Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 1st, 2016, 06:15 PM   #31

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Blachernai
Posts: 4,235
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
Thank you for white washing the persecution of Jews, which were ordered to be executed by Heraclius.
*converted.

Note that the forcible conversions of Jews in Byzantium seems to have some ties to dynastic renovatio, with Herakleios, Leo III, and Basil I all attempting it. In the sixth century Jews lost many of the Roman legal protections that they had enjoyed, but one still gets the impression that minority life in Byzantium was more stable than in the west in certain times and places.
Kirialax is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 2nd, 2016, 12:21 PM   #32

Aleeacerix the Gaul's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirialax View Post
This whole monophysite persecution thesis is wildly overblown and not accepted by contemporary scholars. The situation in the Aramaic world is much, much more complicated. See, for example, Tannous, Jack. “In Search of Monotheletism.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68 (2014): 29–67.
I do hope that the poorly concluded theory of religious persecution in the Byzantine Empire will be replaced by a more objective theory of the politics back then. It's inaccurate to say that the Romans had a racially based concept towards minorities. Assuming that the ancients had modern ideological concepts(racial based discrimination and bias) is absolutely false. The ancients distinguish other ethnic groups based on cultural differences.

(Not directed at quoted user)Also this thread is about the military and political career of Herakios, not about his persecution against minorities. I do not want to see an "I'm right, you're wrong" contest. You think you're right, but your opponent does also. All the accusations don't matter at all, only the facts. Reality doesn't care about your perceptions.

One sided views are indeed the flaws that come from the restricted and tribalistic upbringings of one's environment. Good history is interpreted through the eyes of an non-tribalistic mindset that removes itself from any associations with groups that participate in the "scoring points" and "I win" mentality. Such discussion about persecution ends up with a load of deflecting and whataboutism arguments that tend to be boring, uninteresting and repetitive. That's why I tend to avoid certain historical studies due to partisan politics and tribalism.
Aleeacerix the Gaul is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 12:27 PM   #33
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleeacerix the Gaul View Post
One sided views are indeed the flaws that come from the restricted and tribalistic upbringings of one's environment. Good history is interpreted through the eyes of an non-tribalistic mindset that removes itself from any associations with groups that participate in the "scoring points" and "I win" mentality. Such discussion about persecution ends up with a load of deflecting and whataboutism arguments that tend to be boring, uninteresting and repetitive. That's why I tend to avoid certain historical studies due to partisan politics and tribalism.
What do tribes have to do with this? A tribe is a people which traces its origin to a common, often mythological ancestor.
Swagganaut is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 12:38 PM   #34

Aleeacerix the Gaul's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
What do tribes have to do with this? A tribe is a people which traces its origin to a common, often mythological ancestor.
I'm not referring to actual tribes based on common ancestral ties. Tribalism is group mentality thinking. Basically putting oneself into a category or group thinking in a one sided manner with heavy bias and favoring one group over another.

How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More Dangerous | Big Think

tribalism Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Aleeacerix the Gaul is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 12:44 PM   #35
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,104

I see, never heard of that definition before. It's just that I am often confronted with the abuse of "tribe" for supposingly primitive people, like for example African ones, as well as "tribal " as a direct synonym for primitive.
Swagganaut is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 12:56 PM   #36

Aleeacerix the Gaul's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
I see, never heard of that definition before. It's just that I am often confronted with the abuse of "tribe" for supposingly primitive people, like for example African ones, as well as "tribal " as a direct synonym for primitive.
I look at social media comments everyday and 90% of the comments are projected through a group mentality thinking. A lot of the posters highlight their team or side with basically aligning themselves with a certain group bias(cultural, political, etc.) and engage in the monstrously stupid deflecting tactics and absolutely repetitive ad naseum of whataboutism(even in Historum it somewhat prevalent). It demonstrates that people who usually are into debates online or debates in general are dishonestly one sided. The more humble and intelligent people I met in real life have one thing in common: they have no interest in politics or debates. Anyways, reading these tribalistic one sided posts online is good medicine when you feel "stupid"("At least I'm not a brick wall unlike these people online").

Anyways, what do you think about Heraclius? I consider him the best when it comes to saving an empire in a state of decay and vulnerability. I don't think any other historical figure could of extended the lifespan a empire like the Roman Empire in 600AD like Heraclius. Other would of failed and result in the extinction of said empire.
Aleeacerix the Gaul is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 01:26 PM   #37
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleeacerix the Gaul View Post
The more humble and intelligent people I met in real life have one thing in common: they have no interest in politics or debates. Anyways, reading these tribalistic one sided posts online is good medicine when you feel "stupid"("At least I'm not a brick wall unlike these people online").
If you feel yourself stupid and you need a good laugh I would just advise to browse through Youtube comments, especially those ones under videos about the movie "300".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleeacerix the Gaul View Post
Anyways, what do you think about Heraclius? I consider him the best when it comes to saving an empire in a state of decay and vulnerability. I don't think any other historical figure could of extended the lifespan a empire like the Roman Empire in 600AD like Heraclius. Other would of failed and result in the extinction of said empire.
I am not the biggest expert in Byzantine history, but from what I have seen by browsing through one of my books it seems that he truely saved the ass of the Empire. In the second decade of the seventh century it was sandwiched between the Sassies and Avars and their Slavic subdues, who basically controlled the whole Balkan. Even the Romans themselves realized that they were in a pretty shitty situation, which for example can be seen by coins with the inscription "God help the Romans".
The state of things could only be changed by luck (The fail of the siege of Constantinople in 626), the alliance with the Göktürks and unconventionell warfare (Avoiding open field battles until the terms were ideal). Especially the two later things must be ascribed to Heraclius.
Concerning the period of the Arabic invasions I am not so sure. The thing is that under his reign, several battles and provinces were lost, but to what degree was this Heraclius fault?

I also think that his attempts to Hellenize the kingdom were quite clever, though I don't know how indepth they were except of the acceptance of the Greek title "Basileus".
Swagganaut is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 04:40 PM   #38

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Blachernai
Posts: 4,235
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
I also think that his attempts to Hellenize the kingdom were quite clever, though I don't know how indepth they were except of the acceptance of the Greek title "Basileus".
I just don't see any hellenizing, whatever that might mean in the seventh-century context. What basileus means at this time is debated, but that debate is about the imperial college or the imagery of Old Testament kingship used by the regime.
Kirialax is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 06:25 PM   #39
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: there
Posts: 218

Quote:
Assuming that the ancients had modern ideological concepts(racial based discrimination and bias) is absolutely false. The ancients distinguish other ethnic groups based on cultural differences.
According to this excerpt, reportedly taken from Herodotus, the ancients may have looked at other groups based on racial differences.

"What I'm going to tell you now comes from a certain citizen of Cyrene...Etearchus told the following tale...Everyone in this town was as short as the men who led them there, and their skins were black."
Obey Bayezid is offline  
Old November 2nd, 2016, 06:53 PM   #40

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 2,735

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obey Bayezid View Post
According to this excerpt, reportedly taken from Herodotus, the ancients may have looked at other groups based on racial differences.

"What I'm going to tell you now comes from a certain citizen of Cyrene...Etearchus told the following tale...Everyone in this town was as short as the men who led them there, and their skins were black."
Of course ancient peoples were aware of race and likely had a few prejudices but nothing like the very specific racial stereotypes of modern era. Culture and birthplace mattered far more with any people far from center of civilisation seen as the lowest form of people.

Shades of skin tone were mostly seen as a continuum not a dark/light divide.
Ichon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
heraclius, overrated



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Emperor Heraclius and his legacy Thessalonian Medieval and Byzantine History 16 September 22nd, 2011 05:51 AM
Egypt: under or over rated? Satuf Ancient History 120 August 28th, 2011 10:13 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.