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 1st, 2012, 10:50 PM   #41

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,390
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamboozle View Post
It depends on the timeframe. When Liutprand visited Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire was the strongest state in Europe (and would continue to be so until the events of 1071). Nikephoros and his successors didn't really need any help.

As for post-1071 Byzantium, I'm not sure if relinquishing a name would have got them much support. Even if they did abdicate the throne of Rome, they were Orthodox Christians, and were increasingly viewed upon as heretics by the people of Catholic Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrodbert696 View Post
That was Voltaire.

The Byzantines called themselves Romans, or the Roman Empire, simple as that. I often refer to them as the East Romans when teaching to remind students of the continuity from ancient Rome. Surrounding people like the Turks called them Rum and Rhomaioi.

As others have said, it was westerners, after Charlemagne took the imperial title in 800, who started to insist on calling the East Romans "Greeks" or "Byzantines" instead. I suppose that they might have been a little friendlier if the East Romans had taken this clear demotion lying down, but then they would have undermined their whole political order at home in doing so.
Thanks for the information.
Jinit is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:15 PM   #42

The Black Knight's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: USA
Posts: 440

Would any of you argue for different naming of different chronological epochs of what we would call the "the byzantine empire"? For Example, Using "Roman" for the period until the 8th century or so? Different cultural or civilizational periods?

Thoughts? Arguements for or against?
The Black Knight is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 04:48 AM   #43
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
Would any of you argue for different naming of different chronological epochs of what we would call the "the byzantine empire"? For Example, Using "Roman" for the period until the 8th century or so? Different cultural or civilizational periods?

Thoughts? Arguements for or against?
Whatever nomenclature we come up with, can't be anything but arbitrary - and the situation is confused enough to begin with.

I remember reading an anecdote in Mark Whittow"s "The Making of Orthodox Byzantium". He was talking to an Israeli archaeologist, and he was complaining that Byzantine archaeology is virtually non-existent. She felt kind of offended by that, since she had spent her entire career in that field. Before the whole thing turned into a Marx Brothers routine, they decided to explain to each other what they meant by "Byzantine" archaeology. For him it started around the 600s, for her in 324.

And then for others it's 395 or 476 or whatever. So to answer your question, no. Things are bad enough as they are, lets not make them worse...
Imper is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:06 AM   #44

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,584
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
Would any of you argue for different naming of different chronological epochs of what we would call the "the byzantine empire"? For Example, Using "Roman" for the period until the 8th century or so? Different cultural or civilizational periods?

Thoughts? Arguements for or against?
Generally I consider the Latin Roman period, which I date from Diocletian, to be "Early Byzantium." While I'd like to begin the middle period in 717 with the acceptance of the Byzantines and the Muslims that neither was going to disappear any time soon, this is limited in its use since so many books/courses end with Justinian or Herakleios. Regardless, I then consider the "Middle" period to have lasted until 1204, where the late begins. Inside of these rather large blocks we can subdivide it, and I find myself frequently referring to Macedonian and Komnenian periods.
Kirialax is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 09:44 AM   #45
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 600

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirialax View Post
Generally I consider the Latin Roman period, which I date from Diocletian, to be "Early Byzantium." While I'd like to begin the middle period in 717 with the acceptance of the Byzantines and the Muslims that neither was going to disappear any time soon, this is limited in its use since so many books/courses end with Justinian or Herakleios. Regardless, I then consider the "Middle" period to have lasted until 1204, where the late begins. Inside of these rather large blocks we can subdivide it, and I find myself frequently referring to Macedonian and Komnenian periods.
Diocletian is also used as a reference point , to many parts, in the confidential writting '
De_Administrando_Imperio De_Administrando_Imperio
("On the Governance of the Empire") by emperor
Constantine_VII Constantine_VII
.

=======================

Usually i dont mention modern historians, but Telemachos Lungis (Tηλέμαχος Λουγγής) to his ''De Administrando Imperio" (Πρός τόν ἰδιον υιον Ρωμανόν) Kωνταντἰνου Πορφυρογεννητου, μιά μέθοδος ανἀγνωσης (a method of reading) edition Vanias , Thessaloniki 1990 > analyse the text and refer the significance of Diocletian as a point reference, under the opinion of Macedonian's dynasty emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

-------------
Telemachus Loungis born in Athens in 1945. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Sorbonne (1972).He is project leader at the Ιnstitute for Historical research - Department for Byzantine Research.He has written many essays and articles in Greek and international journals and books: The Byzantine embassies in the West, from the foundation of the barbarian nations as the Crusades (407-1096), French (1980), Essays on social development during so-called "Dark Ages".etc

=================

Kirialax, please do you have the latin text of Chronicon Universale Anonymi Laudunensis ? i need just a phrase.

==========

Last edited by ANAX; December 12th, 2012 at 10:52 AM.
ANAX is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #46

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,584
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANAX View Post

Kirialax, please do you have the latin text of Chronicon Universale Anonymi Laudunensis ? i need just a phrase.
Sorry. My library does not have it and it does not seem to be in the Patrologia Latina.
Kirialax is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:18 PM   #47

Theodoric's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 911

The Megarans founded it as a colony before the time of Solon, and it helped Megara solidify their dominance in the region; until Peisistratus the Great of Athens kicked them to the curb. The Romans refounded the city in the 4th century AD and called it, Nova Roma, with the intention of building a brand new and fresh Rome; and the city became a great jewel indeed. It was later called Constantinople after the Emperor who founded it: Constantine the Great. Then over 1000 years later it was called Istanbul after the Turks conquered it.
Theodoric is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 10:49 PM   #48
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Nicosia, Cyprus
Posts: 87

You might also find interesting that the current name of Constantinople, Istanbul derives from the greek "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" (pronounced [is tin ˈpolin]) which actually means to the city.
Zenon is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:00 PM   #49
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenon View Post
You might also find interesting that the current name of Constantinople, Istanbul derives from the greek "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" (pronounced [is tin ˈpolin]) which actually means to the city.
Yes, that is actually very interesting: that they didn't seem to rename the city, just make its popular name fit their own language.
AndreasK is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 04:56 AM   #50

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,584
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreasK View Post
Yes, that is actually very interesting: that they didn't seem to rename the city, just make its popular name fit their own language.
The name "Istanbul" appears first in the 10th c. Arab geographer al-Masudi, and thus cannot be associated with the Turks. Even under Turkish hegemony, the city was officially called Constantiniyye under the 20th century. That said, the issue here I believe is terms used to refer to the Byzantine Empire, not just its capital.
Kirialax is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
alternative, byzantine, byzantium, names


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
List of names and dynasties of Byzantine emperors? AndreasK Medieval and Byzantine History 5 January 19th, 2012 06:04 AM
Byzantium and the Komnenoi Kirialax Medieval and Byzantine History 5 January 17th, 2012 10:39 AM
Byzantium novum!!! Thessalonian Medieval and Byzantine History 98 May 7th, 2011 02:14 PM
Fall of Byzantium, or Byzantine Love Literature BrowniesRule Medieval and Byzantine History 11 March 21st, 2010 07:20 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.