Were the byzantines european?

[hellenes]

Ive seen many people mentioning byzantines as something alien and neither european nor asian...Some sites mention them as orthodox and the catholics as christians. Therefore im asking what they were?

[Cebei]

I am sure there are pros on this in the forum, but for a quick answer: They were actually part of the Holy ROman Empire (IT was Eastern Roman Empire). Constantinople was the main reason why the East&west got seperated as const. was the biggest and best city; even better than ROme. Eastern ROman empire adopted COnst. as the capital, and Wastern Roman Emp adopted ROme as the capital. LAter a divergence known as "The great schism" occurred. Rome and COnst. couldnt agree on the father-son-holy spirit trilogy and thus Orhodox religion emerged as a distinct religion. In time Eastern ROman EMpire adopted Hellenic culture and become Byzantine.

I am not sure about the chronology, but more or less these are main lines.

So Byzantine is not alien, it was part of the Roman_Latin EMpire. But because of the religious differences, Rome never liked Byzantium

[rasoforos]

The division of the empire to east and west and the religious schism were two different incidents ( unrelated) and many centuries apart. In addition there was no 'holy roman empire ' yet. It was the 'Roman Empire' , the 'holy roman empire' was a german central european empire much much later and after the fall of the western roman empire and it didnt have to do much with either Rome or the Byzantines.
Another interest fact is that the byzantines would not actually call themselves 'Byzantines' , they would use 'Romans' .

[Cebei]

Whoops, sorry. But I said Im not sure about chronology. The rest is correct?

[Swamp Thing]

I would call them part of the Christian sphere, but not Western Christian.

They were a people with a similar heritage but traveling on a different path of development to the Germanic states of the west. Whereas the Germanic states could loosely be termed as growing on the ruins of Roman civilisation, Byzantium WAS a Roman civilisation, just a very evolved version of one.

In the same way that the Persians were Musilms but they were definitely NOT Arabs

[Cebei]

Byzantian Empire was much greater than the Germanic Holy ROman Empire. I still read about Byzantians in awe.

[The Storyteller]

The term Holy Roman Empire is a misnomer. As one of my friends put it, it wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't exactly an Empire.

Anyway, the Byzantines are the major faction of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was split into East and West, in part because it was just too large for a single emperor to govern effectively. This divide was never really healed, and when the Western Empire fell to the barbarian hordes, the Eastern Empire was still going strong.

The Byzantines are both Asian and European. The border between the two continents runs through Constantinople. Check out the map in the Late Period. The Turkish eventually overan Constantinople, the first time the great walls had ever fallen to barbarian invaders. They renamed Constantinople as Istanbul, so modern day Turkey is really ancient Constantinople. Half of modern day Turkey is in Europe, the other half in Asia. Same with the old Byzantine Empire.

[Cebei]

Look here

http://www.in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/general/roman.htm

and then here

http://www.in2greece.com/english....ine.htm (http://www.in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/general/byzantine.htm)

[Hurin_Rules]

The easiest way to describe it is this:

In ancient times, you had the Roman Empire, which stretched from Syria to Scotland. All one empire. Most of it became Christian in the fourth century. Then, between the fourth and fifth centuries, the empire split in two. The eastern half became the Byzantine empire, the Western half fell. In 800 AD, the Western empire was resurrected when Charlemagne was crowned (western) Roman emperor; his empire was later called by historians the Holy Roman Empire, to distinguish it from the ancient Roman Empire and from Byzantium. In 1054, the Church in the Western/Holy Roman empire split with the Church in Byzantium. The Church in the west was called the Catholic church, the church in Byzantium was called the Orthodox church.

Byzantium was always a Christian empire. As for European, well, yes and no. Byzantium ruled areas in both Europe and Asia. It had ethnic Europeans (Greeks, Serbians, Croats, etc.) under its rule, but also Asians (Armenians, Turks, Arabs, etc.). The ancient world didn't quite have our modern concepts of race, and didn't mind having people of different ethnicities in a large empire. There was no 'Byzantine' ethnicity-- there were only Greeks, Serbs, Croats, Armenians, etc.

[Mount Suribachi]

Regarding the schism, it was in the offing for centuries before as the Patriach and Emperor in Constantinople tried to exert their independance from the Patriach of Rome (the Pope). This was partly for temporal reasons - exerting power without interference from the west and partly religious. Though the issue that finally caused the split was an extremely technical issue of doctrine - does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or through the Father and the Son. I'm a lay preacher and I couldn't give you an answer to that

So to answer your question, yes the Byzantine empire was Christian from its inception - the Emperor who moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium was the same Emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire (Constantine the Great).

[Vanya]

GAH

Vanya must add to this...

The Byzantine Empire was never known as such. The term "byzantine" is one applied by MODERN scholars to identify the empire. Its contemporaries referred to is as the Roman Empire, as it was, in reality, the remnants of Rome. In some lands, the empire was referenced as The Empire of the Rum, which merely meant, "Empire of the Romans".

The others are correct in pointing out that it was a christian empire... and that whole schism thing.

GAH

[LestaT]

Just some thoughts. Not backed by hard facts or maybe not historical accurate or anything. Compiled from my different source of reading (some movies maybe)

1. Eastern and western was one part of empire before christianity probably started around the julius ceaser time. (base on the cleopatra stories)

2. The eastern part were the earlier area to recieve christianity (not catholic or orthodox but the earliest form as brought by Jesus and the apostles)

3. Paul brought a different version to rome because his teaching totally deviates from the original teaching. He convert pagan romans and also their celebration and give new names (such as christmas).

4. The western become bigger and stronger militarily and around 326 AD(?) the council of Niccea (?) accepted the version of christianity as of St Paul and adopt the wholy trinity concept. (prior to that they were not call christians, but nasrani' or nazorene - the reason is that they do not worship Christ, but God (the father).

5. After the rise of Islam the eastern grew weaker and weaker while the western falls into the dark ages.

6. to be continued.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[LestaT]

I agree that byzantine was probably modern scholars name for that part of the roman empire. Anyway muslim historian tells about letters send by the prophet and the caliphs to 'emperor of rome' like the letter to heraclius by the prophet inviting him to convert to Islam. I'm sure it means the eastern part of the empire.

I don't agree with the christan empire part because christianity is the western concept. For the eastern part Jesus was the messenger to correct (maybe updates?) the law of Moses (not only for the jews but for all mankind) which has become distorted and changed after hundred of years and to be completed by Muhammad (not only for the arabs).

ps: imagine that Moses brought version 1.0, Jesus brought the patches .. say.. version 3.4 then the final version came throught Muhammad. Let's say it's the gold edition with all the bugs fix... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]I agree that byzantine was probably modern scholars name for that part of the roman empire

they label it that way because that was an early name for the modern day city of Istambul, Byzantium/Byzantion.

later the city of Byzantium was changed and called Constantinople after the Roman Emperor Constsntine, who made it the capital of the empire.

later on the Roman Empire was divid in two, Rome was the centre of the Western Empire, and Constantinple the capital of the Eastern Empire.

that is my vague memory of history class at school. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ] ps: imagine that Moses brought version 1.0, Jesus brought the patches .. say.. version 3.4 then the final version came throught Muhammad. Let's say it's the gold edition with all the bugs fix...

and i dumped the whole lot in favour of LINUX http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[LestaT]

Linux ? interesting concept. but.. is the MTW linux version ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Sep. 24 2003,18:22)]I am sure there are pros on this in the forum, but for a quick answer: They were actually part of the Holy ROman Empire (IT was Eastern Roman Empire). Constantinople was the main reason why the East&west got seperated as const. was the biggest and best city; even better than ROme. Eastern ROman empire adopted COnst. as the capital, and Wastern Roman Emp adopted ROme as the capital. LAter a divergence known as "The great schism" occurred. Rome and COnst. couldnt agree on the father-son-holy spirit trilogy and thus Orhodox religion emerged as a distinct religion. In time Eastern ROman EMpire adopted Hellenic culture and become Byzantine.

I am not sure about the chronology, but more or less these are main lines.

So Byzantine is not alien, it was part of the Roman_Latin EMpire. But because of the religious differences, Rome never liked Byzantium
Byzantines were part of the Holy Roman Empire??


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif My God

[squippy]

A further point: when Crusaders arrived at Constantinople, they found it full of oriental arhcitecture and dress. So, Byzantium appeared to them - correctly to an extent - as a whole different culture and they more or less thought of it that way. Once the Eastern Empire had fallen, the christian identity in Europe become more and more distinct from what had been the orthodox eatern empire, and the perception of this society as being an Other was strengthened.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]Byzantines were part of the Holy Roman Empire??

nope, both are/were the two halfs of what was perviously the ROMAN EMPIRE.

the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine half, continued on after the split and lasted in a form till the i6th century.

the Western Roman Empire eventually collapsed in the 5th to 6th century the name and some part continued in a degenerate form until Charlemange built up the Holy Roman Empire.

but only the names are similar, there is not really much of a connection between them. EDIT: that is the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire

my history is quite rusty, if anyone spots anything wrong please correct me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[-Isapostolos-]

Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Sep. 24 2003,10:04)]Ive seen many people mentioning byzantines as something alien and neither european nor asian...Some sites mention them as orthodox and the catholics as christians. Therefore im asking what they were?
These people are called Greeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif . They are neither European nor Asian, but indeed a mixture of these two. The difference between eastern and western christianity is that eastern christianity was alot more spiritual oriented and had many eastern (persian) influences on it (like forbidding the worship of icons). Later the Emperors would reallow the worship of icons and the eastern church would become more 'western', since they had to make up their mind (western provinces -greece- prefered icons and eastern ones disliked them -Armenia, levant-).
However it's absolutely wrong to say that the eastern church considered Jesus less important than the western one. Some Ortohox ofsprings even considered Jesus as divine(arians, monophysites)
Mohammed was considered a unbeliever and none of the islamic ideas made their way into the Orthodox church.

After 476, when the last western emperor's reign is over you can safely ignore the western Empire. From then on there was only one Empire and that was the Eastern one. Even when Belisarius under Justinian reconquered much of the western Empire, there was still only ONE emperor.

Much later when Charlemange conquered much of the old western Empire and had himself crowned Western Emperor by the pope. This was a great insult yo the Byzantines, since according to them, there is only one person on earth who is God's representative on earth, isopostolos (the equal of the apostles). This was the start of the holy roman empire, but as earlier said, this empire wasn't really legit, and it had nothing to with the old western Empire whatsoever.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]The term Holy Roman Empire is a misnomer. As one of my friends put it, it wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't exactly an Empire

Actually your friend is just quoting Naepolean. Naepolean said this in 1806 when he disolved the HRE and had the German Conferation created in it's place. This meant that the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II became Emperor Francis I of Austria which was the head of the German Conferation.

The Austrians controlled the German Conferation until they were beaten by the Prussians in 1869. The Austrians not wanting to bow down to the Prussians withdrew from the German Confederation. And this is why the nations of Austria and Germany are seperate to this day.

And the HRE actually was a Frankish empire until it split into two, the German half and the Frankish half (I realize the franks are just different germans). The German half ended up being larger and intially more control over Italy than the Frankish and were recognized as the HRE by the pope instead of the Frankish half which became the Kingdom of France.

And here's a link to an atlas of Europe which can effectively show the rough politcal boundaries and explain a lot with little effort.
Clicky Clicky (http://www.euratlas.com/summary.htm)

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 25 2003,22:19)]I agree that byzantine was probably modern scholars name for that part of the roman empire. Anyway muslim historian tells about letters send by the prophet and the caliphs to 'emperor of rome' like the letter to heraclius by the prophet inviting him to convert to Islam. I'm sure it means the eastern part of the empire.

I don't agree with the christan empire part because christianity is the western concept. For the eastern part Jesus was the messenger to correct (maybe updates?) the law of Moses (not only for the jews but for all mankind) which has become distorted and changed after hundred of years and to be completed by Muhammad (not only for the arabs).

ps: imagine that Moses brought version 1.0, Jesus brought the patches .. say.. version 3.4 then the final version came throught Muhammad. Let's say it's the gold edition with all the bugs fix... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Christianity was during its early stages a mediteranian religion and the divinity of Jesus and christianity was not a western invention. Church in the early days was more or less in agreement with each other with the new testament formalized in the late 4th century, the matter of trinity resolved by the end of the 4th, complication come up now and then that deals with more theological issues but the problems between the patriachs in Constantinople and Rome sometimes more political then theological. The first ecumenical council held in Nicea was mainly to strengthen the churches doctrine in face of the threat of "heretical " teachings of Arianism. Also from that council we have the nicene creed which could be familiar to some of you here.

Anyway the Eastern empire was a christian empire(post constantine and had a brief interruption during julian) and they believed in the divinity of jesus.
The holy Quran is not that analogous with the Old testament books but i dun think it is a question that most people can deal with objectively

[MrWhipple]

The quote about the HRE being neither H nor R nor E was not from Naepolean. He was quoting Voltaire.

Check out:
Brainy Quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire140970.html)

[Mega Dux Bob]

Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 25 2003,08:19)]I don't agree with the christan empire part because christianity is the western concept. For the eastern part Jesus was the messenger to correct (maybe updates?) the law of Moses (not only for the jews but for all mankind) which has become distorted and changed after hundred of years and to be completed by Muhammad (not only for the arabs).
The Byzantines / Later Romans believed pretty much the same thing as the Catholic / Latins did / do. That's why the call it the Greek Orthodox church. Orthodoxy being defined by the Council of Niceea. What you're talking about is more like the Paulian Heresy, which was in the Eastern Empire and drove the Emperors nuts trying to supress.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]The quote about the HRE being neither H nor R nor E was not from Naepolean. He was quoting Voltaire.


Oops, sorry didn't know I was wrong. Thanks for the correction, won't make THAT mistake again.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Sep. 26 2003,21:55)]
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 25 2003,08:19)]I don't agree with the christan empire part because christianity is the western concept. For the eastern part Jesus was the messenger to correct (maybe updates?) the law of Moses (not only for the jews but for all mankind) which has become distorted and changed after hundred of years and to be completed by Muhammad (not only for the arabs).
The Byzantines / Later Romans believed pretty much the same thing as the Catholic / Latins did / do. That's why the call it the Greek Orthodox church. Orthodoxy being defined by the Council of Niceea. What you're talking about is more like the Paulian Heresy, which was in the Eastern Empire and drove the Emperors nuts trying to supress.
It gets more complicated because the 'eastern' churches called themselves 'Catholic' as well.

I can't believe someone said the eastern peoples weren't 'Christians' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[ShadesPanther]

Quote[/b] ]I can't believe someone said the eastern peoples weren't 'Christians'
I'll get my Black and decker http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I hope to go to Russia in the summer and go see a othodox service http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[redrooster]

i hope i am not being impolite by asking this. Where did you get your education Lestat? a madrasah?

[kataphraktoi]

Just to throw more Naptha in the sink:

Byzantines were not Greek; they were anyone who lived in the empire, spoke Greek and were Christian.

Anyone who studies the Byzantine Empire will realise that the Byzantines weren't Greeks, they were a multi-ethnic society that was unified by several identifying qualities as mentioned above.

Greek was an influential culture in the empire but that did not mean it was Greek, eg. Alexander spread Greek culture far and wide, but did that mean the areas that adopted Greek culture were Greek?

Language can always cross ethnic boundaries

So anyone can be Byzantine or Rhomanoi as they called themselves:
this includes
- Slavs
- Persians
- Greeks
- Bulgars
- Armenians
- Indigenous natives of Asia Minor like the Isaurians, Galatians, Cappadocians, etc, etc
- Normans
- blah blah blah

How?

The Byzantine political ideology of Oikumene was a syncretism of Roman, Greek and Christian concepts:
Roman Imperialism plus Greek language and Divine sasction combined to form the Byzantine state.
Its universalism was a form of citizenship bestowed on any inhabitant of the empire - in some ways a Christian elaboration of Caracalla's universal extension of Roman citizenship to anyone in the Roman Empire.

Because of the nature of this ideology, it could only last as long as the state lasted, hence, no one calls themse;ves Byzantine of Rhomanoi today.

Although, the Byzantines were truly Greek in the last few decades of its existence since its territories were no longer heterogenous but quite homogenous - hint: the empire after 1261 encompassed most of the areas where there were ethnic Greeks and refugee Greeks from Asia Minor.

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Sep. 27 2003,13:38)]It gets more complicated because the 'eastern' churches called themselves 'Catholic' as well.
Well, all Christian denominations are "catholic", its kinda a universal description. The confusion comes because here in the west we now use Catholic when what we really mean is Roman Catholic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Isopostolos @ Sep. 25 2003,09:29)][quote=hellenes,Sep. 24 2003,10:04]
Much later when Charlemange conquered much of the old western Empire and had himself crowned Western Emperor by the pope. This was a great insult yo the Byzantines, since according to them, there is only one person on earth who is God's representative on earth, isopostolos (the equal of the apostles). This was the start of the holy roman empire, but as earlier said, this empire wasn't really legit, and it had nothing to with the old western Empire whatsoever.
Actually one of the main reasons that the pope accepted to crown Charlemagne to emperor was that wasn't an emperor on the Byzantine throne at that time. It was the empress Irene http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . Ofcourse Charlemagne refused to take back his title when a new emperor came to power.

You've got quite a big name to live up till Isopostolos. Where is your empire? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
An emperor must have an empire else they are not emperors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[-Isapostolos-]

Ah yes it as because of that bitch Irene... Still Charlemange had no right to let himself get crowned of the Roman Empire.

My Empire is right on my hard disk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. Glory to the Eternal Empire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[kataphraktoi]

As bad as Irene was, she had more entitlement to that fur-skinned barbarian who usurped the noble Roman name and was crowned as Emperor.

To the Pope, this was an opportunity to snatch some power and prestige from Byzantium...till this day, the Papacy is still a pompous institution of delusional despots with no real power.

Charlemagne influenced by Salian law, saw no Emperor on the throne of Byzantium....but we are talking about Roman civilisation here, not pathetic Frankish Salian laws which have no place in the Roman Empire.

BOO FRANKS

[Scipio]

Coarse they were christians many books Ive seen had it The emperor of Byzantium became converted to christian and made byzantium the "Last Christian Stronghold" Its just that during the crusades it went from a strong christian place to a muslim country via the seljuk TURKS therfore its now called Turkey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kataphraktoi]

WHy do Catholics ruin everything??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Lechev]

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Sep. 27 2003,22:11)]i hope i am not being impolite by asking this. Where did you get your education Lestat? a madrasah?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Hmm...wonder what will it be if one of the patron here come from St.Patrick Sec.or from St Joseph. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (Lechev @ Oct. 01 2003,06:49)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Hmm...wonder what will it be if one of the patron here come from St.Patrick Sec.or from St Joseph. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
sial lah, i thought st Pats and SJI only got ah bengs

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Enough of that guys, no discriminations.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]WHy do Catholics ruin everything???


It's called jealousy. I've read many accounts of the first crusade and there were more than a casual amount of the crusader leadership that when they saw the grandness of Constantinople the first thought that went through their mind was of taking it for themselves.

The pope should have done as Alexius asked and had more Frankish mercenaries head over, not one giant uncontrollable army with no real central leadership.