| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
A good question, that there does not seem to be definitive answer to, What were the Byzantines? Were they Greek? Were they Anatolian? Or was it truly a mix of all peoples from the surrounding area?
I know linguistically they spoke Greek but what was the ethnicity of the Byzantines?
See:
"Roman identity in Byzantium: a critical approach"
http://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf...-2014-0009.xml
"The main lines of thinking in the research on medieval Eastern Roman identitycould be roughly summarized as follows: The first, extensively influenced bythe retrospective Modern Greek national discourse, approaches this identity asthe medieval form of the perennial Greek national identity.² The second,which could be regarded as preponderant within the field, albeit by no meansmonolithically concordant in its various utterances, speaks of a multi-ethnic imperialstate at least up to the twelfth century, the average subject of which wasself-identified as Roman.³ The third, and more recent, approach dismissed thesupposition of a multi-ethnic empire and suggested that Byzantium should beregarded as a pre-modern Nation-State in which Romanness had the traits of nationalidentity.⁴ "
The author goes for the third option, i.e. a nation state of multiple ethnicities. The core, however, was "Greek", or "Roman" in their parlance.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Unfortunately, for sure this thread will end in Balkan disagreement.
They were of mixed,multi ethnic origin as every empire,who identified themselves as Romans.The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources.Here is what emperor Basil thought about himself and the Franks;Originally Posted by Azzuro
In spring 871, the eastern and western emperors, Basil I and Louis II, quarreled over control of Bari, which had been conquered from the Arabs by their joint forces. The "Byzantine" emperor sent an angry letter to his western counterpart, reprimanding him for usurping the title of emperor. He sayed that the Frankish rulers are simple reges, while the imperial title properly applied only to the overlord of the Romans, that is, to Basil himself.
In fact the term Byzantine reffer to a previous small city founded by the Thracian leader Byzas,which later become Constantinople.
We reffer to Byzantine empire ever since Constantine the great (324-337) made Constantinople capital of the empire who was himself of Thracian descent.I can list all the dynasties here up to 12th century majority were Thracian,then Armenian,one Syrian probably.
Heraclius (610-641) who made Greek the official language in the empire was of Armenian descent.
Constantinian dynasty (306–363) -Thracian/Illyrian
Valentinian dynasty (364–379)-Illyrian,Pannonia
Theodosian dynasty (379–457) Theodosius was born in Cauca, Gallaecia, Hispania (according to Hydatius and Zosimus)
Leonid dynasty (457–518) Thracians
Justinian dynasty (518–602) Thracians
Heraclian dynasty (610–695) Armenian
Isaurian dynasty (717–802) from Syria ressetled in Thrace.
Nikephorian dynasty (802–813) I can't find data
Amorian dynasty (820–867) Phrygian
Macedonian dynasty (867–1056) Armenian or some propose Slavic descent.
Doukid dynasty (1059–1081) Constantine Doukas was the son of Andronikos Doukas, a Paphlagonian nobleman who may have served as governor of the theme of Moesia.
Angela and Milan, thanks for the answers, I was more on the lines of knowing the average everyday people, as dynasties that Milan listed it is clear that the emperors were of different ethnicities making sense as the Byzantine empire controlled vast territory. In each territory might have had its own ethnicities, but from what I studied (I am a History student) the Byzantines focused more on Christianity and preserving its Roman heritage (Law and Social, not ethnicity) and that Greek was used as a lingua franca. The city of Constantinople would have been for sure multiethnic, consisting of Thracians, Greeks, native Anatolians, Egyptians (from Alexandria), Roman nobles who settled, Albanians, Jews, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, Illyrians and probably more.
Laberia, who knows probably not, since the Byzantine Empire basically had all of the Balkans at one point and was rather peacefully except with the Bulgars, plus Albania and Greece were with the Byzantine Empire until the end.
lol for sure. Sadly.....
Boreas, thanks for the map, it is a good representation.
Boreas, the source of this map, please?
I'd also be interested in learning who compiled the data for the map. If correct, far eastern Sicily was probably primarily Greek speaking since the days of Magna Graecia. Alexandria and the area around "Cyrenaica"?, would seem to have kept their heavy Greek influence. There was a very large actual Greek population in Alexandria from the days of the Ptolemies, if not before.
It is just to give a basic ideas. Actually it doesn't seem very academic source.
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...s-a-byzantine/
Here is another map, it shows more details. But, it is fiction
@ Azzuro
it is more complex,
The termination Hellenas Ελληνας was forbiden in East Roman empire, by Codex Theodosianus and Christianity,
if you identify your shelf as Greek Scythopolis awaited you,
now East Roman empire was a huge land,
the major ruler of empire was Legio IV Flavia felix until Ισαυροι Isaurian dynasty,
the flavian emperrors (as I call them until Justinian's family) collapse due to unability to defend the empire from Slavs,
But there were also other parts of empire, that were defending empire from East and Iran/Persia
After Romans came a dynasty from very EAST today Syria and Phrygia (isaurians)
they bring other air, and is the first non Roman Dynasty, that has to do mainly to protect the merchant roads from iran to Con/polis
a lot of Greek from East part, even from Seleykeia to Georgia as also Anatolians and Armenians etc come to Con/polis,
one of them has the nickname Khazzaros due to diplomatic marriage with khazzar Turks.
that is the first de-Romanise of Con/polis and army,
There is also the Zeybeks the Phrygian Dynasty
That is considered the first Hellenization effort of the empire.
Although Amorio strangely is considered more a Roman city than a Phrygian that time. but we see clearly empire order and names given in Greek language (θεμα Ανατολικων)
The Slavic Kingdoms, including Bulgaria become strong enough, so needed cahnge of politicks,
that brought the Makedonian Dynasty, to some searchers is Armenian, but Armenian dynasty fits to Λεκαπηνοι from Melitini (Malateia) to me.
that is the last of RomanoLatin in East latin empire.
but even the 4 kingdoms that are considered pure Greek after the 4rth Crusade DID NOT change the ID,
all were Roman citizens,
to understand more
the termination Greek ment death penalty, by cdex Theodosianus since was synonym of pagan
that codex kept strong even after the death of East Roman empire and her kingdoms,
Turks call Byzantine Greek as Rum or Rumluk etc and Greek language as Rumlar, language of Romans,
termination Yunan is newer, at old times ment only territorial origin.
Greeks even at 1850 3 decades after the revolt, call themshelfs as Ρωμιοι, (East Romans)
The termination Hellas and Hellenes needed decades to be established, due to Christianity, and empire's codexes,
in fact that was a partially reason that Greek Christians made their own church away from Con/polis Patriarch, which kept the codexes of emperrors and the treaties with Sultans, and still consideres the termination Hellenas/Greek as pagan synonym,
Now the map of Boreas has a point at Balkans
where Diocletianos with codex defined Romania and Romylia (Latin alphabet, Greek Alphabet)
also in Minor Asia has correct,
but excludes Galatia, Ceasaria and Cappadokia which should be Greek also until the times of Seljuks, and till Majikert battle,
Majicert battle change enough the population demographics in minor Asia, considering language, religion, nationality, even ethnicity.
that is why we find Greeks that did know a word Greek at 1920, as also Christians who speak Turkish at balkans.
Africa and Palestine,
Egypt until Naser 1950'd had a strong Greek community
from Libya to Alexandreia the Greek communities were strong, and not even islam touch them at his greater glories,
same with Palestine and Lebanon,
Lebanon was deserted by Greeks at about 1930's,
so by seeing the map Boreas post,
include Galatia and SEvasteia and Alexandreia and some more, you can understand the Greek influence of the East Roman empire,
by understanding the Aromani, you can understand the Roman's and the Roman influence in East Roman empire,
anyway, officially the lingua franca of codexes was latin until Makedonian dynasty, were split to Latin for justice and Greek especially for army instructions.
and Greek after,
so most consider it as pure Roman until around 700, mixed, and pure Greek after 1060
the Hellenization of empire starts at 717 AD but Con/polis is still Roman as city, and many areas are still under Roman generals protection, especially in Balkans and less in minor Asia
which even at 1800 kept their Romano-Latin character (Romania, Aromani etc)
ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ
When there is no shame
Divine blindness conquers them
Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
Nemesis and punishment follows.
Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.
Yetos, great explanation, I see you are well educated in this subject manner, okay so in reality it was a Roman-Greco hybrid, which for me leads to another question as you mentioned Cappadocia, Caesaria, Galatia, Libya and Alexandria as they had a strong greek community, were they actually Greeks meaning originally from Greece or were they locals that adopted hellenism in ancient times and kept that culture and tradition to this day or was it mix like for example Cappadocia were they Phrygians who spoke Greek and were Orthodox? Surely there must of been some migration in antiquity but the local population was definitely mixed into as well.
2 phases
1 . colonisation of Antique
2 Hellenization, is started by Alexander's time, and even when Greece was Roman occupied continued in East.
then comes Romanization but in many areas was very short,
now we know where Greeks build cities from antique, and we know when, full colonise areas.
Yetos, by full colonization you mean that they were the entire population? I'm sure there were non Greeks in the population that became Hellenized in both cases of colonization.
by colonization we mean people who devaste and colonise,
by Hellenization we mean accept the Hellenic culture and speak Greek,
compare like America today,
All colonists, All colonies in the begin they had names like new Amdersdam, New England, Nova Scotia, etc etc
later they moved West and made Americanization,
Today is called US America,
and in new York are many Italians as your flag, but are Americans,
But if America did not revolt to England, like Australia
in both areas, we have partially Anglicanization,
a good example of Hellenization are the Gauls of minor Asia, Galatians,
a good example of colonisation is S Italy,
to your answer consider who were trully Romans at 700 BC, and who 100 AD and who at Sancrum Romanum Imperium, and who at 1453 Con/polis, and 1463 at fall of Trebizond,
anyway the termination Byzantium entered by Hieronymos Wolf and the Fugger by writing Corpus Historiae Byzantinae
until 1562 was the East Roman empire, and her first emperrors were Romans, although many are said about their origins today, cause everybody claims whatever, and I do not know something else than the ones which are written,
for example if someone was Spanish and become Roman centurion and his son born in Balkans become emperror, nobody, only the written
or a Greek or an Iranian, become Roman and then become prince or Duke somewhere in the West,
or a Numidian or Egyptian etc etc
Okay, good examples, I understand what your saying, in terms of colonization what y-lines do you think indicated are Greek in origin? As for Southern Italy I am aware as I am fully Southern Italian in both areas I come from there are both Greek temples and Roman villas.
Why is it fiction?It is just to give a basic ideas. Actually it doesn't seem very academic source.
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...s-a-byzantine/
Here is another map, it shows more details. But, it is fiction
Pity the colours are not distinguishable
có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo
when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.
@ Azzuro
that is difficult to say for Greeks,
for example by latest aproaches we know that Palaiolithic Greeks were mainly I1 and PC1,
but as characteristic of Greek we consider the PC4,
so it is more complex,
anyway we believe that I1 is palaiolithic
J2a and G2a is neolithic
R1b is mark of Myceneans
R1a is mark of Dorians
for example if have connection with Locri calabria expect a R1a as possible or R1b
if you have connection with Gela Sikelia expect a possible J2a
I my shelf although I know that my family is in Makedonia centuries now and we found the church books back far as can be found,
I am G2a3a which fits rather to minor Asia and Ionian.
that is something common when search the Greek Y-DNA,
in fact until medieval times, Greek males had no problem to go to another city to marry,
except if they belong to a noble military class,
in that case woman was brought to house,
Yetos, you do not think that even E-V13 has something to with Greeks or Greek colonization isn't it like 20% plus in overall Greeks? I always suspected that the Myceneans were R1b, I am J-Z482 or J2a4b3, mine is not from Greek colonization, but probably a lot of J2a's can be.
ok I am not a genetists,
can you give your score? or your Z,
are you L-227
You mean my subclade I am Z482, which is a downstream of L210/L227.
Z227 is a complex.
around 170000 is connected with Malta and Italy
above 200000 seems to be connected with Armenians and Cretans/Greeks
around 70000 seems to be Eskenazi far North to poland and Russia and Baltic
that is as far as I know and can tell
PS
are you sure you not a Pelasgian? an Thyrrenian? (Etrusco)
Nucleotid V-13 for me is a more complex story,
no matter found in Spain, I do not believe that this Spanish found is connected with Balkans,
there is cross by Italians with Pc1 that say that existed in Bulgaria 6ky from now,
yet this is a possibility by chances, not a fact,
the older found E-V13 is very new 2500 ky from now in Balkans and 4 ky at central minor Asia,
which for me seems enter much late at balkans,
I mean I believe that entered after bronze age, v-13 for me is the most unexplained and strange Y-Dna in Balkans.
and still I can not understand its peaks,
they are, nearby where Roman legions had camps,
but a lower percentage is gathered at mountain areas, and has strange distribution
for example in some Aromani is reaching 28% and in some few dozens of km nearby does not exist.
the 4 more complicated for me are
V-13 at Balkans
the mtDNA of far North Europe which seems to be connected with Africa
the mt X2 in N America
and the Roma genes, especially mtDNA.
Yetos, I know based on Y-matches, Yfull and autosomal, that my line was Jewish, most of my close matches and all of my Y-67 are Jewish. I also have Italian, Spanish, Latino, 1 Syrian, 1 Yemeni and 1 Greek match on Y-12.
Thats my Z482 my more terminal clade, the upstream Z489 is also found in Cypriots, according to 1 study maybe 5% in Paphos and 1-2% overall, two theories on how it got to Cyprus was either Jews (later converted) or through the Phrygians.
The L210 line definitely went to the Levant, it is found throughout the entire Mediterranean.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote