Whitch is the proper name for the Byz.Empire?

[Ktonos]

I know that there is a debate among many for the proper name of the Empire, based on the fact that its people never called themselves Byzantines or such.

[Catiline]

They called themselves Romaoi it's the Greek for Roman

[Rosacrux]

Actually it's "Romei". Ktonos propably knows that as good as I do http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The term "Byzantine" is a 18th or 19th century invention, by a French scholar (the name now escapes my mind) and he did so to distinguish the Greek-Orthodox Roman Empire of the East, from the Roman-Pagan Roman Empire of the West (or the whole).

The roots of the term (for those who are not familiar) are quite simple: Constantinople was build on top of an existing Greek settlement (colony) that thrived thanks to it's great position in the Bosporus, and the name of that colony was Byzantium.

The term has been accepted widely and is therefore used by everyone, even though if you invented a time machine and went back to those years, nobody would understand who you'd talk about if asking for "the Byzantine emperor".

It's ok to call Byzantines such, but the official name is Roman Empire or just "Empire" and they called themselves "Romei", which in time (after the complete hellenization of the imperial structure - circa 8th century AD) came to mean besides the citizen of the empire, also "Greek".

The term survived in the modern Greek language too, and the word "Romios" (plural "Romioi") is another way to say "Greek" (which is "Hellin" in Greek) and "Romiosini" is essentially the global Greek element (like "Hellinismos").

[Ktonos]

Yes, thats true. I know several old men back to my island who never call themselves other than "Romios/Romioi". But that was the way the Byzantine (err...whatever) administration tried to make understood to the westerners that the eastern empire was the righteous bearer of the Roman Imperial inheiritance. For the same reason the Germans called their empire as Holy Roman Empire. As far as I know the Byzantine maps named the HRE as Germania, or Vasilio ton Germanon (Kingdom of the Germans) and the western maps named the ERE/Byzantium as "The empire of the Greeks (well I have only sea a French 1300+AD and a Venician of 1424AD).

[Catiline]

I bow to your superior knowledge. My Greek isn't what it should be http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

I believe teh correct term is the Roman Empire, which is not an option.

Not that I think a vote is the best way to determine it anyway lol

[rasoforos]

i also believe the correct term is roman empire. this can be retrieved by the title of the emperor which was 'roman emperor' 'aftokrator romaion' . more or less since they called themselves 'romaioi' i guess the empire should be called 'roman'...and dutch people should be called netherlandians i suppose :P

it cannot be 'greek empire' since the byzantines, although they were speaking greek and using greek technology, wouldnt call themselves greeks. actually the term 'greek' meant a pagan , a believer of the greek pantheon and to make a long story short you were not allowed to be 'greek' , a non-christian in the Empire with the punishment of death.

it cannot be Empire of Konstantinoupoli because noone ever used this term.


Hello to everyone from Greece out there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tachikaze]

Japan is really Nihon
India is Bharat
Sweden is Sverige

If you go back in a time machine and use the phrase "(Eastern) Roman Empire" no one will understand you either.

Byzantium or Byzantine Empire is clear, universally understood, and prevents any confusion.

[Rosacrux]

Hey rasoforos, where did you get your rasa from? Stolen or earned? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif You are wrong about the term "Greek" (hellin) though, as people in the empire identified themselves as "Greek" in the later stages.

Tachikaze I disagree, if you asked for "the emperor of the Romans" (and used Greek to spell the words) they would lead you to the bearer of the title... or, more like it, they would throw you in a torture chamber to find out why you are looking for the Emperor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But I agree on the modern use of the term "Byzantine", as it is pretty specific and to-the-point.

[Catiline]

I thought Byzantine politics were by their nature unspecific and not to the point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

rosacrux i buy my rasa only from the best http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

i might be wrong in that but i think the first byzantine to openly talk about 'greek' instead of 'roman' was georgios gemistos ( plithon ) in morea , which was during the 15 century ( i might be wrong here since its been ages since i were in school) so it can be considered that the term 'hellenism" was used , just used because it never became dominant before the 19th century (as it can be seen from the greek revolution history) , during the empires last breaths.


Tachikaze , as Rosacrux says they would understand 'romaiki aytokratoria' (roman empire) and they would understand 'byzantio' also. and if you would ask for the 'aytokrator romaion' you would get to speak with the emperor. however 'roman empire' or 'roman emperor' would not give you a result since noone bothered to speak english back then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[rasoforos]

and by the way i speculate that using 'eastern' in front would not be correct fo most of the existence of the empire since the west roman empire fell quite early in history and in no way 'the holy roman empire' was concidered roman or even an empire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Ktonos]

Actually the word which was assosiated with ancient greek pagan culture was "Ellinas", the one that Greeks use to call themselves today. Grecos (Greek) is an ancient (far more older than Ellinas, term which was lost in the pass of time and returned during the Greek revolution of 1821). I do not really know what the people of the Empire called themselves most of the time.(this is something I really want to know.) Surely Romios is one possible right answer, but I am not so sure that it was the dominating name.

[Rosacrux]

rasoforos

You got the assorted beard too? Or is this too much to ask for? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Ktonos

It's funny that the term Greek (Graekos) was used by the Turks as a derigatory term, to define those "lesser" subjects of the Ottoman empire the "Ellines" were... tsk, tsk, tsk...


Catilin

You got a point here... and a very specific one too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[G0THIC-Lobster]

its daeastern roman empire,they speak greeks because of some strange political reason.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (G0THIC-Lobster @ Nov. 21 2002,08:31)]its daeastern roman empire,they speak greeks because of some strange political reason.
...like because Greeks were the majority of the inhabitants of the empire and also all emperors (save the hellenized Armenians) after 700 AD were Greeks?

Yeah, strange and political reasons... indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Ktonos]

Rosacrux,

Grecos, believe me, is far far older than Ellinas. Ellada comes from the ancient greek word Lus (light) and Landi (land). Before 800BC it was called as
Luslandia->Lasndia->Ellasndia->Ellas->Ellada.

But for Grecos,Grecia is not known what it had ever meant. Thus the Turks refered to Hellenes as Grekoi giving it the meaning of Ragias (slave), and if you look in a french dictionary, the word is explained as "a thief, a charlatan, a beggar).

[Rosacrux]

I know Ktonos, I know, I was just reffering to how the word emerged back from oblivion: as a derigatory term used by the Turks And not only, you know. Napoleon called "Bloody Greeks" the enemies that wouldn't stand and fight.

[Ktonos]

Correct, the term finally ended up a hybris for the Hellenic civilization, and this is the reason why I prefer us to be internationaly called as Hellenes and our country Hellas, but then it's a bit difficult for an outsider to pronounce.

[Tachikaze]

Just to clear it up, I was saying that the people back then did not literally call the empire "Eastern Roman Empire" (in English). My point was that, since we're translating into English anyway, we might as well use what we are most comfortable with.

The y-z combination gives the written "Byzantine" a nice, exotic look. Also, it allows the British to pronounce it "bi'-zan-tine" or "bi-zan'-tine" while the Americans say "bi'zan-teen". We love to distinquish ourselves. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[nokhor]

correct me if i am wrong, but i thought the word 'greeks' came from the first hellenic city the romans came into contact with in italy, and they applied that word to the rest of the hellenes as they expanded?

[rasoforos]

yes you are correct. greeks comes from 'graikoi' and it was indeed a greek speaking population that the romans first came into contact with. the word 'helleene' or 'hellin' PROBABLY comes from the roots ktonos gave and althuogh it comes from 'hellas' a term which would describe a rather small area in greece during the mycenian and pro-mycenian times ( for example the greeks in iliad were not 'helleenes' but achaians etc) but after about 800-900 bc the word 'hellas' meant the whole of greece. Concerning the 'graikoi' it was widelly used before the 1821 revolution by non-greek polulations to characterise the greeks. To me the proper terms should be 'Hellas' and 'hellin-helleene' instead of Greece and Greek

[fenir]

Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Nov. 20 2002,10:10)]"Romios/Romioi"
I do not really know what the people of the Empire called themselves most of the time.(this is something I really want to know).
They called themselves "Romios/Romioi" to answer your question http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Spent many years researching the Roman Empire 500AD to 1453AD, along with the Middle east. hmmmmmm 11 to be roughly correct.
In between other research.

Ktonos, I need some words translated from English to Hellene, but I need them In theEnglish Alphabet

[Ktonos]

It seems that I cannot mail you for some reason, but I have no problem to help via thread post.

[fenir]

Ktonos,

Clicky thingie (fenir@paradise.net.nz)
Now if you are really good, I might entice you to become my Kouropalates, or possibly Protokouropalates. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

PS: Made a post In the Dungeon for you to look at.

Sevastokrator fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Mr Frost]

So "Barney" is incorrect ?

[kataphraktoi]

Roman Empire would be the most appropiate term in light of historical evidence:

Justinian the Great was a Roman who attempted to reconstiture the Western Roman Empire by his reconquests through generals like Belisarius and Narses

Imperator/Basileus denoted Emperor throughout the history of the Empire and had the same meaning as the Roman Emperor

The Pope once addressed the "Byzantine" Emperor as "Emperor of the Greeks" causing a raucous in the Royal Court, the unfortunate embassador who carried the letter from the Pope(Liudprand) was treated to a lecture by the Curopalates Leo(brother of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas)

Though Greek was the language the ethnicity of a Byzantine/Roman was multigenous in makeup, it is only till the late period of the empire that the ethnic character of the empire increasingly turned Greek predominantly

The hierarchy of titles was a carryover of the Roman system.

In AD 800 the Pope crowned Charlemagne a Roman Emperor because there was no male sovereign on the throne of Constantinople and thus considered the ROMAN THRONE EMPTY
Salian(Frank law) percieved a female sovereign as unacceptable.

When the Seljuk Turks conquered Anatolia from the Byzantine/Romans they called the area "RUM" as in ROME.

[Sjakihata]

Tachikaze... Just on a footnote, I thought Japan was Nipon and not Nihon?

[stilicho]

"Though Greek was the language the ethnicity of a Byzantine/Roman was multigenous in makeup, it is only till the late period of the empire that the ethnic character of the empire increasingly turned Greek predominantly"

good point. often overlooked.

[VanDraegon]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ Jan. 03 2003,14:05)]I thought Japan was Nipon and not Nihon?


I, believe it can be spelled/pronounced either way. I have seen both. I think Nihon was a much earlier spelling and Nipon came later.

[Geoffrey_FiztRogers]

Well as someoen who can trace his family back to Valenz I we consider ourselves Romans not Greeks. To the point that when Constantinopole fell we fled to Rome and when that fell to Victor Emanual the family moved to America.

[Teutonic Knight]

you are addicted to polls aren't you Ktonos? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[rasoforos]

i dun think ktonos is with us anymore http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif , havent seen him for a long time.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 20 2002,09:26)]Actually it's "Romei". Ktonos propably knows that as good as I do http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The term "Byzantine" is a 18th or 19th century invention, by a French scholar (the name now escapes my mind) and he did so to distinguish the Greek-Orthodox Roman Empire of the East, from the Roman-Pagan Roman Empire of the West (or the whole).

The roots of the term (for those who are not familiar) are quite simple: Constantinople was build on top of an existing Greek settlement (colony) that thrived thanks to it's great position in the Bosporus, and the name of that colony was Byzantium.

The term has been accepted widely and is therefore used by everyone, even though if you invented a time machine and went back to those years, nobody would understand who you'd talk about if asking for "the Byzantine emperor".

It's ok to call Byzantines such, but the official name is Roman Empire or just "Empire" and they called themselves "Romei", which in time (after the complete hellenization of the imperial structure - circa 8th century AD) came to mean besides the citizen of the empire, also "Greek".

The term survived in the modern Greek language too, and the word "Romios" (plural "Romioi") is another way to say "Greek" (which is "Hellin" in Greek) and "Romiosini" is essentially the global Greek element (like "Hellinismos").
What did the Greek colonists of Byzantium call their city? While I speak neither Greek nor Latin, Byzantium definately sounds Latin.

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Feb. 02 2003,00:24)]i dun think ktonos is with us anymore http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif , havent seen him for a long time.
that is quite tragic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Rosacrux]

Longshanks

Haven't opened this thread for awhile and so I haven't seen your question.

The ancient name of Byzantium is Byzantion. It was a colony of Megara or/and Miletus, established in the late 8th century BC, was part of the "Ionian world" and later it was occupied by the Athenians, who brought there a great deal of their own settlers. The Romans... well, romanized the name, by turning "-on" into "-um".

[Heraclius]

interesting topic ktonos. Let me roll my sleeves up and get in. I think that there really is no definite answer to this question. Yes, it is true that the "Byzantines", as maybe they should be called, did keep many institutions and laws of the old roman empire. However, they abolished many, the senate and many other Roman positions of power if I'm correct, and introduced many new ones including absolute monarchy. The emperor himself was called God's vice-gerent on earth and set up and removed patriarchs of Constantinople. Religion played a huge role in the "Byzantine" empire's history, which is in general unlike Rome, and arguably saved it on more than one occasion (It also almost destroyed it too but that's a different story). And now that I'm on the subject of religion is it really fair to call an empire with a different religion, language, culture and fighting style Roman? Not to mention the fact that the Byzantines lost Rome soon after the death of Justininian in the mid sixth century. The "byzantines" of course never called themselves anything but Romans, as longshanks kindly pointed out. Still here is an old joke. If you call a sheep's tail a leg, asked a man, how many legs does it have? Five answered his friend. No, replied the man, calling a tail a leg doen't make it so. MAybe the correct answer lies somewhere in between. THe Eastern "Roman" Empire perhaps? or maybe the Empire of Constantinople as Ktonos suggested. For convenience however and to stop confusion I will stick with the good, old Byzantine Empire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Nov. 21 2002,09:45)]Rosacrux,

Grecos, believe me, is far far older than Ellinas. Ellada comes from the ancient greek word Lus (light) and Landi (land). Before 800BC it was called as
Luslandia->Lasndia->Ellasndia->Ellas->Ellada.
no; "hellas" in all probability comes from the tribe of "helloi" (also called "selloi") or may be eponymously related to "hellen", the mythological forerunner of the greeks, from which we get "hellene"

neither "lus" nor "landi" are greek roots, and before 800 b.c. "hellas" (written as such) was already the name of that particular district of thessaly which later became the moniker for all greeks

[what was said about the romans encountering a tribe called "graikoi" (in latin "graeci") is true]

as far as byzantion or byzantium, the name wasn't used much after constantine, so no one would have understood a meaning other than that of the ancient city or the capital proper as in procopius - the greeks of the time used "the city" more often than not; in fact, the phrase "eis ten polin" (to the city) became the root for "istanbul"

the roman empire and then the eastern half after the fall of the west was "rhomaion basileia" (empire of the romans) in greek, or "romania" & "rhomania" in latin and greek, respectively. when pope urban calls for a crusade, he uses the word "romania", as does everyone else in the west (the catalan company in athens called themselves "the fortunate army of franks in romania", for example)

the empire of constantinople, as a name, is already taken by the crusader state set up after 1204

steph

p.s. from what i understand, no one in charlemagne's realm would have understood what we now mean by "carolinian" empire, either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Feb. 20 2003,20:01)]And now that I'm on the subject of religion is it really fair to call an empire with a different religion, language, culture and fighting style Roman? Not to mention the fact that the Byzantines lost Rome soon after the death of Justininian in the mid sixth century.
america has gone from the articles of confederation to the constitution; from isolationism to imperalism, among numerous other changes in political and philosophical ideology; the map of pre-eminent minorities has changed, from blacks to hispanics (hispanics may soon become the dominant ethnic group overall); contant with other cultures has changed some of our mores; technology is almost a religion; the powers of the president have increased; the civil war tipped the balance away from states' rights; citizenship has been granted outside the original nucleus...

it's still america, right? a nation under it's own citizens has the power to change its course, right? to develop in response to internal and external pressures?

besides, the roman empire became romania, meaning a "city with an empire" became an empire without a city; so losing rome doesn't invalidate the eastern claim to continuity by any means, especially as rome wasn't even the western capital in the later period, and would have become a provincial town if not for a thing called the papacy which just so happened to be located there.

c'mon now, this late in the game, if we somehow lost d.c., we'd set up shop somewhere else, and "the u.s." would still be around.

steph

[-Isapostolos-]

Eastern Roman empire and Byzantine Empire are both names to distinguish the different phases of the Roman empire in history. No Roman would say,"I'm an Eastern Roman" or "I'm a Byzantine" but they would say, "I'm a Roman", if he/she would wish so.

To answer the question, the only correct term would be Empire of Rome, since this was official name of the Empire since the founding of the Roman state to the fall of Constantinople.

As what Byzantines would call themselves. I think few Byzantines would say they were Roman, but rather they would refer to the name of their ethnity, since the empire consisted of many different peoples. So what they would say is "I'm a Syrian" or "I'm an Armenian", but in the end they were all inhabitants of the Roman Empire, so they were actually "Romans".

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Jan. 20 2004,12:53)]As what Byzantines would call themselves. I think few Byzantines would say they were Roman, but rather they would refer to the name of their ethnity, since the empire consisted of many different peoples. So what they would say is "I'm a Syrian" or "I'm an Armenian", but in the end they were all inhabitants of the Roman Empire, so they were actually "Romans".
they did say "roman"; but more often than not it was something like this:

person a: "who are you?"
person b: "george, the son of michael" (sometimes adding "a christian" depending on who was asking)
person a: "michael the shoemaker?"
person b: "no, michael the syrian" (now, maybe michael was an ethnic syrian, maybe he was just born in syria, maybe he just did some famous thing while in syria, maybe he just looks like a syrian, etc.)

the greek model of naming wasn't necessarily first name, family name like today; sometimes an epithet was used instead. a word like "syrian" could have a geographical or even political meaning as opposed to an ethnic one - more info on naming (http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/byzantine/introduction.html)

so one didn't refer to the ethnos unless really necessary to make a distinction, at least early on; later you have the family name emerge again.

steph

[spmetla]

Didn't they also just call themselves the Christians and the empire as a whole the Christian Empire. I saw that somewhere, if I can find the source I'll get you it.

[Nowake]

As they called themselves romaioi, I don't see why nominating their land as the Eastern Roman Empire would be wrong.

[Leet Eriksson]

The Arabs were the first to call them Rum(pronounced Room) not the Seljuk Turks,the Byzantine Empire was known as "Dawlat al Rum" or "Embratoriat al Rum",wich meant "Country of Romans" or "Empire of the Romans",the word "Rum" meant Roman not Rome...Rome was pronounced "Roma" in arabic.

[kataphraktoi]

I read an interesting statement in a book i borrowed from my uni library.

The author argues that the fall of the Western Roman EMpire did not mean the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476, but rather, it reunited the surviving Roman Empire under one Emperor for the first time since Theodosius I "the Great"

What do u guys reckon?

[magnatz]

Half-full glass

[-Isapostolos-]

That's not what he means. It was not a Union of peoples or countries, it was a union of two seats of power.

Anyway, I think you couldn't even disagree with that statement, otherwise you would be denying the Roman heritage of the Byzantine empire.

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Jan. 21 2004,23:24)]I read an interesting statement in a book i borrowed from my uni library.

The author argues that the fall of the Western Roman EMpire did not mean the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476, but rather, it reunited the surviving Roman Empire under one Emperor for the first time since Theodosius I "the Great"

What do u guys reckon?
one can look at it that way; the fall of the west in reality meant only that the east was now the sole roman state, nothing more, until the title of emperor is conceded to once to charlemagne and again to one of the germans by the "byzantine" emperor.

what we're really wrestling with is the romanticism of the germanic perpective: the fall of the west meant the end of anything visibly graeco-roman to the scholars of that day, and since they find nothing they recognize in the east in terms of religion, language, culture, etc., they conclude it cannot therefore be "roman"

today that's being undone; the term "byzantine", while retaining its convenience (since "late imperial" still refers to the later period of the whole empire), is losing its negative connotation, people are better understanding societal pressures that caused east and west to diverge even before any formal split.

the irony is that the last "roman" emperor would lay the foundations that made necessary the reforms that would later be used as the lynch-pin to call the empire "byzantine": justinian taxed the people almost to the point of poverty and so overextended his army's reach that it made an implosion almost inevitable; his successors had to deal with supply problems etc., an empty treasury, and introduce yet more taxes to raise funds to bribe away enemies while fighting still more... so, i would say your admiration of heraclius is well placed.

another parallel in addition to the one i drew with america earlier: czarist russia undergoes revolution, adopts a more or less german politco-philosophical construct, abolishes the monarchy which had been a cornerstone to their way of thinking since almost the get-go, reorganizes their society etc., suppresses the church (the other conerstone), and yet they're still russians...

steph

p.s. what, if anything, is a byzantine? (http://wwwtc.nhmccd.cc.tx.us/people/crf01/romaion/)

[magnatz]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Jan. 22 2004,08:44)]That's not what he means. It was not a Union of peoples or countries, it was a union of two seats of power.
Hmm, that's is exactly what I said. I said that after the fall of Rome there was one emperor instead of two (=union of two seats of power), but the western provinces had fallen under barbarian control (=not a union of peoples or countries).

[-Isapostolos-]

Sorry magnatz, I must have misunderstood what you said.

iostephanos: A very intresting link you presented, I really enjoyed it.

The Greek independence bit especially intriged me. "Greeks" kept calling themselves Romaoi until their independence in the 1830's. From then on they starting referring again to the ancient Hellenes, which before had been an name used as an to insult pagans and the like. They IMO wisely chose to change their name so they would gain the support of the western "Greekaphile" goverments, but in doing so they actually forsook their Roman identity. Now their name has been stolen by a nation which has no claim to it, although I guess the modern Greek generation doesn't really care.

I remember Rosaforos saying that he said "Greeks" shouldn't forgot who they are, and I think I agreed with him. But I changed my mind. I actually think modern Greeks already have forgotten who they are. To make my point, modern day Greeks have much more in common with the Romaoi, than they do with the Ancient Greeks. IMO, the word Greek refers to the ancient people who worshipped multiple gods, had a unique ancient culture and were totally disunified as a nation.

Romaoi, were unified with a single Roman identity, had a sole religion and a history to be proud of. This identity is alot more in common with the Greek culture today, and that makes sense, since the Roman period is a little bit closer than the Ancient Greek one. IMO it doesn't make sense that Greeks call themselves Greeks, since actually they should be calling themselves Romans.

I hope I don't offend any Greeks around here with these statements, but this is how I see it.

Again thanks for the article.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Jan. 22 2004,21:57)]Sorry magnatz, I must have misunderstood what you said.

iostephanos: A very intresting link you presented, I really enjoyed it.

The Greek independence bit especially intriged me. "Greeks" kept calling themselves Romaoi until their independence in the 1830's. From then on they starting referring again to the ancient Hellenes, which before had been an name used as an to insult pagans and the like. They IMO wisely chose to change their name so they would gain the support of the western "Greekaphile" goverments, but in doing so they actually forsook their Roman identity. Now their name has been stolen by a nation which has no claim to it, although I guess the modern Greek generation doesn't really care.

I remember Rosaforos saying that he said "Greeks" shouldn't forgot who they are, and I think I agreed with him. But I changed my mind. I actually think modern Greeks already have forgotten who they are. To make my point, modern day Greeks have much more in common with the Romaoi, than they do with the Ancient Greeks. IMO, the word Greek refers to the ancient people who worshipped multiple gods, had a unique ancient culture and were totally disunified as a nation.

Romaoi, were unified with a single Roman identity, had a sole religion and a history to be proud of. This identity is alot more in common with the Greek culture today, and that makes sense, since the Roman period is a little bit closer than the Ancient Greek one. IMO it doesn't make sense that Greeks call themselves Greeks, since actually they should be calling themselves Romans.

I hope I don't offend any Greeks around here with these statements, but this is how I see it.

Again thanks for the article.


Woohh That's a BIG BIG subject you started here

Regarding the language, modern greeks (or hellenes as they call themselves) speak the hellenic language (or greek), like the (ancient) hellenes and the romans (after the 7th-8th centuries) did.

Modern greeks have many cultural influences. The main part of their culture is the hellenic but they also have roman, slavic, latin and several eastern (including turkish) influences.
They are, culturally, quite different to the ancient hellenes but, still, they are the closest there is to them.

The german officials who were assigned as ministers along with the first king of the modern greek state "reminded" the "romioi" that they are originated from the hellenes. Of course, the romioi, partly, already knew that through traditional stories and songs who show rememberance of the ancient times.

The situation is a little mixed up here in greece though, as there are some greeks (even some politicians and...priests) who "confuse" plato with jesus, the byzantine eagle with ancient athens and alexander the great with the guerilla fighters of the revolution of 1821....

Sorry everyone for the ironic tone but....

Isopostolos you are right that the re-introduction of the name hellenes helped the greeks who revolted against the ottoman empire as it drew the attention of europeans who admired the hellenic civilization.
However, they didn't steal this identity, as you say, because their culture was mainly hellenic, despite any diversions through the millenia.

Being english or german or japanese or anything else is not a matter of genes or from where your forefathers came but a matter of culture.
If it were just a matter of genes and origin, then, i suppose, we could all say we are Homo sapiens sapiens from central africa....end of story http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Ooh and by the way, i was personally not insulted.
This is a discussion...a dialogue as we might say it...

[-Isapostolos-]

Quote[/b] ]Isopostolos you are right that the re-introduction of the name Hellenes helped the Greeks who revolted against the ottoman empire as it drew the attention of Europeans who admired the Hellenic civilization.
However, they didn't steal this identity, as you say, because their culture was mainly Hellenic, despite any diversions through the millennia.

Being English or German or Japanese or anything else is not a matter of genes or from where your forefathers came but a matter of culture.

That's precisely my point. The modern Greek culture has much more in common with the Byzantine one, than with the ancient Greek one. If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense that you would be more related to ancient Greeks who lived far longer ago than the Byzantines

IMO, you let yourself believe that you have more in common with the ancient Greeks because the west wanted you to. If Greeks had started themselves calling Romaoi again, they would probably agitate the west again, because Byzantine hatred existed until after the second world war. The west wouldn't want that, because they needed the support of their people to support the Greeks against the Ottomans. The Greeks needed the support of west because they simply couldn't win their war on their own. They could not use western and Ottoman hostility, like it was the case during the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

That is the only reason why Greeks call themselves Greeks. They want to escape their hated position in the world of the past, just with the change of their names, so the rest of the world would like them.

[Rosacrux]

Isopostolos (isapostolos http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

I am a bit offended, though, even if Biguth Dikuth(btw where is Incontinentia Buttocks? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) is not.

What you are saying presents just a simple (and utter) lack of understanding and knowledge of simple facts related to the Hellenic ancestry, to Hellas and to the origins of the modern Hellas.

The people in the early 19th century certainly identified themselves as Hellenes, as well as Romii. The disypostaton of the Hellenic ancestry (the glorious, albeit pagan, Ancient Hellas - the Christian, albeit not-quite-Hellenic, Byzantine Empire) has brought quite a confusion and up to this day there seem to be people who adore the former "leg" and loathe the latter and vice versa.

But those are generally the exeption to a rule.

Our genes might not be "pure" (and, frankly, anyone talking about "purity" of a nation or ethnic group nowadays, is either brainless or simply racist) but our ancestry comes directly from the ancient Hellas. We are Hellenes, we remained Hellenes even during the Roman rule, the one that later became a Hellenic-Christian rule, we remained Hellenes after numerous invasions, we remained Hellenes even after 4 centuries under Ottoman rule.

Of course we ain't "pure", nobody is "pure" nowadays... save the Basques maybe :) We have Roman, slavic, Turkic etc. blood running in our veins, just like the English have Germanic, french, Norse, Celtic, Pictish, Roman etc. etc. the Italians have Germanic, Arabic, Greek, Celtic etc. etc. the French Germanic, Gaul (Celt), Roman, Frankish, basque etc. etc. etc. etc.

[-Isapostolos-]

Firstly, is my name really spelt wrong? In my book it clearly states IsOpostolos. If it is wrong, I feel so stupid http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif

I can understand you are offended Rosacrux, since I contradict with what you believe yourself to be. But really I don't mean any harm, I am just curious about the matter.

I admit that I don't not know much of the modern Greeks (though I plan to buy a book about the Greek war of independence), but I think I have a pretty good view of what Greeks believe themselves to be.

I haven't mentioned the genes at all, all I talked about is your culture. I find it odd that most modern Greeks prefer to associate themselves with an ancient culture which lies far father away from them, instead of the christian culture which is much more akin to their current culture.

Do you like yourself to be Hellenes because you are more proud of the culture that was one of the cornerstones of western civilazation? Or is it because Greeks are in some way ashamed to be related to the Byzantines, because they had this notorious foreign reputation?

p.s I saw on the weather that you had snow storms and all in Greece and Turkey. They showed fallen minarets, and busses that fell over. Is it really that bad?

[kataphraktoi]

WHat is the criterion for Byzantium being ROman?

As far as I'm concerned it fits the suit:

Constantinople was the capital of the ROMAN EMPIRE since AD 330, even after "ROME" fell, there was still a ROMAN state with its capital in Constantinople just as it was in AD 330.

Some people argue that the West did not identify the East as "Roman". The barbarian kindgoms of the west did, if only nomimally because they did not dare presume such a title until the stupid Pope decided to shove his religious ass around.

Then there is the argument that Byzantium resembles not an iota of Rome. Which Rome? The Roman empire always changed, even if it morphed into Christian and culturally Greek Empire, it was still Roman, but in a NEW DEFINITION OF ROMAN.

You guys are aware that being a Roman changed quite a lot from the early days when Marius requested citizenships for allied troops thus setting a trend for the non-exclusivity of Italians as the only Romans around. The climax was Caracalla's universal extension of citizenship. By then ROman was not an "Italian" thing anymore. Under COnstantine, being a Roman slowly evolved to being an Orthodox Catholic Christian. Byzantium is the result of this, but it does not mean it is not Roman.

Byzantines were not Greeks, there a multinational state with a dominating Greek culture just like the Roman Empire has always been.

"Byzantine" is just as comfortable as the terms "early Rome", "republican ROme", "Imperial Rome", etc, and a successor as well.

Ta.

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Jan. 23 2004,12:21)]Firstly, is my name really spelt wrong? In my book it clearly states IsOpostolos. If it is wrong, I feel so stupid...
don't feel stupid, anyone can make a mistake... it is isapostolos, though; "isos" (equal) and "apostolos" (apostle). when making a compound, you use "iso" + whatever; that gives you two vowels next to each other. now two things can happen: the two vowels can become contracted ("to elachiston" > "toulachiston") or, one vowel gets dropped ("to amaxi" > "t'amaxi"); this is how you get "isapostolos"...

from this you should see btw that the scholar who came up with "psychoanalysis" didn't study well enough, and in greek it's "psychanalysis"

steph

p.s. i'm just going to say i'm glad your curious, i'm not offended, you do need to read more, and that the issue becomes more complex as you realize that, in general, in addition to the polar sides of an "apollo" and "dionysus" nature that nietsche theorized people to have, we have another set of combatants, the "greek" side and "roman" sides to our personality. read kazantzakis.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (iostephanos @ Jan. 23 2004,22:39)]i'm just going to say i'm glad your curious, i'm not offended, you do need to read more, and that the issue becomes more complex as you realize that, in general, in addition to the polar sides of an "apollo" and "dionysus" nature that nietsche theorized people to have, we have another set of combatants, the "greek" side and "roman" sides to our personality. read kazantzakis.
don't forget the Western vs Eastern confrontation as well (abounds in Kazantzakis, more in the Alexandrine Hellenic literature and also in the main body of the hellenic literature - and I am not even starting on with the cuisine, music, language, customs etc. etc. etc.)


Iso(a)postolos

I might've been exagerrating when stating "offended", but the bottom line remains all the same: Hellen is Hellen. A nation that managed to keep a national identity for more than 3.000 years, despite the numerous mixtures, foreign rulers, vast cultural and religious changes etc.

Proud to be identified with the ancient Greeks? No, not really. Allthough I am not very much of a Christian myself, and so I would not be able to identify myself with the Byzantines anyway, it would be rather funny (a genuine ridicule, actually) to identify myself with some people who lived on the face of this land 2500 years ago. As a matter of fact it would be equally funny to identify myself with people who lived 1000 years ago.

Ancestry is nothing to be proud of, ancestry is a way to recognize yourself in the flow of aeons... to konw where you are coming from, without having to resort to fanatism and intolerance. It's kinda complicated but the human soul is a complicated thing.

As to why most Hellenes prefer to be linked with the ancient Greeks and not the Orthodox Byzantines... well, Kataphraktoi has offered the solution: Byzantion was culturally and linguistically Hellenic, but it was not Hellas. It was the continuation of the Roman empire and Rome was not Hellenic to start with (allthough the Roman culture was just the Hellenic culture with a different name plus the addition of the Roman paternalism and practical mind).

The only strong tie of the current Hellenes with Byzantion (and the tool some morons are using nowadays in order to convince us that we should have a monarch, because "it's tradition" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif ) is the Orthodox Christianity, one of the cornerstones of Hellenism throughout the ages (and especially during the times Hellenes had no country to call "ours").

To sum this up: We are not "proud to be called Hellenes", we are Hellenes. Two different things.

P.S. Well, we haven't got that many minarets in Hellas to actually lose them due to the storm - some intolerant morons have torn most of them down anyway a century and a half ago. Right now the only problem is the cold (-3 in Athens is extremely rare
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ). But I hear things were much worst in Turkey.

btw where are you from?


P.S.2 Kataphraktoi, very good post. Reflects my own view of the Byzantine empire as well. Allthough, it could open up a whole new subject: how do you identify a nation before the time of the nation-states (18th-19th century)? By it's rulers? it's dominant culture? it's language? the most numerous ethnic group? or by what?

It is a complicated matter, ain't it?

[-Isapostolos-]

I guess it's not my fault that I spelled my name wrong, since the author of the book spelled it that way. But I still feel a bit stupid. At least I'm just as stupid as the guy that found out psychoanalysis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Kataphraktoi: I think that would also sum up my views of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantines weren't really a people of one race, but of multiple ones, but most were able to speak Greek. But that was not my point. What I meant by saying that Greeks should actually be calling themselves Romaoi, is that Greeks after 1453 believed themselves to be Romaoi, regardless if they had that city that bound them.

During the independence, Romaoi thought they should be calling themselves Greeks again, because that would attract western attention. Don't you think that if the west would have been fine with a revived "Rome" in the world, Greeks have kept calling themselves Romaoi?

I agree with the point of Greece not being Byzantium, because Byzantium was a land bound together by a single city, which people believed themselves to be Romans. Without this city there would be no Byzantium. But I think there is more to it. Byzantine peoples weren't only bound together by just this city, because the peoples of Epiros, Trebizond and ofcourse Nicaea still believed themselves to be Byzantines, even though their city had been lost for generations until 1261.

Most Greeks believed themselves to be Romans since about the 4th century, and this had been the case until after the Greek revolution. This shows that even without their city Greeks still believed they could Romaoi. Sure the real multicultural Byzantium was gone, but that doesn't mean people should just forget about Byzantium after it fell in 1453 and they shouldn’t be calling themselves Romaoi anymore. I still wonder what would Greeks be calling themselves now if they had taken back their old capital.

They only showed the toppled bus in Greece, the fallen minarets were in Turkey of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif . Anyway my condolences on the weather http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, although it is nice to see snow once in the while if you live in such a warm place all the time I guess.


p.s I live in Holland, where we can live 2 meters below sea live thanks to our dikes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif. I'm off to buying some books about the Greek independence, in English of course, since my ignorant countrymen still haven't caught interest in anything which is either Byzantine or eastern European history, since there are almost no books about these subjects. Well I guess it's good for my English to read foreign books http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Rosacrux]

Isopostolos... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif I am not going to repeat myself on the matter in hand - that Hellenes did not call themselves predominately "Romans" but "Hellenes" and/or "Romioi" (two words that became synonymus after a while, with obvious results like your confusion regarding those.

The Hellenes did not dissapear under "Roman" rule, moreso under the rule of emperors of Hellenic origin (all of the post-Heraclius emperor, save the Armenian Isaurian and a couple of others - that is 800 years of Byzantine history btw). Neither did they neglect their Hellenic identity.

Oh, well, I guess you can read more stuff about the subject at hand. If you need some decent bibliography, I can try and find you a couple of titles of non-Hellenic books on the subject.

But I have to say I am very happy that you are open to new opinions contradicting things you do belive to be the truth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[kataphraktoi]

How many of the Byzantine Emperors were Greek?
I'm going by dynasties.

Flavian Dynasty (Illyrian-Thracian)
Heraclian Dynasty (Armenian - Khazari)
Syrian Dynasty (Syrian - Greek)
Amorian Dynasty (Anatolian - Greek)
Macedonian Dynasty (Armenian - Greek)
Paphalgonid Dynasty (Paphlagonian)
Duci Dynasty (Anatolian)
Comnene Dynasty (Anatolian - Hungarian - Frankish)
Lascarid Dynasty (????)
Paleologi Dynasty (Greek - French - Italian)

Byzantium truly becomes "Greek" in the last centuries, look at the map of Byzantium in the last 150 years of its existence and see where most of its territories lay.

If anything, its the last "Greek" chapter of history determining the rest of the "non-Greek" history.

One sentence that sums up the Byzantine empire:

"Hellenically, Christianised, Supranational Eastern Roman Empire"

[Rosacrux]

Well, there are some mistakes in your list, if you don't mind me correction those:

The Macedonian dynasty were 100% Greek. The Comnene dynasty as well. The Lascarides and Paleologi dynasty 100% Greek too.

The only Armenian dynasty was that of the Isaurian.

You should be aware that massive Greek populations lived back then not only in mainland Greece but also in N. Africa (esp. Egypt) Syria, the whole Asia Minor, the whole area of Balkans etc.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Biguth Dikuth(btw where is Incontinentia Buttocks?) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I'm sorry for beeing off-topic but I've just read it now

This one is just AWESOME

ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif



Hey, Rosacrux http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

That one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-guitarist.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-singer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-drummer.gif... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Rosacrux]

hell, you just gotta looooove them Python's http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Watched Life of Brian a month or so ago... like for the 11th time. Gave me a very good laugh once more. True masterpiece.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[-Isapostolos-]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 02 2004,21:54)]The Macedonian dynasty were 100% Greek.

The only Armenian dynasty was that of the Isaurian.
That might not be completely true. Basil I ,the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, probably came from Armenia but at young age moved with his family to Macedonia. I even heard he kind of spoke shabby Greek with a heavy Armenian accent. He might have liked to portray himself as an ethnic Greek, but in reality he was just an Armenian.

[Rosacrux]

Care to provide a source on that? Each and every account I know about refers to Basil I and his whole dynasty as a matter of fact, as ethnic Greek. And I have read quite a variety of sources on that subject...

[-Isapostolos-]

One of my sources on the subject is John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: the Apogee. The book (it's the second book in a trilogy on Byzantium) just tells the history of Byzantium, so his sources can't always be traced (unless he notifies a certain point). But he certainly won't have made it up.

Another, "The making of Orthodox Byzantium" talks of Armenian influence on the Empire. The author tries to show the reader the big influence the Armenians had on the empire, by naming the names of Armenian Emperors, Basil being among them.

Anyway, Basil was an Armenian pure blood who traveled to Thrace like many Armenians (Armenia had a bigger population than it could support, so many traveled to Byzantium or the Arabic caliphate to find a better life), but after they settled, he and his family were captured by the infamous Bulgarian Krum, and were moved like many Thracians to Macedonia. Basil grew up in Macedonia and was thus mistakenly referred to as the Macedonian. He spoke Armenian as his first language, and Greek with a heavy accent, like I have already said.

I imagine the "Macedonian" dynasty became more or less Greek in due time, and Basil being the only real Armenian.

Anyway, what are your sources?

[Rosacrux]

I've looked up my sources and looks like you are (partially) correct and I am wrong. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Basil I was indeed of Armenian origin. His father moved from Armenia to Andrianople (in Thrace), made a family and gave birth to Basil. The later emperor was born in Andrianople, a Greek city, not in Armenia.

And, as the sources imply, he was pretty much hellenized (he certainly did not "spoke Greek with a heavy accent", actually Armenian was his "second language" and Greek his primary) but he was of Armenian origin, so much is true.

His sons, though (the later emperors Leo and Alexander) thought of themselves as Greek.

Sorry about the confusion, had to straighten my facts.

P.S. Checking out my sources, I've stumbled upon some "history of Macedonia" written in the early 20th century by A. Vasiliev, and he claims that Basil was "of Slavic ancestry, or of Slavic-Armenian ancestry". That is the only source that states so and it makes me wonder...

[-Isapostolos-]

Wathever the case, Basil was an Armenian, even if he was born in Armenia or in Thrace. According to your sources he was hellenized according to mine he wasn't. I think both possibilities are equal. Even though Basil wasn't born in Armenia, he could have developed the Armenian accent through his parents, because they might have only spoken Armenian at home at him.

I fear our knowledge may have been jeopardized by Byzantine court politics. Enemies of Basil might have wanted to portray him as the foreigner that he was and that he should not have been Emperor because of that. Followers of Basil might have preferred him to portray him as a true Greek speaking Macedonian, forgetting his Armenian past altogether.

I guess this is the reason why Byzantines aquired their nasty reputation, but for me this just makes me love them more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif