Byzantium

I have edited my post upthread, but here is the link to the Fordham University site for Byzantine Studies:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/

Links on the site include a syllabus, but it is a bit out of date.

What is invaluable for anyone actually interested in academic research is his list of primary sources:
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook1c.asp
Just click on the topic.

The person who runs this site is the author of 56 podcasts on the History of Byzantium.
This is his list and review of current books on the subject:
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/bibliography/

These look like good bets:
Hellenism in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis ***
A brilliant study of ancient sources and what they say about Roman and Greek identity. His quotations from ancient sources is very impressive.

Justinian’s Flea: Plague, Empire and the Birth of Europe by William Rosen *

The Byzantines by Averil Cameron **
A brief but readable survey of the life of the Empire.

Lost to the West by Lars Brownworth *

The Making of Orthodox Byzantium: 600-1025 by Mark Whittow **
If you don’t want to wade through every decade with Treadgold but want to cover all the important issues to do with Byzantium then this is the best book I’ve found. Whittow is easy to read and gets to the point quickly. He has an excellent eye for what survived from the ancient world and what were Byzantine innovations in every aspect of the life of the state.

The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 by Chris Wickham **
An excellent modern book covering the developments across Europe from the fall of Rome to the end of the Millennium. It’s an analysis rather than a narrative history but as long as you know the basic outline of the story this will enlighten and entertain.

Or, you you can take the easier route and listen to his great podcasts:
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/

I would add:
Jonathan Harris: “Constantinople – Capital of Byzantium”
Colin Wells: Sailing from Byzantium

I can personally recommend the Rosen and Cameron books, and Sailing From Byzantium.

Oh, this article is very interesting: What, if anything, is a Byzantine:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
 
WRONG

the biggest hate was due to 4rth Crusade,
Turks were already in minor Asia,
Manjikert Mtzikert or how ever written battle was 1 century before,

Turks with their Allies Kurds won the battle against Rums, Varrangians and their allies,
that opened the road to Konya and West minor Asia to Turks,

Schism has nothing to do, mostly in religious circles,
if search General Maniakis story, his Orthodox army left from Orthodox south Italy, just to replace their General honor, the revolt of Arbanites,

So schism was nothing,
it was the lost of Battle of Majikert, and the crusaders, whom Byzantines believe that will help against Islam, sucked Con/polis.

Crusades and especially 1204 is a catalytic date for East Roman empire and West Europe rise in sciences and politics,
Although it started before, from Peter the Hermit

not sure what your point is...
but in case you are arguing that the transition from Latin to Greek was without consequences...How would people who speak Latin feel when their language goes from official to banned, and now they have to learn Greek against their will?
 
I understand the Latin-Greek duality of the Byzantine Empire up to the schism, but after that, speaking Italian-Latin was not such a good idea anymore. Also anything remotely related with Catholicism and Rome, was seen as heresy. So they stopped being friends and started competing for control over the mediterannean world, which culminated with the destruction of Costandinople by the Crusaders. When the turks came, they just "collected the bones" of a dead empire. The Turks were never that strong to match Byzant at its peak; as proof, for 25 years after the fall of Constandinople the whole Ottoman Empire was held back and defeated by a few thousand Albanians under Skanderbeg. So these guys still calling themselves Roman after the schism, would be more for political reasons on their part.

If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
 
If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.

Back then, "Roman" referred to the empire, not the Latin language and that remained true centuries later, when there was a German speaking Holy Roman Empire. The breach between Catholic and Orthodox was very real, and was used as a justification for the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders, who wanted to take the Roman empire away from Greek speaking Orthodox Christians. Religious differences were taken very seriously back then - neither the Byzantines nor the Crusaders wanted to help the Coptic Christians who still made up the majority of the Egyptian population at that time.
 
If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
I think Byzantines called themselves Romans to the end, even though everything was rather Greek in later periods.
Welcome to Eupedia Diocletian.
 
not sure what your point is...
but in case you are arguing that the transition from Latin to Greek was without consequences...How would people who speak Latin feel when their language goes from official to banned, and now they have to learn Greek against their will?

who said that were banned?
Latin was not banned in Byzantium,
Aromani speak Latin even today, Romania was part of byzantium and speaks Latin, Albania was part of byzantium and is Heavy in Latin,
we see Latin loans although limited even in Pontic Greek,
Latin slowly were replaced as Lingua Franca after The Flavians, and at the Times of Makedonian dynasty and after were not Lingua Franca,

the replace of Latin with Greek happened centuries before the great schsim of 1054

and noone banned Latin
we see codex Justinianus at Flavians
but χρυσοβουλον Τσιμισκη after

simply after 4rth crusade the usage of latin as main/primary language was synonym of enemy, for Eastern Rums,
even today All in Balkans we say the Aromanian as Armanesti Aromuni Vlachika Vlachisti But not Latin,
 
Byzantium was a small town up to the 4th Century AD, when the Emperor Constantine "redeveloped" it. Constantine called his new city, Nova Roma or New Rome, but the locals and inhabitants called it either Constantine's City [Constantinopolis], or just "The City". When the Turks took the place in 1453, they continued to call it "The City" [Istanbul in Turkish].

The correct name of empire was Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire is a term used first by German historian Hieronymus Wolf in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae.The term Byzantine largely came to denounce that Empire's claim as heirs of Rome, since their Emperors ruled in an uninterrupted line straight to Gaius Caesar Augustus the first princes of Rome.

The Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (excluding Balkans) was culturally closer to Persia than to Greece for most of it's existance. Roman Emperors, starting with Diocletian, introduced many "Persian-style" practices continued with his successors. The bulk of the Empire's citizens came from Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt, not Greece. Amongst a significant proportion of the population there was an anti-Hellenic backlash, especially when Greek was made the "official" language of the empire.
The ancient Greek culture had minimal or no influence, merely that the lives of the bulk of the citizens of the empire, as opposed to the elites, were influenced more by eastern cultures, such as Persian.
Tiberius II was the first Emperor to break with the old "Roman" Latin traditions and his sucessors, like Heraclius, continued the trend. By the time of the Comnenii, there was indeed a very strong Greek influence, mainly however, because Greece was just about all that was left of the Empire at that time. The empire's culture consisted of the sum of it's parts. True the Official language became Greek, but the basic system of government remained a blend of Romano-Greek and Persian/eastern traditions to the end, despite any cosmetic changes in titles. Commerce was carried on in the eastern style, fashions in clothing, armour and weapons tended to follow eastern patterns, etc. Yes, the intelligencia studied the Greek classics, but then again, so did muslim scholars in Damascus and Samarkand. They saw themselves either as Romans, or later, Hellenes, when most of their "empire" consisted of Greece and the greek speaking remnant of modern Turkey.
To bluntly stated that the Roman-Byzantine Empire was hellenic, oversimplifies the rich and diverse cultural mixture that the empire was throughout most of its existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.
Since you brought it up...The Ottomans calling themselves "Romans" was the point when the plagiarism of this name became ridiculous. The Turks wanted to destroy Rome and fill it with minarets. But I guess that position makes sense in a twisted sort of way, they were going to get Rome "back" from the evil Crusaders and restore it as part of the Empire where it belonged.
In the mean time Italian Rome was sitting back and laughing it. Albanian Skanderbeg went to ask them for help against the Turks around 1440-s. Ofcourse they gave him nothing, since they had no intention to support the Albanian Orthodox population or anything that smelled Byzantine. Do you know what Skanderbeg told them in the end: "Instead of the Turks, I should have fought you..."
 
I found this very interesting: "There is some historical evidence that, 10 years after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II visited the site of Troy and boasted that he had avenged the Trojans by having conquered the Greeks (Byzantines)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

Is it just a myth? Ottomans avenging the Trojans?
 
Since you brought it up...The Ottomans calling themselves "Romans" was the point when the plagiarism of this name became ridiculous. The Turks wanted to destroy Rome and fill it with minarets. But I guess that position makes sense in a twisted sort of way, they were going to get Rome "back" from the evil Crusaders and restore it as part of the Empire where it belonged.
In the mean time Italian Rome was sitting back and laughing it. Albanian Skanderbeg went to ask them for help against the Turks around 1440-s. Ofcourse they gave him nothing, since they had no intention to support the Albanian Orthodox population or anything that smelled Byzantine. Do you know what Skanderbeg told them in the end: "Instead of the Turks, I should have fought you..."

The Ottomans never called themselves Romans, although the maternal line of the dynasty was clearly Byzantine as the step-moter of Mehmed the Conqueror was Mara Brankovic, a Kantakouzene. Mehmed himself was thinking that he was related to John Tzelepes Komnenos. Mehmed was most probably an orthodox christian in the heart and perceived the conquest of Constantinople as uniting with his roots. Persians and Arabs regarded him as the Caesar of the Rum, since he declared himself that way and got recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinope. The claim of the Ottoman Empire being the continuation of Byzantium and the Third Rome is taking its arguments from this perspective.
 
The Ottomans never called themselves Romans, although the maternal line of the dynasty was clearly Byzantine as the step-moter of Mehmed the Conqueror was Mara Brankovic, a Kantakouzene. Mehmed himself was thinking that he was related to John Tzelepes Komnenos. Mehmed was most probably an orthodox christian in the heart and perceived the conquest of Constantinople as uniting with his roots. Persians and Arabs regarded him as the Caesar of the Rum, since he declared himself that way and got recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinope. The claim of the Ottoman Empire being the continuation of Byzantium and the Third Rome is taking its arguments from this perspective.
Intriguing idea. Genetically speaking the Ottoman empire incorporated same local populations within its borders. Ethnic Turks were just a small minority, and Turk rulers quickly mixed with local aristocratic blood. The official language changed, but his we saw already when Latin changed for Greek, so no biggy. If not change of religion Ottoman Empire could have been easily considered as continuation of Roman Empire, and head of all orthodox Europe.

Religion is one of strongest atuts, because on grounds of religion Russian Tzars claimed this continuation and leadership of Orthodox church. No wonder their last name was Romanov. :)
 
the biggest hate was due to 4rth Crusade,

Yes.

What's is interesting, Crusaders headed to Egypt, but things were changed.

Probably the main role played Venetian leadership who had plan to defeat the biggest rival - Constantinople.

http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/1203-1204.html

Thus began the sack of Constantinople, the richest city of all Europe. Nobody controlled the troops. Thousands of defenseless civilians were killed. Women, even nuns, were raped by the crusading army and churches, monasteries and convents were looted. The very altars of churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by warriors who had sworn to fight in service of the Christian faith.
Even the magnificent Santa Sophia was ransacked by the crusaders. Works of tremendous value were destroyed merely for their material value. One such work was the bronze statue of Hercules, created by the famous Lysippus, court sculptor of no lesser than Alexander the Great. The statue was melted down for its bronze. It is but one of a mass of bronze artworks which was melted down by those blinded by greed.
 
Perhaps this might be helpful...from a link I provided upthread...

"The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They knew themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, where ever he lived. Before the Imperial period, in 89 BC, a Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. Afterwards, citizenship became extended to an increasing number of people in different parts of the Empire. In 212, Emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the Empire to be Roman citizens, entitled to call themselves Roman, not merely subject to the Romans. Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire less often [in Latin] as "Imperium Romanorum" [Domain of the Romans] and more often as "Romania" [Romanland]

In the provinces close to Constantinople, where the Greek language predominated over the Latin of Old Rome, the idea of Roman citizenship and identity appealed to a broad segment of the population. Greek speaking citizens were proud to be Romans: in Latin, "Romani," or, in Greek, "Romaioi." The word "Romaioi" became descriptive of the Greek speaking population of the Empire. The old ethnic name applied to Greeks, "Hellene",fell into disuse. In ancient times, of course, "Hellene" had meant Greek. Hellene meant Greek from the seventh century BC onward, if not earlier. Although Homer called Greeks by other names, Herodotus, Pericles, Plato and Alexander were all "Hellenes," as were Greek speaking inhabitants of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. In the fourth century AD, as the Empire became Christianized, the term "Hellene" became redefined by common convention to include people who still worshipped the old gods and studied philosophy in hopes of resisting the new faith of Christianity. Emperor Julian II [361-363], an Emperor who tried to stop the Christian tide, described himself as a "Hellene." By "Hellene," Julian signified his combination of Neo-Platonic philosophy and worship of the Olympians.


In the final years of the fourth century AD, Emperor Theodosius I [379-395] made Christianity the sole state religion after subduing the rebellion of an "Hellene" usurper, a westerner named Eugenius. After Theodosius' critical decision, fewer and fewer people were willing to call themselves "Hellenes." For centuries more, the word "Hellene" remained in bad repute, associated with outlawed religious ideas and disloyalty to the state. Greek speakers found the identity of "Romaioi" in place of "Hellene" to be a safe refuge in changing times. Greek speaking "Romaioi" inhabited the Empire until the its demise in the fifteenth century.

The Empire at Constantinople should not be called the "Byzantine Empire" at all. If it requires a special name, we might better name the Empire at Constantinople with the title of the "Romaion Empire" from the Greek "Basileia Romaion" [Empire of the Romaioi]. "

It would seem that the ancient Romans were less "race" and "ethnicity" obsessed than some modern inhabitants of Europe.

He continues:

"The transition to a more Greek style of titulature after 700 might be associated with a change in dynasty. The family of Heraclius [reigned 610-641] hailed from Latin speaking North Africa. Heraclius' descendants, including Constans II, were probably slow to abandon Latin titles partly in tribute to their own family heritage. The Latinity of the Heraclian family did not confine itself to forms and titles. Constans II actually considered moving the Imperial capital from Constantinople to Syracuse in Sicily. Although Syracuse itself was as Greek a city as Constantinople, famous since antiquity, the movement of the capital westward out of Constantinople to Syracuse would have pulled the focus of the Empire in a new direction, a direction less fundamentally Greek. Constans II suffered an untimely death, which prevented the fruition of his plans. He was murdered at Syracuse, likely by enemies of his planned transfer of the capital. Notwithstanding the fate of Constans II, the Heraclian family remained in power at Constantinople two generations longer. The end of the Heraclian era in 711 signaled a further shift in the orientation of the Empire towards the Greek world. The next ruling family, the Isaurian Dynasty [717-802] was Greek speaking from the start. In the course of the eighth century, "Dominus Noster" disappeared from Imperial coins. The words "Perpetvus Augustus" also began to fade in the same era, replaced by the Greek "Basileus."

The word "Basileus" deserves a history of its own. In classical Greece, "Basileus" meant "King," equivalent to the Latin "Rex." From the time of Emperor Augustus [died 14 AD], Greeks called the Roman Emperor by the name "Basileus." In the Latin language, of course, the Emperor was never called "Rex," which was offensive to Roman Republican sensibilities: the Emperors were, in theory, chiefs of a Republican government. Roman Republicanism notwithstanding, the use of "Basileus" became standard among Greek speaking Romaioi to describe the Emperor. No way existed to translate the titles of "Imperator" or "Augustus" into Greek that did not sound contrived or ridiculous. The word "Autocrator" was coined to translate "Imperator.";"Sebastos" stood as the parallel to "Augustus," but neither "Autocrator" nor "Sebastos" acquired popular currency. Instead, the pretense developed that "Basileus" meant "Emperor" instead of "King.". Romaioi commenced to use the Latin "Rex" to mean "King" in reference to non-Roman rulers of lesser rank than their own Emperor. The new usage of "Basileus" gained formal status much later. In the seventh century, Emperor Heraclius first employed "Basileus"."

See:http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
 
Intriguing idea. Genetically speaking the Ottoman empire incorporated same local populations within its borders. Ethnic Turks were just a small minority, and Turk rulers quickly mixed with local aristocratic blood. The official language changed, but his we saw already when Latin changed for Greek, so no biggy. If not change of religion Ottoman Empire could have been easily considered as continuation of Roman Empire, and head of all orthodox Europe.

Religion is one of strongest atuts, because on grounds of religion Russian Tzars claimed this continuation and leadership of Orthodox church. No wonder their last name was Romanov. :)

I'm not convinced that there would have been a tremendous difference between the pre-Turkic invasion westernmost "Anatolians" and their closest neighbors in "Greek" territory.
 
The Ottomans never called themselves Romans, although the maternal line of the dynasty was clearly Byzantine as the step-moter of Mehmed the Conqueror was Mara Brankovic, a Kantakouzene. Mehmed himself was thinking that he was related to John Tzelepes Komnenos. Mehmed was most probably an orthodox christian in the heart and perceived the conquest of Constantinople as uniting with his roots. Persians and Arabs regarded him as the Caesar of the Rum, since he declared himself that way and got recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinope. The claim of the Ottoman Empire being the continuation of Byzantium and the Third Rome is taking its arguments from this perspective.

Yea, they did have some sort of contrived argument for public use, supported by sell-out clergy, but really, the Ottomans fundamentally and philosophically stand opposite to Byzant. The ex-Byzantines in the Balkans were pretty much choked for 500 yrs under Ottomans and their backwards authoritarian rule.
 
Intriguing idea. Genetically speaking the Ottoman empire incorporated same local populations within its borders. Ethnic Turks were just a small minority, and Turk rulers quickly mixed with local aristocratic blood. The official language changed, but his we saw already when Latin changed for Greek, so no biggy. If not change of religion Ottoman Empire could have been easily considered as continuation of Roman Empire, and head of all orthodox Europe.

Religion is one of strongest atuts, because on grounds of religion Russian Tzars claimed this continuation and leadership of Orthodox church. No wonder their last name was Romanov. :)

Yes, it is certain that the local Byzantine commoners didn't just evaporate, but merged into the Turkic newcomers. Latin changed for Greek, and Imperial cult changed for Christianity. It seems like religion change was no biggie too.
 
Yea, they did have some sort of contrived argument for public use, supported by sell-out clergy, but really, the Ottomans fundamentally and philosophically stand opposite to Byzant. The ex-Byzantines in the Balkans were pretty much choked for 500 yrs under Ottomans and their backwards authoritarian rule.

Ottomans were, due to Islam, fundamentally and philosophically opposite to Christianity. Too bad Mehmed II didn't accept the invitation of Pope Pius II.
 
Yes.

What's is interesting, Crusaders headed to Egypt, but things were changed.

Probably the main role played Venetian leadership who had plan to defeat the biggest rival - Constantinople.

http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/1203-1204.html

Thus began the sack of Constantinople, the richest city of all Europe. Nobody controlled the troops. Thousands of defenseless civilians were killed. Women, even nuns, were raped by the crusading army and churches, monasteries and convents were looted. The very altars of churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by warriors who had sworn to fight in service of the Christian faith.
Even the magnificent Santa Sophia was ransacked by the crusaders. Works of tremendous value were destroyed merely for their material value. One such work was the bronze statue of Hercules, created by the famous Lysippus, court sculptor of no lesser than Alexander the Great. The statue was melted down for its bronze. It is but one of a mass of bronze artworks which was melted down by those blinded by greed.

I do not understand the last paragraph, Venice was already one of 4 merchant groups in Constantinople, they sat on the council as part of the blue group, the other members where the genoese, the pisans and another which i cannot recall.

the 4th crusade was purely the result of lack of money ( paying your dues)
summary- the year before its departure from Venice, the franks and the pope asked Venice to build enough ships to transport 70000 men , horses and supplies to the levant, Venice stated ok and gave them a price . Venice built the ships.
a year later the franks returned, but had only 36000 men and no money. Venice placed these people in the lido ( an 18km island ) . the franks could not pay their dues.
2 options
1- Venice could have left these 36000 on the lido to die and rot in which many of the current european nobility would have perished or
2 - Support the pope in its request to head to Constantinople to bring the orthodox church back under the pope and Venice could be repaid by looting the city............not a hard decision is it..........religion was minor in the eyes of Venice........a personnel thing and not intended for a national organization ( maybe why venice was excommunicated 13 times by the pope , they did not care )

the contract was stated in the book by one of the leaders of the franks who fought there and eventually secured a piece of the Peloponnese for himself..............his name was VILLEHARDOUIN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_of_Villehardouin



 
If anything remotely related with, at least, Rome was seen as heresy, then they must have had immediately abandoned identifying themselves as Romans. But Persians kept calling them Romans and Turks learned from Persians that they were called Roman, when they came in. Turks then started calling them Rum, meaning Roman. And the Seljuk state in Anatolia was thought of as a Roman sultanate. I don't think the Roman identity was that much of a heresy among the Byzantine.

even today the what left behind from 1923 in Turkey is named Rum and the Greek language Rumlar
 
Perhaps this might be helpful...from a link I provided upthread...

"The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They knew themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, where ever he lived. Before the Imperial period, in 89 BC, a Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. Afterwards, citizenship became extended to an increasing number of people in different parts of the Empire. In 212, Emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the Empire to be Roman citizens, entitled to call themselves Roman, not merely subject to the Romans. Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire less often [in Latin] as "Imperium Romanorum" [Domain of the Romans] and more often as "Romania" [Romanland]

In the provinces close to Constantinople, where the Greek language predominated over the Latin of Old Rome, the idea of Roman citizenship and identity appealed to a broad segment of the population. Greek speaking citizens were proud to be Romans: in Latin, "Romani," or, in Greek, "Romaioi." The word "Romaioi" became descriptive of the Greek speaking population of the Empire. The old ethnic name applied to Greeks, "Hellene",fell into disuse. In ancient times, of course, "Hellene" had meant Greek. Hellene meant Greek from the seventh century BC onward, if not earlier. Although Homer called Greeks by other names, Herodotus, Pericles, Plato and Alexander were all "Hellenes," as were Greek speaking inhabitants of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. In the fourth century AD, as the Empire became Christianized, the term "Hellene" became redefined by common convention to include people who still worshipped the old gods and studied philosophy in hopes of resisting the new faith of Christianity. Emperor Julian II [361-363], an Emperor who tried to stop the Christian tide, described himself as a "Hellene." By "Hellene," Julian signified his combination of Neo-Platonic philosophy and worship of the Olympians.


In the final years of the fourth century AD, Emperor Theodosius I [379-395] made Christianity the sole state religion after subduing the rebellion of an "Hellene" usurper, a westerner named Eugenius. After Theodosius' critical decision, fewer and fewer people were willing to call themselves "Hellenes." For centuries more, the word "Hellene" remained in bad repute, associated with outlawed religious ideas and disloyalty to the state. Greek speakers found the identity of "Romaioi" in place of "Hellene" to be a safe refuge in changing times. Greek speaking "Romaioi" inhabited the Empire until the its demise in the fifteenth century.

The Empire at Constantinople should not be called the "Byzantine Empire" at all. If it requires a special name, we might better name the Empire at Constantinople with the title of the "Romaion Empire" from the Greek "Basileia Romaion" [Empire of the Romaioi]. "

It would seem that the ancient Romans were less "race" and "ethnicity" obsessed than some modern inhabitants of Europe.

He continues:

"The transition to a more Greek style of titulature after 700 might be associated with a change in dynasty. The family of Heraclius [reigned 610-641] hailed from Latin speaking North Africa. Heraclius' descendants, including Constans II, were probably slow to abandon Latin titles partly in tribute to their own family heritage. The Latinity of the Heraclian family did not confine itself to forms and titles. Constans II actually considered moving the Imperial capital from Constantinople to Syracuse in Sicily. Although Syracuse itself was as Greek a city as Constantinople, famous since antiquity, the movement of the capital westward out of Constantinople to Syracuse would have pulled the focus of the Empire in a new direction, a direction less fundamentally Greek. Constans II suffered an untimely death, which prevented the fruition of his plans. He was murdered at Syracuse, likely by enemies of his planned transfer of the capital. Notwithstanding the fate of Constans II, the Heraclian family remained in power at Constantinople two generations longer. The end of the Heraclian era in 711 signaled a further shift in the orientation of the Empire towards the Greek world. The next ruling family, the Isaurian Dynasty [717-802] was Greek speaking from the start. In the course of the eighth century, "Dominus Noster" disappeared from Imperial coins. The words "Perpetvus Augustus" also began to fade in the same era, replaced by the Greek "Basileus."

The word "Basileus" deserves a history of its own. In classical Greece, "Basileus" meant "King," equivalent to the Latin "Rex." From the time of Emperor Augustus [died 14 AD], Greeks called the Roman Emperor by the name "Basileus." In the Latin language, of course, the Emperor was never called "Rex," which was offensive to Roman Republican sensibilities: the Emperors were, in theory, chiefs of a Republican government. Roman Republicanism notwithstanding, the use of "Basileus" became standard among Greek speaking Romaioi to describe the Emperor. No way existed to translate the titles of "Imperator" or "Augustus" into Greek that did not sound contrived or ridiculous. The word "Autocrator" was coined to translate "Imperator.";"Sebastos" stood as the parallel to "Augustus," but neither "Autocrator" nor "Sebastos" acquired popular currency. Instead, the pretense developed that "Basileus" meant "Emperor" instead of "King.". Romaioi commenced to use the Latin "Rex" to mean "King" in reference to non-Roman rulers of lesser rank than their own Emperor. The new usage of "Basileus" gained formal status much later. In the seventh century, Emperor Heraclius first employed "Basileus"."

See:http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm


You are correct, the word Hellenas was just like admit that you are a pagan,

that is the reason I do not like byzantine times,
but history is history.

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS
BISHOP ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ SOZOMEN etc

Ammianus writes, 14:19

'ηρκει να κατηγορηθει τις Ελληνας υπο κακκοβουλου κατασκοπου ... ινα καταδικσθει εις θανατον ως ειδωλολατρης'

meaning it was enough to say 'he is Greek' by a bad (christian) spy or..... so to judged to death penalty as pagan or idol worshiper.

The begining of Byzantium is connected also with the Mediolanum recognition of Christianity,
few decades later, the word Hellen-as was enough to send you to death penalty,

THAT IS WHY ALL GREEKS ADOPTED THE IDENTITY Ρωμιος Ρωμαιος Roman. to survive

for those who can not find Ammianus Marcellinus or Sozomen bishop or others, about Schythopolis and rest,
Codex Theodosianus XVI is enough to understand
X. De paganis sacrifictis et templis
XVI 16 10 2
XVI 16 10 6 etc

we consider Kleopatra as Last of Makedonians, but if we read more we see Makedonian nobility existed till Scythopolis.
emperror Constans 2nd should seccure its empire from all previous inheritages.
that is why Flavians last for centuries till the 'σταση του Νικα' Nica's riots
Thessaloniki 390 AD the slain of 15 000 unarmed Makedonian men (Greeks) in Hippodrome
Pagan Thessaloniki was the biggest threat to christian Nova Roma
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 75294 times.

Back
Top