Byzantine Empire Imperium Graecorum or Imperium Romanum??

[Agiselaos]

I am Greek and I see The Byzantine Empire as medieval Greek Empire But i am curious to see how the Western(especially Italians) an other nations see this Empire.I am no offense to anyone just i want to know how others view it.:book:

[Boyar Son]

Well really we are told that they were politicaly descended from the Romans.

[Watchman]

AFAIK the Byzantines themselves considered themselves as "Romans". Their varyingly hostile Middle Eastern neighbours did the same, if only out of habit. Conversely the Western Christians ("Latins" as far as the Byzantines were concerned) regarded them as "Greeks"... :dizzy2:

Well, pretty much everyone liked to claim himself the True Heir of Rome. How much such varying pretensions now really mattered (outside official propagandas of course) is another question.

[Kralizec]

Well, pretty much everyone liked to claim himself the True Heir of Rome. How much such varying pretensions now really mattered (outside official propagandas of course) is another question.

Yet, the Byzantine claim is by far the best of them.

The state itself was very much Roman, but it evolved over the years, eventually ditching Latin as the official language in favour of Greek, wich is what the vast majority of the population had as first (and often only) language anyway.

[Orb]

I refer to them as 'Roman empire', usually, though I think that's just because I like Psellos.

[Pelopidas]

I'm French, and I see the Byzantine empire as the continuation of the Roman empire ( remember that in the late Antiquity, even the writers of Constantinople wrote in latin, not in Greek...the Greek language return later, during the medieval era )

[Wolfshart]

AFAIK the Byzantines themselves considered themselves as "Romans". Their varyingly hostile Middle Eastern neighbours did the same, if only out of habit. Conversely the Western Christians ("Latins" as far as the Byzantines were concerned) regarded them as "Greeks"... :dizzy2:

Well, pretty much everyone liked to claim himself the True Heir of Rome. How much such varying pretensions now really mattered (outside official propagandas of course) is another question.

Exactly. The Holy Roman Empire for one....hell even Hitler used the Roman Empire in many of his propaganda campaigns. Seems the Romans had a major inpact on the Germanic peoples....:surrender:

[Watchman]

At least the Byzantines could claim direct state-lineage descent from the Roman Empire and boast a decent number of surviving institutions. The derived Muscovite claim for being "third Rome" (IIRC) of course gets rather dodgier.

Not that the Holy Roman Empire ("neither holy, Roman, nor an empire" as some wit summed it up) was much of a competing pretender of course. :beam:

[the_handsome_viking]

I am Greek and I see The Byzantine Empire as medieval Greek Empire But i am curious to see how the Western(especially Italians) an other nations see this Empire.I am no offense to anyone just i want to know how others view it.:book:

I consider them Romans and later on the Greek succssors of the Romans more than anything else, I consider the Franks to be something of the Germanic successors of the Western Romans.

[Intranetusa]

I consider the Byzantines as a separate Greek-based culture with heavy Roman influences. They were also influenced by their Middle Eastern neighbors, and became sort of a conglameration of cultures, with Greek & Roman being at the top.

In a way the Roman-Byzantine relationship is sorta like relationship of the culture of East Asia.

[Geoffrey S]

Greek and more eastern thought had already had a huge influence on the Roman empire as a whole; seperation from its historical geographic origins intensified this, and arguably the effect eastern thought had on the Eastern Romans outweighed original values. So, Greek.

[keravnos]

I consider them Romans and later on the Greek succssors of the Romans more than anything else, I consider the Franks to be something of the Germanic successors of the Western Romans.

Exactly. I consider them as east romani speaking greek. It was only after us Greeks were under Turkish occupation that we considered ourselves as Greeks. Prior to that we thought ourselves as Romans, and so did the Turks. "Rumi" they called us then, aka Romani.

[Morte66]

I thought they were Roman, until I read a book about them. Now I think that after the first few generations they were "medieval Greek with a strong Roman streak" (law, economics, roads).

But hey, even their contemporaries called them "Romanoi" (in Greek).

p.s. I thoroughly recommend John Julius Norwich's three volume history of Byzantium as a fascinating read.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I consider Byznatium to be the decendant of Rome, but also the remainder. It depends of whether you consider the ERE as a true part of Rome or a spilt-off.

I consider it the continuation of the Roman Empire, with no break.

[keravnos]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.

Ditto, but I'm more inclined to count from 510, that's still 2,000 years.

[MiniMe]

I am Greek and I see The Byzantine Empire as medieval Greek Empire But i am curious to see how the Western(especially Italians) an other nations see this Empire.I am no offense to anyone just i want to know how others view it.:book:
I'm from Russia, so that makes me feel neither Westerner neither Easterner but definitely Northerner, but I'll answer you anyway =)
I consider Byzantine Empire 100% Greek. Romans could never outmatch the superiority and creativity of late Greek culture. So their Constantinople ruling class was slowely assimilated into greek society. IMO, early Christianity (that has not Ancient Roman but Eastern origins) and late Greek philosofy were greatly interlaced.


At least the Byzantines could claim direct state-lineage descent from the Roman Empire and boast a decent number of surviving institutions. The derived Muscovite claim for being "third Rome" (IIRC) of course gets rather dodgier.
The world famous claim for being a "third Rome" was never made to claim direct state-lineage descent from the Ancient Roman Empire.
It was a sermon metaphor about state support of the orthodox church.
It was made because Constantinople fell.
But yes, it was not precise at all, because the real ancient Rome never was supporting orthodox church =)

I hope I did not offend somehow anybody's national and religious feelings =)

[Conqueror]

I remember seeing it described as a "Roman body with Greek mind and Eastern soul", or something to that effect. Not too far from how I view the empire - as a romanized, christianized Greek state with Middle-Eastern influences.

[Kugutsu]

It was a direct continuation of the roman empire wasnt it. The empire disintegrated in the west, but the part that was in the east survived - with its capital in Constantinople. There was no break, and the greeks didnt go and conquer the eastern roman empire to make it their own. The culture simply morphed over time. But then the culture of Rome at the end was nothing like the culture of the city state that fought the carthaginians and then started dreaming of empire. Cultures constantly evolve. Britain now is nothing like the island conquered by the romans, but its still Britain. England now isnt even the same as the country ruled by Victoria, and that was only 100 years ago!

[keravnos]

The people who doubt its direct lineage are also the people who helped destroy it. It makes sense if you think of it this way. It makes more sense now that more than 500 years have passed since its demise.

[Intranetusa]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.



Actually, the Roman state began in 509 BCE with the founding of the Republic.


My take on it is:
Roman Empire 509 BCE - 476 CE
Byzantine Successor Empire - 1458 CE

I don't consider the Byzantines a continuation of the Roman empire because it's not exactly Roman if it doesn't even control the city of Rome, nor have Latin/Italian culture as the core.



There was no break, and the greeks didnt go and conquer the eastern roman empire to make it their own.
That's because the Greeks were conquered by the Romans. IMO, I don't consider the conquered peoples as a continuation of the empire of the conquerors, especially if they change their language, culture, customs, etc

Greek v Latin, etc

[Tretii]

I think of Byzantines as Greeks rather the Romans.
As for Moskovy claim for "third rome", I agree with minimi. Plus don't forget that Russian grand prince married daughter of last Byzantine emperor.

[Intranetusa]

The people who doubt its direct lineage are also the people who helped destroy it. It makes sense if you think of it this way. It makes more sense now that more than 500 years have passed since its demise.

If you think it will happen, it will happen?

What about the quote
"the Holy Roman Empire is not holy, not Roman, and not an empire"?

[Boyar Son]

I'm from...[the/a]Westerner....
I consider Byzantine Empire 100% Greek. Romans could never outmatch the superiority and creativity of late Greek culture.





Wasnt the Greeks taken over by the Romans and the western world adopted the Roman way (admitted also part greek, but Roman version) ?

[abou]

Romans could never outmatch the superiority and creativity of late Greek culture.
Highly debatable. Superiority is a very relative term, as is creativity. Besides, anything invented by the Greeks or others that the Romans later used were never exploited to the extent that they were by the Romans. In fact, many were later altered or further innovated by the Romans.

The biggest that come to mind are concrete and vaulting. Unless I am completely mistaken, you will never find anything like the Porticus Aemilia in Greece or the Baths of Caracalla.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

What about the quote
"the Holy Roman Empire is not holy, not Roman, and not an empire"?
Didn't Mike Myers say that on a Saturday Night Live skit...while dressed up as a Jewish woman? "Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Talk..."

JK

[Intranetusa]

^ voltaire

[MiniMe]

Wasnt the Greeks taken over by the Romans and the western world adopted the Roman way (admitted also part greek, but Roman version) ?
Yes, they were taken over. However, the most prestigious colleges were in Athens and Alexandria.

Highly debatable.
Highly debatable, indeed =)
But:
There was no theoretical science in Rome. 10:0
Literature: greek win 10:2
Theater@drama: greek win 10:1
Historians: er, well, romans had one good historian. the funny thing is: he wasn't roman =)
Philosophy&religion_innovations: 10:1 (1 goes for stoicism)
Athletics&sport: Olympiad versus Circus Maximus. MiniMe votes for Olympiad, Greek win. Again.

Now the back side of the coin =)
1. Law system. 5:10 (lawyers are roman invention :laugh4: )

2. And finally, the one and only explanation of roman supremacy:
Military recruitment system. 10:200
Romans winwinwin
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Agiselaos]

I think that you all must consider that The Emperors thought themselves descendants of Constantine not Augustus.then after the Arab Conquest the territories the Empire Had was populated by Hellenes from ancient times.The used the term ''Roman'' only for political mean.we must not forget Plithon who said that We are Hellens Not Romans.As for Roman in east they were assimillated by the Greek population :book:

[Morte66]

I think Byzantium may have been pretty Roman in 477CE, but 75 years later everybody who personally remembered Rome was dead and they just had scrolls. By about the 8th century it was medieval Greek with a lot of Romanesque institutions and the "continuous Roman empire" thing was a marketing slogan.

The most Roman thing about them was that they were an empire, but you could equally well call that "Persian".

Those who looking at things from a historical timescale tend to forget that lives are short and societies change. E.g. I'm British, our empire essentially ended about fifty years ago, and anybody who seriously hearkens back to "the glory of empire" is a loony. But a thousand years from now, historical wargamers will think we were just the same as the British of 1880 and probably build forces for the reconquest of our rightful territories in America.

[the_handsome_viking]

Exactly. I consider them as east romani speaking greek. It was only after us Greeks were under Turkish occupation that we considered ourselves as Greeks. Prior to that we thought ourselves as Romans, and so did the Turks. "Rumi" they called us then, aka Romani.

Yeah, it's quite an interesting subject really, Roman identity politics that is, not even most people of the Italian peninsula could really consider themselves to be Roman latins, and even the Turks having conquered the Eastern Roman Empire considered themselves to be Eastern Romans.

[Intranetusa]

Yeah, it's quite an interesting subject really, Roman identity politics that is, not even most people of the Italian peninsula could really consider themselves to be Roman latins, and even the Turks having conquered the Eastern Roman Empire considered themselves to be Eastern Romans.

They were conquered by the Romans, after all. I'm sure even the people in Gaul, Spain, North Africa, etc all considered themselves Roman or at least Roman-esque

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

The Byzantine Empire was just the surviving eastern half of the old Roman Empire. It was the 16th century German historian Hieronymus Wolf whom coined the phrase "Byzantine." They never declared independence, they just split the empire between two emperors. Its like if Britain was conquered by Nazi Germany, and the British Government and Royal Family relocated to Canada or Australia, and remained the case for more than sixty years.

[Enguerrand de Sarnéac]

Its like if Britain was conquered by Nazi Germany, and the British Government and Royal Family relocated to Canada or Australia, and remained the case for more than sixty years.

No, because the split occured before the foreign invasions. There is no one fleeing, or relocating for that matter

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

All I'm saying is that if the original homeland of an empire was overrun by the forces a foreign nation, then a new seat of government would be chosen if enough of its territories remained under its authority. I know that the Imperium Romanorum was continually divided and reunited before the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius. And even King Theodoric of the Ostrogoths rule of Italy on behalf of Emperor Zeno was a pretense of legality.

[Wolfman]

To me Byzantium as we now call it had the most legitimate claim of being roman so I consider them to be a second roman empire. The Venetians in my book come second place since they were decended from roman refugees.

[Will_YouFight_ForME]

My personal opinion is the death of the real Roman empire is when they got rid of the old gods in favor of Christianity but thats really a very generalized reaction.

I think they saw themselves as Roman before the collapse and split making the western and eastern empire because their was that dream that was Rome - the most glorious city in the known world

and everyone wanted to claim they were part of that

but i really don't have the qualifications or knowledge to justify this
:laugh4:

i can ask but one question, what would have happened if Imperium Romanum did not collapse?

[keravnos]

If you had to leave your country to save your life, would it still be you in the other country you found refuge?

Then, imagine some generations later the descendants of your pursuers, coming from the country you left, and claiming to be your REAL descendants, killing your very own offspring.

That's Eastern Roman Empire-Byzantium in a nutshell, in my own personal opinion.

[abou]

Highly debatable, indeed =)
But:
There was no theoretical science in Rome. 10:0
Literature: greek win 10:2
Theater@drama: greek win 10:1
Historians: er, well, romans had one good historian. the funny thing is: he wasn't roman =)
Philosophy&religion_innovations: 10:1 (1 goes for stoicism)
Athletics&sport: Olympiad versus Circus Maximus. MiniMe votes for Olympiad, Greek win. Again.

Now the back side of the coin =)
1. Law system. 5:10 (lawyers are roman invention :laugh4: )

2. And finally, the one and only explanation of roman supremacy:
Military recruitment system. 10:200
Romans winwinwin
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Obviously you completely ignored the spirit of my post. I suggest you go back and read it. Also, quoting arbitrary numbers doesn't help your argument and doesn't do anything to point out the differences in Roman culture compared to Greeks - ie. concern for the here & now compared to a concern for the metaphysical.

[alatar]

Obviously you completely ignored the spirit of my post. I suggest you go back and read it. Also, quoting arbitrary numbers doesn't help your argument and doesn't do anything to point out the differences in Roman culture compared to Greeks - ie. concern for the here & now compared to a concern for the metaphysical.

Abou has a point.

[Boyar Son]

But we both can agree that the Hellens (their true name) and Romans has possibly the most glorious history. Hands down in my opinion.

[Intranetusa]

But we both can agree that the Hellens (their true name) and Romans has possibly the most glorious history. Hands down in my opinion.

Yup, the Romans is the best in the western world/world while the Hellens is
2nd best in the "western world" only.

[hellenes]

Yup, the Romans is the best in the western world/world while the Hellens is
2nd best in the "western world" only.

Its strange how the Hellenes took the illeterate farmers of Latio and taught them practically everything that would even remotely be called civilised...
So strange how the Romans dissapeared as a culture/language/tradition under the heel of the germanic tribes whilst Hellenes continued...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Its strange how the Hellenes took the illeterate farmers of Latio and taught them practically everything that would even remotely be called civilised...
So strange how the Romans dissapeared as a culture/language/tradition under the heel of the germanic tribes whilst Hellenes continued...
Greeks didn't civilize the Italians. They were already civilized via the Etruscans. I don't think Greeks had any influence over Roman society until they started 'allying' with other cities, some of which being Greek colonies.

Also Roman civilization didn't disappear with the Germanic invasion. Remember that the 'barbarian invaders' didn't want to destroy Rome, they wanted to be part of Rome. All of western civilization could be said to be Roman. Systems of government, law, religion, and much of the morality of the west is mixture of Roman and Christian systems. France has always been a very Roman nation. And Latin didn't disappear, it just changed. Spanish, French, Romanian, and Italian are all bastardized versions of Latin. I would say that Spanish is about as close to Latin as modern Greek is to ancient Greek.

[antisocialmunky]

The Romans had more obscene graffiti. That has to count for something. :)

[abou]

Its strange how the Hellenes took the illeterate farmers of Latio and taught them practically everything that would even remotely be called civilised...
So strange how the Romans dissapeared as a culture/language/tradition under the heel of the germanic tribes whilst Hellenes continued...
To add to what Marcus wrote, the Hellenic culture didn't continue any more than any other culture. In fact, a governor of Athens wrote to the emperor in Constantinople complaining that no one in his city could read. Also, when Greece converted to Christianity they converted hard and either abandoned or altered their religious and cultural traditions to match. Therefore no more Elysian Mysteries, no more festivals to Dionysus.

And where do you think ancient Greece went? Lime-kilns of course, because when you burn marble it turns into lime for farming.

[Wolfman]

But were did the Greeks get their knowledge? As history shows people with great ideas are usually influenced by the works of another. At one time the Greeks had have been what they considered 'barbaric'. Every nation on the face of the earth at one or another was or is primitive. So again. Who were the greeks influenced by?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

But were did the Greeks get their knowledge? As history shows people with great ideas are usually influenced by the works of another. At one time the Greeks had have been what they considered 'barbaric'. Every nation on the face of the earth at one or another was or is primitive. So again. Who were the greeks influenced by?
The Phoenicians.
Phoenician traders brought them technology, eastern civilization, the "Greek" written language, and even aspects of what would become Greek religion.

[keravnos]

Yep. Ancient greeks used to call the 24 letter alphabet we greek still use "Phoenician" one. If they influenced the way we write, I would imagine a very big cultural influence.

[Will_YouFight_ForME]

Could it be guessed because Greece was once strong, but never united when strong (500BC+) still valuing the Greek city state polis

Later when Rome becomes a major player due to the Punic wars
they are able to suppress the Greeks and use all the knowledge to twist the roman way into something utterly greater than before the Punic wars, transforming the Roman way of life forever

[Agiselaos]

Keravnos do you believe that the Byzantines are descended by Hellenes even though they consider themselves as Romans??As for the alphabet it was taken by the Eteocretes who were Greek and not from the Semitic Phoenicians who came after them. We must all agree that the Graeco-Romani culture was Destroyed by the coming of Christianity because it was consider pagan and evil :wall:

[keravnos]

Keravnos do you believe that the Byzantines are descended by Hellenes even though they consider themselves as Romans??As for the alphabet it was taken by the Eteocretes who were Greek and not from the Semitic Phoenicians who came after them. We must all agree that the Graeco-Romani culture was Destroyed by the coming of Christianity because it was consider pagan and evil :wall:

Well, I think I made my opinion on the Eastern Greek speaking Romani perfectly clear. Yes they were hellenes, mostly all but the ruling elite but considered themseleves Romani. The big majority of the intelligensia that would be needed to run an empire, had come from Roma to Konstantinoupolis too (originally called Nova Roma), so to my mind there is NO DOUBT whatsoever about the "Romanicity" of Byzantium. Besides, being called "Hellenas" back then was a mortal insult, as it implied Paganism and could get you killed if a priest was nearby listening.

So far as the alphabet is concerned you are wrong. It was phoenician letters, in which we added the vowels (Phoenicians just didn't write theirs, much like Israelis today, but pronounced them all the same). Eteocretes were the descendants of Minoans, lived in Eastern Crete (Think Seteia and Ag. Nikolaos and environs), wrote in their own alphabet, (Grammiki A') which hasn't been read yet. Reason? They spoke a non greek language, Minoan which we know very little about. Grammiki B' the written language of the Mycenaeans was rough and unyieldy as every syllable had its own letter (approx 88 of them) and was very difficult to both read and write.
Phoenician alphabet...ΧΡΥΣΟΣ (spelled Chrysos=gold)
Linear B' alphabet... KU-RU-SO and it would look like this
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%95%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B1:Linear_B.jpg
Reading that (in the 40's using some unscrambling techniques of the British) was the first clear cut evidence that Mycenaeans were actually Greek.

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

If you guys can do watch this documentary,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/linear-b.shtml

It is not Here,
http://best.online.docus.googlepages.com/
among many of the best online documentaries (520 of them) I have seen, but it would be a fine addition.


and for more on the following (it is in greek)
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%93%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%92

[Agiselaos]

Yes, the ruling elite were Romans but after the 7th or 8th century we can say they were Hellenes and many Emperors were Hellenes such Vasileios 2nd Nikephoros Phokas while others such were not(Tsimisces,Leon) but my point is even though they did not call themselves Hellenes they separate themselves from Italians who they called Latins.what is more they considered themselves free and after 4th crusade they hated more the Latins than Turks. :2thumbsup: As for the Eteocretes you were right but the first people who settled were Minoans as for the alphabet i think we have taken by these Phoenicians not from semitic Phoenicians:book:

[edyzmedieval]

The whole thing is debatable. While today we consider it a Greek Empire, they considered themselves as Rhomaioi (Basileus ton Rhomaion - Emperor of the Romans). Even in 1453 they considered themselves like that, but in fact, they were completely Hellenic.