you say the Byzantine Romans were culturally hellenic does not make it so. Lingual continuity is not the same thing as cultural continuity, and there was very little of the latter in Romania. The Greeks and Byzantine Romans lived in completely different societies, dressed completely differently, had completely different morals, had completely different familial structures, had almost completely different customs, had completely different religions and methods of worship, had completely different worldviews, had completely different governments and ideologies, had completely different identities, both at a surface level and in structure, and wouldn't have even been able to have a conversation if they were to meet.

    In fact, the Byzantine Romans didn't even have as much linguo-geographic continuity as you might think; most of Greece spoke a combination of Slavic, Albanian, and Romance languages in the 8th century, and, while lingual continuity was maintained in Thrace and the western coast of Asia minor, in that same century some 70% of the Roman population lived elsewhere, mostly further north, further inland, and in Sicily.

    and distinct fro Roman Christin which I see as an identity developed by the Patriarch of Rome.
    Roman as a label associated with the Church instead of a People was a concept developed by the Pope, but Roman Christian/Christian Roman identity was much older than that, and continued to evolve independently the east after the former was established around the 8th century.

    I agree of course that only the elite aspired to the classical education in what we would call "classics" but that was also the case in Periklean Athens (if not more so).
    And that's the point; certain sections of both ancient Greek and Byzantine Roman society hellenised, but the former did this against a backdrop of actual Greek culture, in the more standard, inclusive sense, while the latter did so against a distinctly Roman background. Just a note: when conceptualizing this, it's important to remember that there were very few people in Byzantine Rome that actually had a Greek education. In the middle period, at any given time there might be a few dozen people, if that, who could actually lay claim to an understanding of what they considered "Greek culture"; hellenism should not be seen as an activity of the general Roman elite, even if it was restricted to them.

    However the educated classes in administration were exposed to classical forms, above all rhetoric which (for all its windy verbosity) infiltrated public announcements, official correspondence and even private letters. Administrators were not rare, the East Roman state was capable of feats of organisation beyond the abilities of contemporary states eg the simultaneous arrest of Venetians across the Empire by Manuel I, so there was a fairly large class with some classical education (at least in the period of ascendancy and immediate aftermath, I guess 900-1200?).
    "Education" was not synonymous with "Greek" or "Classical" education; the vast majority of Roman administrators would posses the former, which included basic literacy, mathematics, history, essential knowledge, and some oration and rhetoric, but not the latter, which was concerned with extremely flowery writing, understanding of Homeric and attic Greek, classical literature, advanced oratory and rhetorical techniques, etc. This class preferred Cato, Cassius Dio, and Procopius to Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, and included the likes of Kekaumenos, Attaleiates, Leo the Deacon, and a million ghostwriters of the more utilitarian texts that have come down to us. Their writings do often have something of a classical feeling to them, but this air of antiquity is of a distinctly Roman, not Greek, variety, and stems from deeply rooted Roman values, not education; it's in the literature of the administrators that you find the most references to the Republic, the common good, the heroes of old Rome, and the good Emperors of the Principate.

    Of course I agree that the ERE citizens were all more or less Romaioi (great example of Achaean pagans, thx) but I do think that for many centuries the Basileus thought of all Christians (even many heretics) as his subjects despite living under (for example) the rule of the Caliph: I seem to recall a treaty (maybe from the time of Tzimisces? Not sure) explicitly recognising this.
    The Emperors did claim the role of protector of the Christian people in certain contexts, but this was mostly unrelated to their primary role as sovereign representative of the Romans. The former was mostly rhetorical, used to enhance imperial prestige, but the latter was the entire raison d'etre of the office, and dictated imperial policy in practice.

    That said, for the period between Heraclius and Basil II I would argue religious identity, especially Orthodox identity was probably the supreme Roman identifier in the minds of nearly all of the ERE people, and in the ERE theory of state. The Basileus was Autokrator but (at times) more importantly the Isapostolos.
    You might get such an impression if you look exclusively at imperial propaganda, but functionally this couldn't be further from the truth, and very few emperors claimed to be an equal to the apostles in any case. Roman identity incorporated Christian identity to an extent, but it was, at its core, a political and cultural identity defined by language, customs, citizenship, birth, and participation in the Roman Res Publica. It was not defined by or predicated on Christianity, which it predated by centuries. The Roman theory of state was republican in nature, incorporating Religion only on a surface level, and revolved around the will and welfare of the sovereign Res Publica, the political community of the Roman people defined by the previously mentioned traits. I don't really have the time to go into all the details at the moment, but if you're curious about medieval Roman political theory I would strongly recommend reading "The Byzantine Republic" by Anthony Kaldellis.

    So I partially disagree when you say religion was less important than ethnos: at times religious identity was of supreme importance, for example under the Isaurians.
    I never said that religion was less "important" than ethnos, but that the two were both extremely important in different but interacting ways. What I wouldn't say is that religion was of "supreme" importance under the Isaurians; there were many religious controversies, certainly, but these didn't define or supersede Roman identity. Two Romans, one Orthodox and one iconoclast, would still have felt that they shared far more in common with each other than with a coreligionist of a different culture (a Georgian, say).

  9. #149
    Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ's Avatar Yeah science!
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Άργος - Ἑλλάς
    Posts
    1,293

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Well Sassanid had been persecuting Christians on and off several times (with the goal seems chiefly wanting to piss off Byzantium),
    Initially all, but later on, they only persecuted the "wrong" Christians, who, on the other hand, were considered to be the "right" Christians by the ERE.
    "First get your facts straight, then distort them at your leisure." - Mark Twain

    οὐκ ἦν μὲν ἐγώ, νῦν δ' εἰμί· τότε δ' ούκ ἔσομαι, ούδέ μοι μελήσει

  10. #150

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Egyptian and Syrian Miaphysites demonstrated convincingly they did not share East Roman notions about religion indicating citizenship, but there were political elements in play as well as strictly religious points (partially agrees with my view).
    Though I imagine most people in the cities could speak and understand at least a bit of Greek, Coptic and Aramaic were still the predominate languages in Egypt and the Levant prior to the Muslim conquest. They were the languages spoken by non-Muslims in those regions for hundreds of years after the conquest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  11. #151
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    Most Romans of the medieval period spoke Greek, but that doesn't, on it's own, make them "Greek", just like the Irish aren't English just because most of them speak it. Something interesting to note about the relationship between the Romans and the Greek language in the medieval period is that, as the current language of the Roman people, the latter was actually popularly known as "Romaikos", "Roman"; referring to it as "Greek" was an elite classicism. To an extent then, even calling it a "Hellenic tongue" is something of an anachronism, perhaps comparable to calling medieval Scots "English".
    Yes I definitely used an anachronistic term, Greek is also anachronistic but for the sake of using common terminology I will use it in this case. Surely speaking Greek continuously for several thousand years is proof of underlying Greek cultural identity? By your argument I could say modern Greeks are Hellenised Ottomans. Greeks in the Roman Empire adopted Roman political identity but not Roman language: their Greekness was so overwhelming they changed the meaning of Roman.

    I actually disagree about your scots and Irish examples, I would argue Irish people have become substantial a subgroup of English cultures by dint of adopting almost universally the English tongue, political forms, economic forms etc. I know vey few Irish who would agree (those who do not see themselves as Irish would say they were British, not English) but the reality of the Irish experience to my eye is they separated politically from the UK when they became English enough to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post

    And on what basis do you claim this? No consistent historical methodology that I've seen ends up with the conclusion that the Byzantine Romans were culturally "Hellenic"; if you draw that conclusion on the basis of language and a few specific customs partially confined to the elite then you would also have to claim the Irish, Scottish, Americans, Canadians, and half the Welsh are indeed English, Mexicans and Peruvians are Castilian, the Swiss are German, Moroccans are Arabs, and Pakistanis are Hindi.
    I think you are confusing a civic identity with an ethnic one: Romans from the outset recognised their fused Sabine Latin and Etruscan roots, and were by direct contact with Capua and indirect contact through Etruria heavily Hellenised from the outset. Their political system, military system religion and elite culture al show clear evidence of waves of Hellenic and Hellenistic (in the strictest sense) influence. Roman political identity changed over time and aspects (eg Roman virtue vs Hellenic depravity) were emphasised for propaganda reasons, but it generally boiled down to Roman citizenship (under the republic and Principate) and being a subject of the Basileus (under the Eastern phase), usually defined as being a Greek speaking orthodox Christian, but including other ethnoi.




    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    To "Hellenise" isn't the same as to be "Hellenised"; the former refers to the performance of certain aspects of Greek culture in certain contexts, while the latter means to partially or wholly adopt and internalize Greek culture, generally against the backdrop of Greek imperialism. Certain sections of the medieval Roman aristocracy would "hellenise", that is, show off their learning through imitation of classical Greek forms in writing or oration, but culturally they were neither Hellenic nor themselves Hellenised.
    I don't understand this bit. Are you saying people who spoke Greek, whose ancestors never stopped speaking Greek, were pretending to be Greek externally when inside they were not Greek?

    I don't agree Greek cultural identity was erased by populations becoming Roman citizens and subjects. I think the irish have become more british or English than Roman Greeks ever became Roman from a cultural POV.



    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    Just because you say the Byzantine Romans were culturally hellenic does not make it so. Lingual continuity is not the same thing as cultural continuity, and there was very little of the latter in Romania. The Greeks and Byzantine Romans lived in completely different societies, dressed completely differently, had completely different morals, had completely different familial structures, had almost completely different customs, had completely different religions and methods of worship, had completely different worldviews, had completely different governments and ideologies, had completely different identities, both at a surface level and in structure, and wouldn't have even been able to have a conversation if they were to meet.
    Rome was subject to endless waves of Hellenic and Hellenistic cultural influence. Under the Republic and early principate this influence was combated in the propaganda sphere but under the Antonines the victory of elite Hellenic and Hellenistic thought was nearly totoal., Marcus Aurelius wrote his little book in Greek, Hadrian grew a beard. I agree this is Hellenised rather than pure Hellenic/Hellenistic but it didn't appear in a vacuum, it was adopted from exiting Greek speaking elite culture in the roman empire. The Greeks were there, I am wrong to describe the persistent culture as Hellenic but there is definitely an ongoing strand of Greek culture that comes to be almost coterminous with Roman identity. I think for some people they became identitcal.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    In fact, the Byzantine Romans didn't even have as much linguo-geographic continuity as you might think; most of Greece spoke a combination of Slavic, Albanian, and Romance languages in the 8th century, and, while lingual continuity was maintained in Thrace and the western coast of Asia minor, in that same century some 70% of the Roman population lived elsewhere, mostly further north, further inland, and in Sicily.
    Yes its a mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    Roman as a label associated with the Church instead of a People was a concept developed by the Pope, but Roman Christian/Christian Roman identity was much older than that, and continued to evolve independently the east after the former was established around the 8th century.
    I agree there's a mess of Roman identities in competition, nowhere more clear than when a Roman Emperor berates an Italian Bishop in Greek about treason.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post

    And that's the point; certain sections of both ancient Greek and Byzantine Roman society hellenised, but the former did this against a backdrop of actual Greek culture, in the more standard, inclusive sense, while the latter did so against a distinctly Roman background. Just a note: when conceptualizing this, it's important to remember that there were very few people in Byzantine Rome that actually had a Greek education. In the middle period, at any given time there might be a few dozen people, if that, who could actually lay claim to an understanding of what they considered "Greek culture"; hellenism should not be seen as an activity of the general Roman elite, even if it was restricted to them.
    I agree and the confusion in my posts derived from a lazy misapplication of the term Hellenic. I guess I react against the term Greek as somehow wrong, its a silly foible of mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    "Education" was not synonymous with "Greek" or "Classical" education; the vast majority of Roman administrators would posses the former, which included basic literacy, mathematics, history, essential knowledge, and some oration and rhetoric, but not the latter, which was concerned with extremely flowery writing, understanding of Homeric and attic Greek, classical literature, advanced oratory and rhetorical techniques, etc. This class preferred Cato, Cassius Dio, and Procopius to Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, and included the likes of Kekaumenos, Attaleiates, Leo the Deacon, and a million ghostwriters of the more utilitarian texts that have come down to us. Their writings do often have something of a classical feeling to them, but this air of antiquity is of a distinctly Roman, not Greek, variety, and stems from deeply rooted Roman values, not education; it's in the literature of the administrators that you find the most references to the Republic, the common good, the heroes of old Rome, and the good Emperors of the Principate.
    Indeed as I understand it the main theme of education in the ERE was rhetoric, which obviously Hellenes used but was developed most fully as a Roman art. Roman identity was extremely powerful: I'm always amazed that greek speakers (with a supreme self confidenc eint heir beautiful culture) would adopt a foreign political identity, but they did for Rome.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    The Emperors did claim the role of protector of the Christian people in certain contexts, but this was mostly unrelated to their primary role as sovereign representative of the Romans. The former was mostly rhetorical, used to enhance imperial prestige, but the latter was the entire raison d'etre of the office, and dictated imperial policy in practice.
    I would argue at different times the concept of the Basileus as supreme magistrate was irrelevant to the reality he faced: Isaurian emperors led fervent religious movements in life an death struggles for religious and political existence. I'd also add the notion of the Emperor resided in the breast of each subject depending on class education and religion. A Christian Turk settled in a border region, a Greek speaking Jew in a coastal city, one of the aristoi in Anatolia and a sophisticated bureacrat working in a office in the Blachernae palace would all disagree on their relative identity I am sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    You might get such an impression if you look exclusively at imperial propaganda, but functionally this couldn't be further from the truth, and very few emperors claimed to be an equal to the apostles in any case. Roman identity incorporated Christian identity to an extent, but it was, at its core, a political and cultural identity defined by language, customs, citizenship, birth, and participation in the Roman Res Publica. It was not defined by or predicated on Christianity, which it predated by centuries. The Roman theory of state was republican in nature, incorporating Religion only on a surface level, and revolved around the will and welfare of the sovereign Res Publica, the political community of the Roman people defined by the previously mentioned traits. I don't really have the time to go into all the details at the moment, but if you're curious about medieval Roman political theory I would strongly recommend reading "The Byzantine Republic" by Anthony Kaldellis.
    I agree some emperors were less sincere in their religious commitment, but it was expressed for most and I think for some it was genuine.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    I never said that religion was less "important" than ethnos, but that the two were both extremely important in different but interacting ways. What I wouldn't say is that religion was of "supreme" importance under the Isaurians; there were many religious controversies, certainly, but these didn't define or supersede Roman identity. Two Romans, one Orthodox and one iconoclast, would still have felt that they shared far more in common with each other than with a coreligionist of a different culture (a Georgian, say).
    I've probably expressed myself poorly, and I certainly agree with most of what you say. I'm just making a point about the way some East Romans constructed their identities. The complexity of the situation is hinted at by the fact almost no East roman (I use the term for convenience) would acknowledge the term East Roman at all.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  12. #152

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Surely speaking Greek continuously for several thousand years is proof of underlying Greek cultural identity?
    No, it isn't. I'm not sure what you mean by "underlying Greek cultural identity" here; before the late period the Byzantines didn't have any sort of Greek identity, underlying or not. They viewed both their current situation and their history from a distinctly Roman perspective, even celebrating events like the Roman conquest of Greece. An entry in the Suda, for example, states:

    "Then the dynasty of the Macedonians conquered the land of the Persians. After the death of Alexander it began to decline and in the time of the successors of Alexander, it was weakened in itself, being conquered by the Romans. For the Greek forces were not worthy to be compared with them."

    When discussing their own culture, the Byzantine Romans readily railed against any hints of Greek paganism remaining among the peasantry, but specifically Roman traditions, even those rooted in Paganism, were allowed to stay, and were even fought for by the emperors. Brumalia, for example, a highly regarded festival that had unique secular poems composed for it every year, was temporarily ceased by Romanos I, but was reinstated by Constantine VII, who criticized the emperor for (paraphrasing here since I don't have my copy of De Ceremoniis on hand) "disrespecting the most ancient Roman traditions"; no hint of "Greek cultural identity" here.

    By your argument I could say modern Greeks are Hellenised Ottomans.
    I have to admit I don't know much about Ottoman history, but from what I've seen Ottoman identity was very, very different from Roman identity in the late and Byzantine empire. To be an "Ottoman" was an exclusively political identity, perhaps with a few specific customs attached to it, but "Roman" identity, while it did have a political element, was also a cultural, civilizational, and even ethnic identity. An "Ottoman", by definition, had to also be a Turk, Greek, Arab, etc., but to be truly "Roman" was all encompassing; individual lingual identifications were afterthoughts only used when necessary.

    This would be practically impossible due to the origin of the term, but if being an Ottoman entailed not only an identification with a political order but the adoption and internalization of a huge range of specific customs and societal norms, a huge range of stylistic and architectural forms, a complex and unique worldview and ideology, and a strong cultural, ethnic, and political identity, all to the exclusion of those of your forefathers, then I would say that yes, if an entire people did this for centuries then they would be "Ottomans", as opposed to whatever they were before. Language always offers a potential link back to those ancestors, and so lingual identity can always be fallen back on if the need arises, but this does not invalidate the fact that, in this thought experiment, they would have, at one point, been Ottomans, in the full sense that the word once carried.

    Greeks in the Roman Empire adopted Roman political identity but not Roman language: their Greekness was so overwhelming they changed the meaning of Roman.
    Greek-speakers in the Roman empire adopted far more than just a Roman political identity; they identified themselves fully with Roman culture, Roman civilization, Roman historical perspective, and other Romans, both historical and contemporary, and of both languages; hell they even identified themselves with Latium, calling themselves "Ausones" in oration and in literature. The meaning of Roman didn't change so much as they changed themselves enough to fit within it; Latin had traditionally been the primary language of the Romans, certainly, but the relationship between the Greek language and Rome had been murky for far longer than you might think; Claudius himself called it one of "our languages". He doubtlessly didn't speak for every Roman, but that native speakers of the Greek language could be true Romans really wasn't that shocking of an idea.

    In the stammering emperor's time most weren't, but this would steadily change under the unparalleled homogenizing influence of Rome; by Cassius Dio's day there no longer existed something that could be called the "Greek nation", no group of people that shared a culture and defined themselves against foreigners, most having bought into Rome and adopted its ideals, and by the reign of Theodosius "Greek" was a label restricted to pagans, often regardless of their language. By the time we can actually talk of a "Byzantine" empire, then, the Greek speaking populations of the Roman world had long since taken the option available to them for centuries; they had become Roman. In the process of doing so they had given up their old culture, their old traditions, their old identity, and their old worldview, but they had taken a proud position beside Claudius as he talked of "our" languages, "our" customs, "our" Republic, and "our" greatness.

    Byzantine "Greekness" was not so overwhelming that they changed the meaning of Roman, Byzantine Romanitas was so overwhelming they came to define it, not from outside but from within.

    I actually disagree about your scots and Irish examples, I would argue Irish people have become substantial a subgroup of English cultures by dint of adopting almost universally the English tongue, political forms, economic forms etc. I know vey few Irish who would agree (those who do not see themselves as Irish would say they were British, not English) but the reality of the Irish experience to my eye is they separated politically from the UK when they became English enough to do so.
    That's an interesting perspective, would you mind explaining the methodology behind it? If the Irish in general are culturally English, what about the native speakers of Gaelic? If language always trumps identity, historical perspective, and traditions, would you say Nigerians, for example, are culturally English? If there was a near-perfect universal translator, which there very well might be within the next few decades, would the world share a single culture?

    I don't have the time at the moment to restate it all, so here's my perspective on the matter from a post I made elsewhere:

    For my part, I have a relativistic conception of culture, where that's applicable; that is, I believe it's an abstraction, and a fairly arbitrary one at that, which only really exists as people define it. From a purely objective perspective, it boils down to a list of inconsistent trends, beliefs, and behaviors in certain people at certain times. These data points are only given tangible meaning when people, be those participants or anthropologists looking at bowls, preferably the former, group them together under a common name, and this base vagueity is what we call "a culture". There are trends in how cultures were and are grouped, but these standards are only as absolute as the opinions of the people creating them; perception is culture.

    I believe that these standards are the closest we can get to "objective" when it comes to determining culture, and by them the "Byzantines" most certainly were culturally Roman, if we let the Romans do the sorting at least, hence my perspective so far, but I'm interested in seeing your opinion on the matter.

    I think you are confusing a civic identity with an ethnic one
    I've already explained this, but Roman identity wasn't exclusively civic in Late antiquity and the medieval period; though it did have a civic element, it was also cultural, civilizational, and yes, even ethnic. Medieval Roman identity was infinitely closer to, say, modern Armenian identity than something like Ottoman identity.

    Roman political identity changed over time and aspects (eg Roman virtue vs Hellenic depravity) were emphasised for propaganda reasons, but it generally boiled down to Roman citizenship (under the republic and Principate) and being a subject of the Basileus (under the Eastern phase), usually defined as being a Greek speaking orthodox Christian, but including other ethnoi.
    Late Antique/Medieval Roman identity wasn't defined by being a subject of the Emperor, the role of the Emperor was defined by the Romans, who themselves were defined by language, customs, citizenship, birth, and participation in the Res Publica. There was only one Roman ethnos/genos, "ethnikos" literally meaning foreigner, and if someone didn't fit into the definition outlined above then they weren't Roman, regardless of who they served. Byzantine Rome was a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural nation-state defined by its role as representative of the Roman people; the "multi-ethnic" angle pushed by Treadgold is long discredited and flies in the face of all primary sources.

    I don't understand this bit. Are you saying people who spoke Greek, whose ancestors never stopped speaking Greek, were pretending to be Greek externally when inside they were not Greek?
    Greek-speaking Romans assumed a persona of what they considered Classical Greek sophistication, yes; many Latin Romans in antiquity did the same. "Hellenism", it should be pointed out, is not a modern descriptive; the Byzantines defined it in essentially the same way I've done so far, as a performance of the haughty style of the ancient Greeks, and in fact defined it against Romanitas, both their own and of the masses. Anna Komnenos, for example, boasts of her "perfect Hellenism", that is, her ability to write in a pure, flowery style and draw on classical texts; she could boast of this because such exposure to Greek culture was the preserve of a tiny elite, far out of the reach of what she considered the vulgar Roman mob. That isn't to say that Anna didn't consider herself as Roman as any of them, but she was proud of her rare ability to channel the culture of Hellas.

    Rome was subject to endless waves of Hellenic and Hellenistic cultural influence. Under the Republic and early principate this influence was combated in the propaganda sphere but under the Antonines the victory of elite Hellenic and Hellenistic thought was nearly totoal., Marcus Aurelius wrote his little book in Greek, Hadrian grew a beard. I agree this is Hellenised rather than pure Hellenic/Hellenistic but it didn't appear in a vacuum, it was adopted from exiting Greek speaking elite culture in the roman empire. The Greeks were there, I am wrong to describe the persistent culture as Hellenic but there is definitely an ongoing strand of Greek culture that comes to be almost coterminous with Roman identity. I think for some people they became identitcal.
    The Greeks were still there in the age of the Antonines, but they were already well on their way to Romanizing, a process their culture and identity wouldn't survive. The Romans had likewise been hellenizing for quite some time as well, but these influences would be incorporated into Roman culture instead of subsuming it, and it was this culture that would come to encompass the entire Roman world. People go on about Greece subduing Rome culturally, but the toga, Brumalia, and republic of Rome survived antiquity, while the himation, Delphine Oracle, and cities of Greece didn't.

    I would argue at different times the concept of the Basileus as supreme magistrate was irrelevant to the reality he faced: Isaurian emperors led fervent religious movements in life an death struggles for religious and political existence.
    The iconoclast controversy was obviously important, but it wasn't quite as consequential as you're making it out to be. The Isaurian emperors fought life and death struggles against the Arabs and Roman rebels, not iconophile monks. In their own reigns they presented themselves as victorious emperors and defenders of the Romans, not religious leaders, though they did make sure to emphasize their piety. The role of the emperor as sovereign representative of the Romans was always relevant, because if they didn't fulfill it they would inevitably be deposed, as Irene was in 802, ending the Isaurian dynasty.

    I'd also add the notion of the Emperor resided in the breast of each subject depending on class education and religion. A Christian Turk settled in a border region, a Greek speaking Jew in a coastal city, one of the aristoi in Anatolia and a sophisticated bureacrat working in a office in the Blachernae palace would all disagree on their relative identity I am sure.
    Oh, certainly, but one of the defining features of the middle period specifically is actually just how homogeneous the empire became. 90+ percent of the empire's population were Greek-speaking Orthodox Romans who identified strongly with Romania and its interests, even if they didn't always like the current emperor. This was true of a free farmer in Apulia, a craftsman in Athens, a Bureaucrat in Constantinople, a shipbuilder in Trebizond, and an aristocrat in Cappadocia. All of these (or similar) actually did become emperor at one point, and when they did so they did nothing but work for the benefit of the Roman people, sharing an extremely consistent view of the office and its purpose, which was to do just that.

    I agree some emperors were less sincere in their religious commitment, but it was expressed for most and I think for some it was genuine.
    Again, certainly; what I meant when I said that religion only had a surface-level role in Roman political theory wasn't that the Romans weren't pious, but that religion simply didn't play an active role in their conception of imperial politics (minus the emperors' interaction with the religious establishment proper, of course). You'll hear about how the Byzantine Romans thought their emperor was "holy" and "god's vice regent on earth", and this is true to an extent, but these were post-ex-facto designations. The imperial office itself had a divine mandate of sorts, when it suited Roman interests, but the emperors never tried to justify their conduct through it, and none of this stopped the Romans from regularly demanding concessions from the emperor or just outright deposing him if they didn't support his policies.

  13. #153
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China

    Really interesting stuff, can't rep enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeanDukeofAlecon View Post
    ...
    That's an interesting perspective, would you mind explaining the methodology behind it? If the Irish in general are culturally English, what about the native speakers of Gaelic? If language always trumps identity, historical perspective, and traditions, would you say Nigerians, for example, are culturally English? If there was a near-perfect universal translator, which there very well might be within the next few decades, would the world share a single culture?...
    Sort of yes to all. I studied 19th century Irish history formally and one theme that struck me was the failure to traditional Irish political, cultural, and religious forms in establish political autonomy. The 20th century narrative is "some grubby chaps with pistols overthrew British rule" which is patently false, but it serves Finn Gael's and other parties versions of events so it pretty much stands. Where I saw the most effective moves to autonomy was the adoption and hijacking of broader British institutions. Ireland developed its own "Gaelic cultural movement" which was essentially a re-writing of a culture that was becoming extinct.

    The Irish speakers of Gaelic were completely marginalised, and practically "nativised": at the same time as they were lauded as truly Irish and an ideal they were not given prominence or power which remained in the hands of English speaking Irish politicians in London.

    When the majority stops speaking Irish in the home, when they vote in the same manner as the rest of the British do, when they participate in the British parliament, serve loyally like other Britons etc etc then you've become British. The dominant group in Britain was the English, and by becoming more like the English I think the Irish achieved some measure of independence.

    I've expressed it roughly here, and its only partly formed idea, and one not popular at all in Irish studies. Its founded on a notion you can hold multiple identities, even conflicting ones. In the fairly polarised field of Irish politics you can see why it wouldn't go down well.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Posting Permissions

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