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 December 9th, 2017, 01:43 AM   #41

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,722

Quote:
Your argument does not take into consideration the different character in the Western part of the empire which was primarily Roman due to its superiority to the other peoples involved in that area, as compared to that of the Eastern part being primarily due to its preponderance Greek.
Trying to compare 100 AD to 700 AD or even to 1,100 AD, because in all those times Greek was the primary language and therefore nothing really had changed, fails to take into consideration the earth shaking events that had taken place in the meantime, like the fall of the western part of the Roman empire at the beginning, the different culture always in existence in the east, or even the religious practices in it later on, culminating eventually with the schism.
Therefore the comparison on this basis is not really sustainable!
Well, why is the West Roman, but the East is not. Greece never really tried to kick the Romans out, after the initial struggle for control, it remained a loyal province for centuries, and the Romans themselves were Hellenized to a degree, their gods were copies of the Greek gods, Greek culture was hailed and respected, Rome never imposed Latin on the East. Different culture existed in the East far before the medieval period, and Greek culture was dominant in the East even during the "true" Roman period. Besides, most Greeks were Roman citizens, Caracalla's Edict made that clear. Plus, Greek was used for administrative purposes for quite some time, especially in communication with imperial subjects in the East. Check out: Fergus Miller's A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II, chapter III: Integration and diversity, part 1: Latin in government.



Quote:
Of course not!
Neither was the Byzantine empire the same as the Roman empire at the time of August or before that, due to its different culture, language or religion as it vs to its Latin character in the West.
But is the 1861 USA a different country than 2017 USA? They don't consider themselves as such, so we don't invent a new name to describe it. You place a lot of emphasis on language, the fact Byzantines spoke Greek doesn't make them Greek, their culture isn't really that similar to the old Greek culture.


Quote:
The Byzantines always knew their original background; even though at times they might had called themselves as Romioi for prestigious reasons, as other people also wrongly tried to do in later years like the Germans, Russians, Turks etc.
Paganism really existed mostly at the time when the so called ERE had still the upper hand; besides being Christian or Pagan did not exclude you also from being Greek.
Yes, they knew their background: they always considered themselves Romans, not Greeks. No Byzantine would consider himself a Greek, nor would he take pride in ancient Greece, pagan Greece. You can be a Greek if you are a Christian or a pagan, sure, but you claimed that the Byzantines were not Romans and specifically stated a new religion as one of the reasons. Well, that new religion was much more Roman than it was Greek. I have already mentioned that Greece was one of the strongholds of old religion, so I won't repeat that anymore.


Quote:
If a state keeps some elements or institutions of a previous one it does not necessarily makes it the same as the previous original one.
A case in point is the USA; a lot of countries around the world imitate or use institutions or elements invented by the US, it does not make them though USA!
On what basis one can assume because Christianity was an element in the Byzantine empire, that makes them also Romans?
What about the Iberians and the Gauls and the Germans and the Britons who adopted Christianity........, were also Romans?
BTW paganism was persecuted by the Christians in order to eliminate it, it had nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of the Byzantines not to be considered being Greeks.
Byzantine Empire was not influenced by Romans, it is literally the Roman Empire. They didn't need to imitate anything. The state never ceased to exist, only its western half, and that division shouldn't be seen as a division of two sovereign countries, it was still one empire, just ruled by two emperors on two sides. And when the West fell, the East remained. The Gauls, the Britons and the Germanic tribes cannot say the same. They created new states, some of them nominally vassal to the East like the Ostrogoths, but none of them could trace back their list of rulers to Augustus, Byzantium could.
Maki is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 9th, 2017, 08:05 AM   #42

Flavius Aetius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2017
From: South Carolina
Posts: 399

Quote:
It is out of this Hellenistic period as the basis from the ancient Greek civilization that the Byzantine empire was created!
I'm appalled that you would even mention such a preposterous thing that the Greek Identity did not exist before the 1800's!!!
Because Hellenism and "Greekness" became associated with Paganism due to the rise of Christianity in the 4th-7th centuries.

By the way there are remote islands in the Aegean and villages in the mountains of Greece where the nationalist movement didn't reach and the people there still call themselves "Rhomioi" or the like. Not to mention that when British Officers arrived to help the Greeks in their independence movement in the 1820's they all recorded how horrified they were to hear the commoners calling themselves Romans...

Quote:
Your argument does not take into consideration the different character in the Western part of the empire which was primarily Roman due to its superiority to the other peoples involved in that area, as compared to that of the Eastern part being primarily due to its preponderance Greek.
By the 4th century AD the East called itself Roman, not Greek. Greek was a language, which by the way was called Romeika, which is one of a dozen Greek words for Roman.

Quote:
Neither was the Byzantine empire the same as the Roman empire at the time of August or before that, due to its different culture, language or religion as it vs to its Latin character in the West.
First of all its religion was the same as the West. The Catholic Church doesn't even begin to separate from the Roman Church until 691.

The Culture was also the same. I can compare mosaics from Syria from the 4th-7th centuries to ones from Mauretania and Spain in the 4th-5th centuries and both are identifiably Roman, with regional variation. Dress was also the same - hell the formalization of court dress practices and the development of Roman court ritual is one of the strongest arguments for direct continuity.

Quote:
even though at times they might had called themselves as Romioi for prestigious reasons
They literally always called themselves Rhomoisi, Rhomioi, Rhomaioi, etc. etc. etc.

The only times they use the term Hellene is when they're talking about Pagans, comparing people to Pagans, or the old Pagan academies of Athens and Corinth.

The term Hellene had totally changed to mean Pagan.
Flavius Aetius is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 11:33 AM   #43
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: USA
Posts: 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Well, why is the West Roman, but the East is not. Greece never really tried to kick the Romans out, after the initial struggle for control, it remained a loyal province for centuries, and the Romans themselves were Hellenized to a degree, their gods were copies of the Greek gods, Greek culture was hailed and respected, Rome never imposed Latin on the East. Different culture existed in the East far before the medieval period, and Greek culture was dominant in the East even during the "true" Roman period. Besides, most Greeks were Roman citizens, Caracalla's Edict made that clear. Plus, Greek was used for administrative purposes for quite some time, especially in communication with imperial subjects in the East. Check out: Fergus Miller's A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II, chapter III: Integration and diversity, part 1: Latin in government.
Greece never tried to kick the Romans out because simply they couldn't after the initial struggle for control when Rome was still a republic; but that in itself does not imply or make them Romans!

I have mentioned before what was the implication of making the subjects of the Roman empire Roman citizens; it had to do more with their recognition of their civil rights, rather than changing all of a sudden out of the blue sky their true ethnicity.
A Briton, or a Gaul, a Syrian, or an Egyptian, or a North African did not suddenly felt that they were the descendants of August or Julius Caesar in the same fashion as a true genuine Roman from Rome!

Latin was used at the beginning of the Byzantine empire when the ruling class was still of Latin extraction and eventually changed as an anachronism since it didn't correspond to the actual demands of the general population which was of Hellenized extraction!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
But is the 1861 USA a different country than 2017 USA? They don't consider themselves as such, so we don't invent a new name to describe it. You place a lot of emphasis on language, the fact Byzantines spoke Greek doesn't make them Greek, their culture isn't really that similar to the old Greek culture.
Did the Romans who learned Greek become actually Greek? of course not!
Language is probably the most important ingredient in defining ethnicity besides culture and religion.
Why is it then that that the basic culture of the Byzantine empire besides language and religion were transplanted in modern day Greece and nowhere else for that matter?
Would the Romans who spoke Latin could be considered Greek because of all the Hellenic influence involved in the Roman empire in their culture, their religion, and civilization? of course not!
Cicero the greatest orator of ancient times said:
"We conquered the Greeks in the war, but the Greeks conquered us in civilization".
He must have known something more than we do now, not to call the Greeks Romans or the Romans Greeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Yes, they knew their background: they always considered themselves Romans, not Greeks. No Byzantine would consider himself a Greek, nor would he take pride in ancient Greece, pagan Greece. You can be a Greek if you are a Christian or a pagan, sure, but you claimed that the Byzantines were not Romans and specifically stated a new religion as one of the reasons. Well, that new religion was much more Roman than it was Greek. I have already mentioned that Greece was one of the strongholds of old religion, so I won't repeat that anymore.
It's absolutely wrong to say that the Greeks considered themselves Roman.
You give a lot of emphasis on the minority pagan issue, which was after all an issue only at the beginning of the Byzantine empire, mostly during the 4th and 5th century when the empire was in a transition state of becoming one with its Greek character; you ignore however the overwhelming predominance of Christianity and its character within the empire in most of all the succeeding centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Byzantine Empire was not influenced by Romans, it is literally the Roman Empire. They didn't need to imitate anything. The state never ceased to exist, only its western half, and that division shouldn't be seen as a division of two sovereign countries, it was still one empire, just ruled by two emperors on two sides. And when the West fell, the East remained. The Gauls, the Britons and the Germanic tribes cannot say the same. They created new states, some of them nominally vassal to the East like the Ostrogoths, but none of them could trace back their list of rulers to Augustus, Byzantium could.
It is absolutely wrong to try to equate the Byzantine empire under any circumstance with the ancient regime of the Roman empire, and say it's one and the same.

If that was the case, they would have still spoken Latin instead of Greek;
their culture wouldn't have been so much distinctly different from the old Roman regime;
neither their religion would have become also distinctly different from its Latin counterpart as it developed in later years.

If the Byzantines really thought that they were actual Romans they would have ADHERED unquestionably to the choices made by Rome in later years, but that wasn't the case because deep down they knew they were the product of the Hellenic background, as that was differentiated from its Latin counterpart.

You fail to take into consideration the transformation that was taking place from being a continuation of the old Roman empire originally........, to that of becoming eventually the Greek empire of the middle ages, realizing its Hellenized background.
Apollon is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 11:57 AM   #44

JeanDukeofAlecon's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 879

@SufiMystic

A map of the Kingdom of Pergamon at its height with better colours:

Click the image to open in full size.

The empire of Nicaea at its lowest point, before immediately starting to push the crusaders back in the north:

Click the image to open in full size.

The empire of Nicaea at its height (which had actually controlled Nicomedia and its environs for many decades at this point, so just imagine that area as purple. Otherwise the map is correct.):

Click the image to open in full size.

Perhaps Pergamon was slightly larger at its height geographically than the Nicaean empire at its lowest ebb, but the latter doubtless controlled a significantly higher percentage of Anatolia's population even then.
JeanDukeofAlecon is online now  
Old December 9th, 2017, 12:26 PM   #45
DPP
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Scotland
Posts: 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by MughalMuse View Post
Did they not consider themselves Roman in their literature?
I guess it would be incorrect to refer to them as Byzantine as the inhabitants did see themselves as Romans and this was a continuation of the Roman Empire in the East.

But it seems in modern times, it appears conventional to refer to the entity as the Byzantine Empire and the inhabitants as Byzantine or Greek. The benefit of this is, whilst it might be historically inaccurate, at least people would know you were referring to the section of the Roman Empire that continued in the east.

It can get a bit challenging when studying medieval history when you come across different actors that considered themselves 'Roman' - the Byzantines, the Germans in the form of the Holy Roman Empire or the Catholic Church which was based in city of Rome. So having an alternative name for the Roman Empire in the East or the Holy Roman Empire can help avoid confusion.
DPP is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 12:45 PM   #46

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,722

Quote:
Greece never tried to kick the Romans out because simply they couldn't after the initial struggle for control when Rome was still a republic; but that in itself does not imply or make them Romans!
Many other provinces still rebelled. Greece was simply pretty much content with being in the Roman Empire, especially since the Romans respected their tradition and culture.

Quote:
I have mentioned before what was the implication of making the subjects of the Roman empire Roman citizens; it had to do more with their recognition of their civil rights, rather than changing all of a sudden out of the blue sky their true ethnicity.
A Briton, or a Gaul, a Syrian, or an Egyptian, or a North African did not suddenly felt that they were the descendants of August or Julius Caesar in the same fashion as a true genuine Roman from Rome!
Except that there was no real nationalism in the modern sense of the word back then, and most of the people you mentioned actually accepted significant parts of Roman culture, so much so that today we call them Gallo-Romans and Romano-British. The Greeks simply took it a few steps further and adopted the Roman identity completely. Rome protected Greece for centuries and Romans proved to be benevolent rulers to the Greeks. And the Roman identity really prevailed when Christianity came into play and the word Greek started meaning Pagan.

Quote:
Latin was used at the beginning of the Byzantine empire when the ruling class was still of Latin extraction and eventually changed as an anachronism since it didn't correspond to the actual demands of the general population which was of Hellenized extraction!
That's what I said. Most of the people in the East spoke Greek, that's true. But that still doesn't mean any of them thought of themselves as Greeks.



Quote:
Did the Romans who learned Greek become actually Greek? of course not!
Language is probably the most important ingredient in defining ethnicity besides culture and religion.
So, Australians are British? Same language, similar culture, Anglicanism does have a following in Australia.


Quote:
Why is it then that that the basic culture of the Byzantine empire besides language and religion were transplanted in modern day Greece and nowhere else for that matter?
Culture of the Byzantine Empire doesn't exist only in Greece, it existed in most Eastern European countries,

Quote:
Would the Romans who spoke Latin could be considered Greek because of all the Hellenic influence involved in the Roman empire in their culture, their religion, and civilization? of course not!
Cicero the greatest orator of ancient times said:
"We conquered the Greeks in the war, but the Greeks conquered us in civilization".
He must have known something more than we do now, not to call the Greeks Romans or the Romans Greeks.
While it's true that Greeks influenced Romans, the Romans also influenced Greeks. They introduced a new religion to them: Christianity. Plus many Greek cities in Asia Minor adopted Roman elements as well, city of Tymandus petitioned the emperor to allow them to elect aediles and quaestors. Ephesians were encouraged to see their own city council as a mirror of the Roman Senate and there were cultic statues representing the Senate. Greek cities in Asia Minor were influenced greatly by Roman political life and sought to imitate it on a smaller scale.


Quote:
It's absolutely wrong to say that the Greeks considered themselves Roman.
You give a lot of emphasis on the minority pagan issue, which was after all an issue only at the beginning of the Byzantine empire, mostly during the 4th and 5th century when the empire was in a transition state of becoming one with its Greek character; you ignore however the overwhelming predominance of Christianity and its character within the empire in most of all the succeeding centuries.
Then why did the Byzantines absolutely hated when the Westerners called them Greeks? Why did they consider that an attack on their state? Check out Liutprand's report. He mentions the absolute horror of the Byzantines when the Pope sent a letter calling Nicephorus II a Greek emperor. Nicephorus II considered it a personal insult that he was called that.


Quote:
It is absolutely wrong to try to equate the Byzantine empire under any circumstance with the ancient regime of the Roman empire, and say it's one and the same.

If that was the case, they would have still spoken Latin instead of Greek;
their culture wouldn't have been so much distinctly different from the old Roman regime;
neither their religion would have become also distinctly different from its Latin counterpart as it developed in later years.
Rome under the Early Republic was completely different from Diocletian's Rome. Are they both not a different versions of the Roman state? How was the Byzantine culture so different from the Roman one? They had a Roman religion, Roman customs (they had a Senate, their law was based on Roman law etc). How was their culture similar to old Greece?

Quote:
If the Byzantines really thought that they were actual Romans they would have ADHERED unquestionably to the choices made by Rome in later years, but that wasn't the case because deep down they knew they were the product of the Hellenic background, as that was differentiated from its Latin counterpart.
You know that states can change. It says you are from the US. Are you not an American because you don't adhere unquestionably to the choices of the Founding Fathers? Have you seen any African slaves recently?

Quote:
You fail to take into consideration the transformation that was taking place from being a continuation of the old Roman empire originally........, to that of becoming eventually the Greek empire of the middle ages, realizing its Hellenized background.
The Byzantines only really started the revival of the Hellenic identity in the 11th century, and even then it didn't become prominent until later. By the end, many Byzantines did consider themselves Greek, but not before.
Maki is online now  
Old December 9th, 2017, 04:31 PM   #47
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: USA
Posts: 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Many other provinces still rebelled. Greece was simply pretty much content with being in the Roman Empire, especially since the Romans respected their tradition and culture.
Apparently you are talking of the time when the Romans were trying to take over mainland Greece before Rome became an empire with emperors and it was still presumably a republic.
Greeks hated the fact that the Romans were interfering in their political affairs wether they were in the Achaean League or the Aetolian League, never mind the Macedonian Kingdom which wanted nothing to do with them and they fought them repeatedly, but certainly they respected each other's traditions and cultures but only just up to that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Except that there was no real nationalism in the modern sense of the word back then, and most of the people you mentioned actually accepted significant parts of Roman culture, so much so that today we call them Gallo-Romans and Romano-British. The Greeks simply took it a few steps further and adopted the Roman identity completely. Rome protected Greece for centuries and Romans proved to be benevolent rulers to the Greeks. And the Roman identity really prevailed when Christianity came into play and the word Greek started meaning Pagan.
Nationalism in the modern sense may not have existed back then, but ethnicity however was very much alive, apparent, and prominent.
The Greeks never accepted for themselves the Roman identity under any circumstances, and neither was Christianity spread to Greece from Rome, it had come to Greece through Saint Paul, read his epistles and his teachings for Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Ephesus, Corinth etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
That's what I said. Most of the people in the East spoke Greek, that's true. But that still doesn't mean any of them thought of themselves as Greeks.
Are you saying that the Greeks spoke their own language but thought themselves as being genuine Roman?
Their religion was Greek Orthodox, differing from Roman Catholicism but still thinking of themselves as Roman?
Their culture distinctly Greek differing substantially from Latin, but still thinking of themselves as actual Romans?
Assuming a name for tradition's reasons or prestigious purposes does not make you also automatically so!
Other people had also tried the same thing and not only failed, but it became eventually a joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
So, Australians are British? Same language, similar culture, Anglicanism does have a following in Australia.
If that's the case and Australians didn't become British with the same language and similar culture,, how would the Byzantines be thought as Romans with a different language and culture and also a differentiated religion.

Your analogy has to do with a completely different comparison, same as that with the US, and under different circumstances and situations; you cannot draw compared parallelism between the two in order to reach an intelligent conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Culture of the Byzantine Empire doesn't exist only in Greece, it existed in most Eastern European countries,
True!
Not only in culture but in religion too, but not as far as the language is concerned!

Same thing with the Romans; a lot of other people imitated the Roman culture and also their religion, but their language Latin is only closest more than any other language to modern Italian, and Italians are actually the ones that can claim actual descendantcy to the ancient Romans, even though there has been intermixture in the meantime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
While it's true that Greeks influenced Romans, the Romans also influenced Greeks. They introduced a new religion to them: Christianity.
Christianity was not introduced to Greece by the Romans; it was introduced by the Apostles of Jesus Christ and in particular Saint Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Then why did the Byzantines absolutely hated when the Westerners called them Greeks? Why did they consider that an attack on their state? Check out Liutprand's report. He mentions the absolute horror of the Byzantines when the Pope sent a letter calling Nicephorus II a Greek emperor. Nicephorus II considered it a personal insult that he was called that.
The Byzantines did not hate to be called Greeks, they always knew they were of Hellenic extraction as that may be referring to the Homeric period, the classical period or the succeeding Hellenistic period coming down through the centuries.
They also knew however that continuing through the centuries from the old Roman empire with a new Identity characterized by its Hellenization, had more right referring to the old Roman regime that any other, which right was tried to be stolen away from them in a tricky way.
BTW, why the pope in his letter referred to them as Greeks and not as being actual Romans?
maybe he knew something more than people now days, which they refuse to accept as being the reality!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Rome under the Early Republic was completely different from Diocletian's Rome. Are they both not a different versions of the Roman state? How was the Byzantine culture so different from the Roman one? They had a Roman religion, Roman customs (they had a Senate, their law was based on Roman law etc). How was their culture similar to old Greece?
So was the Byzantine empire in the 7th century under Heraclius from that of the 10th under Basil II.
Their religion Christianity was not a Roman religion to begin with as I also told you before, in fact Christianity was persecuted relentlessly by some of the Roman emperors.
Their culture also differed substantially in many ways from that of the Romans.
Lastly but not least, we don't need to talk about the language which was completely different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
You know that states can change. It says you are from the US. Are you not an American because you don't adhere unquestionably to the choices of the Founding Fathers? Have you seen any African slaves recently?
Well since you are from Srpska and presumably you consider yourself a Serbian, how would you have liked to be called a Bosnian denying your actual background? unless you are not........., in which case something else plays along these lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
The Byzantines only really started the revival of the Hellenic identity in the 11th century, and even then it didn't become prominent until later. By the end, many Byzantines did consider themselves Greek, but not before.
By the time you are referring above, it had become quite apparent that the Byzantines were not really Romans but in reality Greeks, which was a common secret among all the people long before that!
Apollon is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 05:07 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollon View Post
1) I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.
What I'm saying however is that in the Eastern part of the Roman empire Greek was the predominant language, while in the Western part Latin was the case, without of course thinking that other languages were not existence which were not though as widespread.

2) Not however the way some people rationalize the analogy between the two!

3) I think he actually insinuated that Greek Identity was nonexistent prior to 1800's.

Being a Roman citizen and having presumably the same rights as actual Roman citizens, while people within the empire still spoke their own language as that might be Greek or Egyptian, a kind of German, Gaulish, Briton, or whatever the case might be, does not conscientiously make you actual Roman, other than the fact that your civil rights would hopefully be observed.

4) Look again at my answer on the previous post where I clearly stated that:

"Being a continuation of circumstances for someone even though of different extraction, does not automatically make you the same!"
For 1, I was saying that at this point the East was Rome's power centre and the Latin West was secondary.

For 2 I see what you mean

For 3 I also see what you mean, I just think "Greek culture" existing prior to 1800 is such an obvious thing that I'm going to assume everyone(on a history forum)knows about it at least in a vague sense.

For 4 I just flat out disagree I think most would too, you're judging the identity of a state by it's success here IMO.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 05:49 PM   #49
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: USA
Posts: 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
Because Hellenism and "Greekness" became associated with Paganism due to the rise of Christianity in the 4th-7th centuries.
Because there were still pockets of paganism during the rise of Christianity in mainland Greece, that didn't necessarily meant that all Greeks or Hellenes were pagans.
The great majority of them in the different parts of the East had espoused Christianity for themselves already.
Therefore the perception was wrong to begin with, and it was used only to identify any pockets of paganism left at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
By the way there are remote islands in the Aegean and villages in the mountains of Greece where the nationalist movement didn't reach and the people there still call themselves "Rhomioi" or the like. Not to mention that when British Officers arrived to help the Greeks in their independence movement in the 1820's they all recorded how horrified they were to hear the commoners calling themselves Romans...
I have been called "Romios" by other Greeks during my lifetime.
It does not mean anything more than in reality that of actually being "GREEK", as a tradition coming down from the Byzantine period, when it was used for prestigious reasons, and not in any way with a different connotation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
By the 4th century AD the East called itself Roman, not Greek. Greek was a language, which by the way was called Romeika, which is one of a dozen Greek words for Roman.
If the East was called Roman, and I don't know how true that is, so was called the West in Iberia, Gaul, Britain etc. It probably meant that they were areas occupied by the Roman empire and nothing else.
There were people in the East who were Syrians, Egyptians, Armenians, Greek etc.
Would you call all them people Romans?

It is all these misconceptions that they have been put forward by certain propagandists, in order to give the false impression that the only ethnicity within the Roman empire were all Romans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
First of all its religion was the same as the West. The Catholic Church doesn't even begin to separate from the Roman Church until 691.
That didn't remain the same either, and it is still separated if not so much for religious reasons but more for political ones, which brings another point in case for the differentiation between a Roman and a Greek/Hellene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
The Culture was also the same.
The culture was absolutely different between that in ancient Rome and that of Constantinople!
A world of difference with the eastern influences present in Constantinople.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius View Post
They literally always called themselves Rhomoisi, Rhomioi, Rhomaioi, etc. etc. etc.

The only times they use the term Hellene is when they're talking about Pagans, comparing people to Pagans, or the old Pagan academies of Athens and Corinth.

The term Hellene had totally changed to mean Pagan.
I already explained the connotation regarding the word Romios with its exact meaning referring to actually someone being "GREEK";
besides that wasn't always the case!

With regards to the pagan issue referring to someone being of Hellene extraction, it was only perceived as such originally in the Byzantine empire.
In later times the Byzantines were very proud to call themselves as Hellenes, descendants of Plato and Socrates from the classical period of Ancient Greece, not to mention Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic civilization that followed!!!
Apollon is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 06:30 PM   #50
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: USA
Posts: 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
For 1, I was saying that at this point the East was Rome's power centre and the Latin West was secondary.

For 2 I see what you mean

For 3 I also see what you mean, I just think "Greek culture" existing prior to 1800 is such an obvious thing that I'm going to assume everyone(on a history forum)knows about it at least in a vague sense.

For 4 I just flat out disagree I think most would too, you're judging the identity of a state by it's success here IMO.
I will answer only on #4 since we seem to agree on the other ones.
I said on that one:

"Being a continuation of circumstances for someone even though of different extraction, does not automatically make you the same!"

The meaning behind it was, that the Greeks found themselves responsible to continue the existing ERE (Eastern Roman Empire) due to their predominant existence in the area population wise, and also culturally wise.
That however did not necessarily meant that they became suddenly actual Romans or that they shed their Hellenized background.

We should also keep in mind that the real genuine Romans of Latin extraction that moved originally to Constantinople in 330 AD were not all that many, and their real numbers kept dwindling with the passing of time; and although at the beginning they had with their elite the governing of the state, in a period of about 250 years even the governance had fallen in the hands of the existing Hellenized Greeks who represented the majority from the very beginning, descendants from the Hellenistic period.
The Romans were a thing of the past, a new ballgame was in town.
Apollon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
byzantines, eastern, incorrect, roman



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Other popular Eastern/non Roman cults in the Roman Empire Space Shark Ancient History 28 May 30th, 2016 10:30 PM
Your Top 5 Byzantine/Eastern Roman Emperors Alcibiades Medieval and Byzantine History 10 September 27th, 2012 02:56 AM
what did the (Western and Eastern) Roman Empire call itself? AndreasK Ancient History 1 December 29th, 2011 09:16 AM
Why so many mercenaries in the Eastern Roman Empire? Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 10 December 27th, 2011 07:44 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.