View Full Version : Happy Cannae Day
Celebrating the slaughter of Rome's invincible legions by outnumbered Carthaginians since 216 B.C. :2thumbsup:
I love this forum .
Satyros
AntiochusIII
08-03-2007, 03:52
Celebrating the slaughter of Rome's invincible legions by outnumbered Carthaginians since 216 B.C. :2thumbsup:omg eb u haet romans :smash:
just kidding
is there any reason for celebrating this event? of course, its a historical battle, worth to remind of...
and how about a little presentation, what kind of units participated, the process of the battle, who was in command etc.
i mean, would be very interesting.
too late! its already over! :yougotmail:
Baldrick
08-03-2007, 09:29
then may you have a happy day after Cannae day a day long remembered by carrion feeders everywhere
Baryonyx Walkeri
08-03-2007, 09:33
soon we must celebrate the battle of ZAMA were the invincible legion slaughtered the invicible hannibal :laugh4:
pezhetairoi
08-03-2007, 11:16
A mini presentation on Cannae would most certainly take a very long time indeed to present. XD The shortest one of any detail whatsoever would be one VERY long forum post indeed. XD
Palasta,
There's more than enough information at your fingertips to help you learn about the battle of Cannae...Wikipedia's entry is a good place to start. For books on the subject, Daly's "Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War" and Goldworthy's "Cannae" are recommended...go for it!
Intranetusa
08-03-2007, 17:00
I prefer Carrahe (SP?) when 11,0000 outnumbered Persian cataphracts and composite horse archers slaugtered 35,000 Post-Marian legionaries and their auxillaries.
I like Cannae better :2thumbsup:
Hooahguy
08-03-2007, 17:06
I prefer Carrahe (SP?) when 11,0000 outnumbered Persian cataphracts and composite horse archers slaugtered 35,000 Post-Marian legionaries and their auxillaries.
yes, but while they were outnumbered, IIRC, the romans had little or no cavalry to chase the HA (they were killed off earlier on in the battle by the parthian cataphracts) and the HA just did hit and run attacks until the romans were defeated.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-03-2007, 18:06
In October we can all look forward to Teutoburg Day. (No, not Thanksgiving, Teutoburg).
Krusader
08-03-2007, 19:14
yes, but while they were outnumbered, IIRC, the romans had little or no cavalry to chase the HA (they were killed off earlier on in the battle by the parthian cataphracts) and the HA just did hit and run attacks until the romans were defeated.
Yes. Textbook example of all-cavalry warfare
Hooahguy
08-03-2007, 22:20
In October we can all look forward to Teutoburg Day. (No, not Thanksgiving, Teutoburg).
ur a bad, bad roman, arent you!:whip:
Treverer
08-03-2007, 22:20
In October we can all look forward to Teutoburg Day. (No, not Thanksgiving, Teutoburg).
<evil grin>
"Roma victor!"
by a fictional (or not ?) Roman general of / from Iberia.
"What a fool!"
by a friend of mine.
Yes. Textbook example of all-cavalry warfare Textbook example of cowardness!!! :furious3:
:clown:
Treverer, you've forced my hand.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1551457&postcount=14
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-04-2007, 00:44
by a fictional (or not ?) Roman general of / from Iberia.
Fictional, "Maximus" was "Emperor of Britain" a few hundred years later. Maximus Decimus Meridius, or Decimus Meridius Maximus to untangle his name, is a composite of several Roman generals and Emperors, including Marcus Auralius himself.
Ironic eh?
Intranetusa
08-04-2007, 04:20
yes, but while they were outnumbered, IIRC, the romans had little or no cavalry to chase the HA (they were killed off earlier on in the battle by the parthian cataphracts) and the HA just did hit and run attacks until the romans were defeated.
the Romans never had good heavy cavalry (RTW's uber praetroian cavalry is mythical bullsh**)...so that's their own damn fault. :)
Treverer
08-04-2007, 13:47
Treverer, you've forced my hand.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1551457&postcount=14
Ehmm, myself being a "fool" concerning latin (never went past 2 sessions of that language at university and happy to study MODERN history, where you did not need latin :beam: ), I agree to whatever someone says how is fluent in it ... :yes:
Treverer
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-04-2007, 23:55
the Romans never had good heavy cavalry (RTW's uber praetroian cavalry is mythical bullsh**)...so that's their own damn fault. :)
Not quite true, the later Cataphracts etc were excellant heavy cavalry which blended the best of Greek and Eastern cavalry traditions. Even the Germano-Celtic Auxillia Alae were excellant medium cavalry. Crassus sepperated his force and allowed his cavalry to move too far ahead.
It was his own fault.
Don't forget the Extraordinarii.
Although, they would only form a fraction of the entire cavalry force.
Intranetusa
08-05-2007, 00:32
Not quite true, the later Cataphracts etc were excellant heavy cavalry which blended the best of Greek and Eastern cavalry traditions. Even the Germano-Celtic Auxillia Alae were excellant medium cavalry. Crassus sepperated his force and allowed his cavalry to move too far ahead.
It was his own fault.
Are you refering to the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantines may have been highly influenced by the Romans, but they are a separate civilzation.
and you mean Macedonian-Greeks right? since as EB proves, the Greek-Greeks had the worst cavalry ever...
Are you refering to the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantines may have been highly influenced by the Romans, but they are a separate civilzation.
and you mean Macedonian-Greeks right? since as EB proves, the Greek-Greeks had the worst cavalry ever...
:inquisitive:
I'd take Hippies over German cavalry anyday....
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-05-2007, 00:55
Maximus Decimus Meridius, or Decimus Meridius Maximus
Hollywood is really bad.
Maximus = audience has to realize he is a great man, as great men always have great names, everyone knows this
Decimus = audience has to realize he is a Roman, some people might have misunderstood the timeframe the movie takes place
Meridius = audience (the ones with IQ 90+) can recognize that he is seemingly of Mérida, as he is called "Spaniard" in the movie - too bad the city's name was Emerita Augusta at the time
Or does "Meridius" mean something different?
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-05-2007, 00:58
:inquisitive:
I'd take Hippies over German cavalry anyday....
I'd prefer the Germans, as the Hippies are well known for the quite counterproductive behaviour of making love, not war when encountering the enemy...
touche... (with accent mark over e)
:wall:
damn those hippies.....
Palasta,
There's more than enough information at your fingertips to help you learn about the battle of Cannae...Wikipedia's entry is a good place to start. For books on the subject, Daly's "Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War" and Goldworthy's "Cannae" are recommended...go for it!
i already did that a long time ago, and not only wiki. there was a good website with a fine sketch of the area. unfortunaly the site was closed quite a while ago.
Boyar Son
08-09-2007, 03:32
dang ppl... celebrating massacres and the victory of baby killers?
dang ppl... celebrating massacres and the victory of baby killers?
~:rolleyes:
Boyar Son
08-09-2007, 03:42
for shame everyone...for shame...
Zaknafien
08-09-2007, 03:50
well the romans were 'baby killers' too, you know. infanticide has been around for ages in numerous cultures, btw.
Boyar Son
08-09-2007, 03:53
well the romans were 'baby killers' too, you know. infanticide has been around for ages in numerous cultures, btw.
yeah but it was part of their culture (carthage)
Not to mention the current consensus is that the Carthaginians did not do mass infant sacrifices.
Boyar Son
08-09-2007, 03:56
Not to mention the current consensus is that the Carthaginians did not do mass infant sacrifices.
Aha!!
read that? "infant sacrifices"
coulda sworn i saw "mass" too...
pezhetairoi
08-09-2007, 04:48
We celebrate it nonetheless. It was a great victory for at least one side, and it set things in motion which, perhaps, might have changed things if it had not happened. It hardened the resolve of the Roman Republic to come out victorious, which directly resulted in the conquest of Africa and the beginnings of the Republican empire. It almost certainly played a part in the calculations of the basileus Philip that ended at Kynoskephalae and the admittance of Greece into the Roman sphere. Cannae, if not directly, then contributed huge amount to the kickstarting of Roman power that resulted in the High Empire, the great fall, and the innumerable influences of the Roman cultural heritage that still permeate our life and language today.
So if we celebrate baby-killers, that's why. It's like saying Hitler was a great politician who understood the secrets of political power. The mass murder of the Jews has nothing to do with that assessment. We know that it happened, and don't get me wrong, I hate Hitler for what he did, but that doesn't change the fact that he was remarkable enough a man to get himself into a position where he could hold such power in the first place. The Romans and Carthaginians may have been baby-killers, but that has nothing to do with the celebration of the momentous event called Cannae. We aren't celebrating mass murder and organised slaughter. We are celebrating causality.
Treverer
08-09-2007, 05:01
A though, just a though:
We, the players of EB, haven't we got each one already our own "Cannae"? After achieving a "Heroic Victory", how do we feel? Great, aren't we? And yes, we are the masterminds, the architects of these victories.
The 'only' difference is: we play a Computer-game, Hannibal fought in real-life. But I make the (hypo-) thesis, that both he and we have the same emotions after the victory ... or haven't we?
Yours,
Treverer
Conqueror
08-09-2007, 15:30
I wouldn't presume to know anything about the post-battle emotions of a punic warlord who lived over two millennia ago in a world so radically different from our's. I wouldn't even presume to know anything about the post-battle emotions of any modern age military commander.
Are you refering to the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantines may have been highly influenced by the Romans, but they are a separate civilzation.
and you mean Macedonian-Greeks right? since as EB proves, the Greek-Greeks had the worst cavalry ever...
No, the Byzantines are not a separate civilization, but the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Intranetusa
08-09-2007, 17:30
No, the Byzantines are not a separate civilization, but the continuation of the Roman Empire.
No, the Byzantines were a mishmash culture of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Roman influence. They are not Roman because:
1. They did not control Rome and had Constantinople as their capital
2. They did not speak Latin, they spoke Greek
3. Were Greek Orthodox instead of Catholic (later periods)
4. Later came into political, millitary, and religious conflict with Italy
etc
Just because Byzantines were heavily influenced by the Romans doesn't make them Roman.
Let me give you an anagology: would you say Japan and Korea are continuations of Chinese civilization? The vast majority of their culture, language, religion, etc is based on pre-Qing dynasty China. And for much of their history, they were either governed by or a tributary of China - does that make them a continuation of that Chinese civilization? Nope, they have developed elements of their own culture and lanugage. Same for Roman-Byzantines
Just because Byzantines were heavily influenced by the Romans doesn't make them Roman.
The City of Byzanz had been part of the roman empire for several hundred years, before the leaders decide to split the administration of the empire in two. One half was still administratded from Rome the other half was administrated from Konstantinopel which was formerly knowen as Byzanz.
Let me give you an anagology: would you say Japan and Korea are continuations of Chinese civilization? The vast majority of their culture, language, religion, etc is based on pre-Qing dynasty China. And for much of their history, they were either governed by or a tributary of China - does that make them a continuation of that Chinese civilization? Nope, they have developed elements of their own culture and lanugage. Same for Roman-Byzantines
To my knowledge neither Korea nor Japan had been part a part of China.
Zaknafien
08-09-2007, 18:20
The Romans killed babies as part of their culture too, you know. Roman fathers had the power of life and death over everyone in their home and could have them killed at will (and were known to do so not so long before our time peirod). Infants who were sickly or deformed were killed by exposure if not accepted by the father as legitimate. Many female children were killed in this way too, since the father often did not want more girls to care for.
A though, just a though:
We, the players of EB, haven't we got each one already our own "Cannae"? After achieving a "Heroic Victory", how do we feel? Great, aren't we? And yes, we are the masterminds, the architects of these victories.
The 'only' difference is: we play a Computer-game, Hannibal fought in real-life. But I make the (hypo-) thesis, that both he and we have the same emotions after the victory ... or haven't we?
After a really heroic victory in RTW, my first thought usually is "I'm hungry and I need to pee". I really wish Hannibal thought something more philosophical and whatnot. Or maybe that's why he failed to capitalise... :stupido2:
No, the Byzantines were a mishmash culture of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Roman influence. They are not Roman because:
1. They did not control Rome and had Constantinople as their capital
2. They did not speak Latin, they spoke Greek
3. Were Greek Orthodox instead of Catholic (later periods)
4. Later came into political, millitary, and religious conflict with Italy
etc
Just because Byzantines were heavily influenced by the Romans doesn't make them Roman.
Byzantine Empire is a term mainly used by historians. In it's day, it was called the (Eastern) Roman Empire. Because that's what they were. After the death of Julian the Apostate, the Empire was split in two parts. The western part fell a century or so later, the eastern part continued for another millenium. Yes, it grew widely divergent over that time, but that's the nature of things. In fact, to this day, the Greek word for Greekness still refers to this Roman heritage.
BTW, when the empire was split there was no Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. IIRC the schisma occured long after the fall of the Western Empire.
Reno Melitensis
08-09-2007, 18:37
I can guess what Hannibal Barca taught after his great victory at Cannae.
" Today is a great victory for our people, take a deep breath and you will smell victory, the smell of the dying, the dead and blood. maybe tomorrow it will be us. So enjoy.". As quoted by one of Gisco's grandsons.
Cheers.
Intranetusa
08-10-2007, 03:58
The City of Byzanz had been part of the roman empire for several hundred years, before the leaders decide to split the administration of the empire in two. One half was still administratded from Rome the other half was administrated from Konstantinopel which was formerly knowen as Byzanz.
To my knowledge neither Korea nor Japan had been part a part of China.
Byzantinum was part of the Eastern Roman Empire for hundreds of years, but the when they lost Rome itself, changed the language to Greek, and adopted Middle Eastern & Greek cultures which eventually displaced Roman culture, then they became a separate and distinct civilization.
Actually yes, Korea was part of China during several dynasties (ie. Han?) I believe, while Japan was more of a protectorate who paid tribute in the form of money and goods.
Intranetusa
08-10-2007, 04:03
Byzantine Empire is a term mainly used by historians. In it's day, it was called the (Eastern) Roman Empire. Because that's what they were. After the death of Julian the Apostate, the Empire was split in two parts. The western part fell a century or so later, the eastern part continued for another millenium. Yes, it grew widely divergent over that time, but that's the nature of things. In fact, to this day, the Greek word for Greekness still refers to this Roman heritage.
BTW, when the empire was split there was no Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. IIRC the schisma occured long after the fall of the Western Empire.
They may have thought themselves are Roman, but ROman they were not.
An similar situation would be that many Americans during the American Revolution still thought them as British, and it took the distinct American indentity many decades replaced the British one.
I know how the Eastern Empire came to be, but the Byzantines became a highly distinct culture from where it originally came from. Yes, when civilizations diverge, then it becomes a separate civilization.
Especially when they don't speak the same language, don't have the same religion, and have different cultures.
Btw, I'm referring to the years AFTER the fall of the western Roman Empire. Not while both empires still existed
I think the Byzantine empire had more similarities with the Roman empire after the 3rd c. AD than the Roman empire after the 3rd c. AD had with the Roman empire of , lets say, the 1st c. AD. And Greek was ever the dominating language in the eastern parts of the Roman empire.
But back to the problem which started the "Byzantine question": the Romans began to use cataphract cavalry from the 2nd c. AD onwards. So you cannot say they never had good heavy cavalry.
oudysseos
08-10-2007, 10:30
Does it not matter that the "Byzantines" (a name they never used, in fact no-one used until Gibbon) called themselves Roman? Did the Western Romans stop being Romans when the capitol of the empire moved to Ravenna? Or how about all the later emperors who weren't themselves ethnically roman?
I think your american analogy is a little flawed: the americans (at least after 4 July 1776) were trying on purpose to stop being british. It's not clear to me that the emperors at Constantinople tried to stop calling themselves roman.
keravnos
08-10-2007, 11:09
Not to mention one simple fact...
The great majority of Romani "inteligensia", senior administrators, senators, generals, their family and belongings, all emigrated to Konstaninoupolis, or Nova Roma prior to the destruction of Roma at 410 CE, and immediately afterwards. So did anyone who could.
If we were back in time, even prior to the destruction of Western Roman empire, anyone observing from afar would see 2 Romani empires, the "old" dieing one and the "newer" one who would apper to anyone as more "built to last" than the old one.
So in fact it was the "heart" and "soul" of the Romani who got transfered to "Romania" as the Byzantines would call their state-No relation to present day Romania-. Turks called the byzantines Rumi, and their first sultanate on former byzantine anatolian soil was called "Sultanate of Rum". We present greeks even to this date call ourselves "Romioi" not as descendants of Roma, but of the Nova Roma state, aka Byzantio.
As I posted in an earlier thread about this very thing, Romani who could fled Roma to save themselves and their civilisation, then hundreds of years later found themselves on the receiving end of Germanics calling themselves Romans (after some Pappal nasty tricks, aka "Donatio Constantini" and other forgeries) because of some "slight" doctrinal changes imposed by the former to differentiate from "the other Romans".
Like leaving your burning house to save your life, and then someone comes 2 generations down to kill your offspring claiming he is your true descendant, while he 's the one who burned down your former house.
oudysseos
08-10-2007, 11:14
Back to Cannae Day. This is my proposed Cannae Day Anthem. You maybe able to guess the tune, eh?
O Cannae Day! When Rome was at a stand,
From Punic might (without the Sacred Band).
Though Gisgo thought he saw the size
of Varro's bold army,
From both the flanks, on Cannae Day,
Was Rome's catastrophe.
Baal's Grace, our Man
Hannibal to ye!
O Cannae Day, we count the casualties
Inflicted on the Romans by Hispanic Cavalry.
OK so the last line in somewhat out of metre.:joker:
I know how the Eastern Empire came to be, but the Byzantines became a highly distinct culture from where it originally came from. Yes, when civilizations diverge, then it becomes a separate civilization.
Especially when they don't speak the same language, don't have the same religion, and have different cultures.
Btw, I'm referring to the years AFTER the fall of the western Roman Empire. Not while both empires still existed
So the early Byzantine empire would be the same as the Roman empire, but not the late Byzantine empire? Because the culture wouldn't have diverged at that point.
Does it not matter that the "Byzantines" (a name they never used, in fact no-one used until Gibbon) called themselves Roman?
I recall reading somewhere that a couple of Byzantine chroniclers actually used the name "Byzantine Empire", but you are right that it use didn't become popular until modern times.
Byzantinum was part of the Eastern Roman Empire for hundreds of years, but the when they lost Rome itself, changed the language to Greek, and adopted Middle Eastern & Greek cultures which eventually displaced Roman culture, then they became a separate and distinct civilization.
Actually yes, Korea was part of China during several dynasties (ie. Han?) I believe, while Japan was more of a protectorate who paid tribute in the form of money and goods.
since we are in the caucaus here are three Armenian videos.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DcykRzdUqbA&mode=related&search=
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OgKRQTB4T3o&mode=related&search=
https://youtube.com/watch?v=x-eNysUHNpI&mode=related&search=
there was never really a "changing language to greek". greek was always spoken in the east and all roman noblitiy spoke greek. it was not a big shift to allow greek to become the language of the empire.
The Stranger
08-10-2007, 14:24
Not quite true, the later Cataphracts etc were excellant heavy cavalry which blended the best of Greek and Eastern cavalry traditions. Even the Germano-Celtic Auxillia Alae were excellant medium cavalry. Crassus sepperated his force and allowed his cavalry to move too far ahead.
It was his own fault.
actually the romans didnt have good cavalry, people they conquered had good cavalry though.
btw on the cataphracts, there are also lots who believe that the cataphracts were actually an overrated palace guard. i mean there were no (those things you stick your foot in on a horse, its part of the saddle, dunno its name) pedals? so heavy cavalry wouldve been thrown of their horse by impact. I think the cataphracts main strength was its fearsome appearance. and maybe they had good melee ability but they didnt become fearsome shockcavalry i think till the eleven century with the byzantines.
Intranetusa
08-10-2007, 17:37
"Like leaving your burning house to save your life, an"d then someone comes 2 generations down to kill your offspring claiming he is your true descendant, while he 's the one who burned down your former house."
Yes, just like you don't take over someone else's preexisting house and claim it as your own.
"greek was always spoken in the east and all roman noblitiy spoke greek. it was not a big shift to allow greek to become the language of the empire."
From Crassus's period to Pax Romana, many Romans also spoke Latin in the East/Turkey/etc. Under Byzantines...not so much.
anyways, the later Byzantine empire after the fall of the west is quite different
and unique from the original Roman empire. Yes it had many influences, but Middle Eastern and Greek culture became the primary source of influence.
This mishmash of many cultures is what makes the Byzantines a new different civilization from the Romans.
"in fact it was the "heart" and "soul" of the Romani who got transfered to "Romania" as the Byzantines would call their state-No relation to present day Romania"
You can say that about many civilizations. Are the Carthaginians the same as Phoneicians? Even though the heart and soul of Phonecia was transfered by colonists, and Phoneica later being conquered? Are the Japanese the same as Chinese? Even though the majority of Japan culture was mainly based on Tang and earlier dynasties - and with traditional Chinese culture being suppressed and wiped away during Yuan and Qing dynasties?
Are what about the earliest various Middle Eastern civilizations, who were built on the ruins of another? Would you consider Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Sumerians etc the same civilization, just because they were based on each other?
actually the romans didnt have good cavalry, people they conquered had good cavalry though.
btw on the cataphracts, there are also lots who believe that the cataphracts were actually an overrated palace guard. i mean there were no (those things you stick your foot in on a horse, its part of the saddle, dunno its name) pedals? so heavy cavalry wouldve been thrown of their horse by impact. I think the cataphracts main strength was its fearsome appearance. and maybe they had good melee ability but they didnt become fearsome shockcavalry i think till the eleven century with the byzantines.
My friend, you've missed many a conversation. The trick behind cavalry of the era was the four-horned saddle, which snuggly fit the rider into place. This allowed him to charge quite well and effectively.
anyways, the later Byzantine empire after the fall of the west is quite different
and unique from the original Roman empire. Yes it had many influences, but Middle Eastern and Greek culture became the primary source of influence.
I repeat my question: would the early Byzantine empire be the same as the Roman empire, since culturally it wasn't different?
From Crassus's period to Pax Romana, many Romans also spoke Latin in the East/Turkey/etc. Under Byzantines...not so much.
As I understand it: in the the late (unified) Empire, Latin was the language of the law, but Greek was the language of the governement. This remained the case in the Byzantine Empire.
Intranetusa
08-11-2007, 00:02
My friend, you've missed many a conversation. The trick behind cavalry of the era was the four-horned saddle, which snuggly fit the rider into place. This allowed him to charge quite well and effectively.
I think he was refering to the stirrup, which allowed the use of heavy cavalry and knights in the later periods. As for the cataphracts, I think they were also tied to their saddles with ropes to prevent them from falling off.
I repeat my question: would the early Byzantine empire be the same as the Roman empire, since culturally it wasn't different?
Yes, before the split and in the immediate periods afterwards, the Eastern Roman Empire was still Roman...but over the years it evolved into a distinct culture and civilization.
As I understand it: in the the late (unified) Empire, Latin was the language of the law, but Greek was the language of the governement. This remained the case in the Byzantine Empire.
At that point it's just semantics. English is spoken nearly universally, but British culture/civilization is not American culture/civilization. As is the case for later on Roman west and Greek-Middle Eastern Byzantine
AntiochusIII
08-11-2007, 03:17
At that point it's just semantics. English is spoken nearly universally, but British culture/civilization is not American culture/civilization. As is the case for later on Roman west and Greek-Middle Eastern ByzantineActually, at this point I'd consider both the same.
We refer far more often to a Western civilization than to a nation-specific one these days, as globalization greatly blurs the lines of civilizations.
Cultures grow and change all the time. At which point did the Romans stop becoming the Romans anyway? The Kingdom was different from the Early Republic, the Early Republic drastically different to the late Republic, and the changes to the Empire greatly transformed Roman civilization. The Eastern Roman Empire was an heir to the unified empire in many ways.
Is "Roman" tied to Italy geographically? Why couldn't Venice or Milan call itself "Roman" then? Is it to the people? Then if the intelligentsia moved east to Constantinople has the Roman Empire moved with them? Is it to the political succession alone? In that case the Eastern Romans were by all means as legitimate as it gets...
I also disagree with your assessment that not Catholic = not Roman. In fact, it could even be argued to be the opposite, since the Imperial authority -- the Romans/Byzantines and not the Germanic creation of course -- supported the "Orthodox" once the schism happens. In any case the Romans were pagans for much longer than they were Christians before the fall of the West.
Nobody would disagree with you that this incarnation of the Roman Empire during, say, the Comneni dynasty, was very different from the Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The attitudes, the religiosity, the military systems, all are very different. But the same thing would happen if we compare the reign of Marcus Aurelius with the times of Scipio Africanus. Why, then, would the former not be the same civilization while the latter is?
I also doubt the Japanese example. Korea I won't challenge -- various Chinese dynasties dominated the peninsular at one time or another -- but the Chinese never ruled Japan, not even in a "protectorate" sense.
The practice of "tribute" as done by the Chinese and their trade partners do not correlate well with the usual concept of tribute in the West anyway. Sure, the Chinese emperor recognized that gesture as a gesture of fealty -- but few of the rulers on the other end consider themselves Chinese vassals, in any practical or formal ways. In fact, the Chinese tend to reciprocate the "tribute" with an equal or even more valuable gift just to demonstrate the vast wealth of China, which of course was fine by the rulers of the smaller states. :clown:
It was more like an aristocratic barter trade or something really. Exchanging exotic goods and all that, for prestige and otherwise.
Intranetusa
08-11-2007, 03:46
We refer far more often to a Western civilization than to a nation-specific one these days, as globalization greatly blurs the lines of civilizations.
"Is "Roman" tied to Italy geographically? Why couldn't Venice or Milan call itself "Roman" then? Is it to the people? Then if the intelligentsia moved east to Constantinople has the Roman Empire moved with them? Is it to the political succession alone? In that case the Eastern Romans were by all means as legitimate as it gets..."
I'm not challenging that, afterall, even Egypt is consdered a part of western civilizaion. But there's a separate western civilization thread on this board if you want to get into that.
Roman is not tied geographically, but it is tied culturally. Byzantines are not the same as Roman because their culture is greatly influenced from preexisting civilizations of Greeks and the Middle East.
As for Milan and Venice, I do not consider Rennisance era-Italy the same civilization as Roman era-Italy. Both still Italian/Italy based, of course.
I also disagree with your assessment that not Catholic = not Roman. In fact, it could even be argued to be the opposite, since the Imperial authority -- the Romans/Byzantines and not the Germanic creation of course -- supported the "Orthodox" once the schism happens. In any case the Romans were pagans for much longer than they were Christians before the fall of the West.
I never said that. I was just pointing out the differences between Romans and Byzantines
Nobody would disagree with you that this incarnation of the Roman Empire during, say, the Comneni dynasty, was very different from the Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The attitudes, the religiosity, the military systems, all are very different. But the same thing would happen if we compare the reign of Marcus Aurelius with the times of Scipio Africanus. Why, then, would the former not be the same civilization while the latter is?
However, the culture stayed the same - the people were still Roman, and their culture didn't change much. They still spoke Latin, worshipped Jupiter, etc, had Rome as their capitol, etc etc
"I also doubt the Japanese example. Korea I won't challenge -- various Chinese dynasties dominated the peninsular at one time or another -- but the Chinese never ruled Japan, not even in a "protectorate" sense."
... First of all, I never said China ruled Japan. I said "protectorate-ish" in terms of a tributary state because Japan paid tribute to China. And I'm going to use them as an example again because you're implying that if the core culture, religion, etc are the same, then the civilization is the same. Well the majority of Japanese civilization is based on Tang and earlier Chinese dynasties. And those two nations are certainly not the same civilization...even though they share many things such as writing, social structure, religion, culture, etc
Same applies to Roman-Byzantines
The practice of "tribute" as done by the Chinese and their trade partners do not correlate well with the usual concept of tribute in the West anyway. Sure, the Chinese emperor recognized that gesture as a gesture of fealty -- but few of the rulers on the other end consider themselves Chinese vassals, in any practical or formal ways. In fact, the Chinese tend to reciprocate the "tribute" with an equal or even more valuable gift just to demonstrate the vast wealth of China, which of course was fine by the rulers of the smaller states. :clown:
It was more like an aristocratic barter trade or something really. Exchanging exotic goods and all that, for prestige and otherwise.
Yes, I realize their structure is different but it is still tribute nonetheless and it is still initiated by the vassal state, and they are still considered tributaries. And in several dynasties I believe they invaded Vietnam and/or Korea because their kings refused pay tribute. The main reason for this policy being the dynasties thought themselves as the center of the world, and had no need to govern what they considered "barbaric" states...so as long as these states paid their respects in the form of tribute.
pezhetairoi
08-11-2007, 08:44
A cultural noob am I. Oudysseos, what song was your Cannae anthem based on? I have no idea... XD
oudysseos
08-11-2007, 17:26
O Canada (the Canadian national anthem). Geez, I thought there'd be more reaction...
pezhetairoi
08-12-2007, 04:02
Oops. I'm from, like, the other side of the world. Sorry. *sheepish* :)
AntiochusIII
08-12-2007, 04:12
Roman is not tied geographically, but it is tied culturally. Byzantines are not the same as Roman because their culture is greatly influenced from preexisting civilizations of Greeks and the Middle East.Rome itself was greatly influenced by the Eastern cultures. Roman Gods are similar to Greek Gods, the later adoption of Mithras, Isis, and other Eastern Deities during the unified Empire can in fact be seen a simply extending that tradition. Greek philosophy, culture, and literature provide the basis of the Roman one. In fact, to the Romans it is arguably inseparable. There wouldn't be Seneca without Aristotle before him, no Virgil without Homer; there wouldn't be anyone to form the higher basis of Roman civilization.
In fact the Byzantines were even more different to the Ancient Greeks of Athens and Sparta than the Roman Empire was.
I never said that. I was just pointing out the differences between Romans and ByzantinesWhich I dispute as a valid difference. If the Western Roman Empire fell before the schism, which it did, then why must the Eastern side of the schism lost its "Roman" nature? After all, the Council of Nicaea, which "made Imperial/Roman" Christianity so to speak, was the origin of both denominations.
However, the culture stayed the same - the people were still Roman, and their culture didn't change much. They still spoke Latin, worshipped Jupiter, etc, had Rome as their capitol, etc etc1) Greek was for a very long time the "high" language of the Roman civilization, quite frankly.
2) The intelligentsia, and probably quite a few of the common people, were still Romans in Constantinople long after Theodoric abolished the Western Roman Empire.
3) Worshipped Jupiter? So once Constantine promoted Christianity as the Empire's official religion it stopped being the Roman Empire?
4) Same as 3. Constantine, among the last powerful rulers of the unified Roman Empire, had his capital in Constantinople. Besides, you just admitted that the Roman civilization wasn't strictly geographical.
... First of all, I never said China ruled Japan. I said "protectorate-ish" in terms of a tributary state because Japan paid tribute to China. And I'm going to use them as an example again because you're implying that if the core culture, religion, etc are the same, then the civilization is the same. Well the majority of Japanese civilization is based on Tang and earlier Chinese dynasties. And those two nations are certainly not the same civilization...even though they share many things such as writing, social structure, religion, culture, etc
Same applies to Roman-ByzantinesI completely disagree. The core culture, religion, etc. of the late unified Roman Empire and the early Byzantines are the same. First, Japan was not the direct successor of the Chinese state the way the Eastern Romans were to the single Roman Empire. Second, the Roman intelligentsia -- the ones that made a civilization a civilization -- moved East. In a way, Rome literally moved to the shores of the Bosporus.
Chinese bureaucrats didn't move to Japan en mass...
And finally, the Byzantines considered themselves Romans -- their contemporaries consider them Romans -- that's not the case for the Japanese.
In fact, the Chinese-Japanese example is probably more fitting as a comparison to the Greek-Roman exchange than a supposed Roman-Byzantine one. For obvious reasons.
Yes, I realize their structure is different but it is still tribute nonetheless and it is still initiated by the vassal state, and they are still considered tributaries. And in several dynasties I believe they invaded Vietnam and/or Korea because their kings refused pay tribute. The main reason for this policy being the dynasties thought themselves as the center of the world, and had no need to govern what they considered "barbaric" states...so as long as these states paid their respects in the form of tribute.Which is my whole point. The western concept of a vassal is inapplicable to the situation in the Far East. It was even disputed technically, with China considering itself the overlord and the supposed vassals don't consider themselves vassals, much less practically, where Chinese political influence was only as far as the Chinese military muscle can go.
Vietnam and Korea were "true" vassals of the Chinese Empire(s) at various periods of their history: Chinese armies invaded and subjugated them, installed governors and rulers and had at least some control over their domestic politics. Japan was not. Khmer was not. Ayutthaya was not. Malacca was not. None of the latter had to obey the Emperor or rebel if disagree like the former two had to.
Hence, a comparison would become a comparison of apples and oranges. I don't think this example can be used to justify the existence of a Roman-Byzantine differentation.
Were the late Byzantines drastically different from Republican Rome? Absolutely. Are they different civilizations? If yes, where was the line? I'd even give you a big red line to cover an entire century, but just point me to when Roman stopped being Roman.
Boyar Son
08-12-2007, 05:35
but just point me to when Roman stopped being Roman.
Ok, I know this is butting into other peoples bussiness but...
Holy Roman Empire....
Intranetusa
08-12-2007, 08:43
Ok, I know this is butting into other peoples bussiness but...
Holy Roman Empire....
"The Holy Roman Empire was not Holy, not Roman, and not an empire."
-Voltaire
IMO, it was more like the "semi-confederation of Germanic principalities." lol
Rome itself was greatly influenced by the Eastern cultures. Roman Gods are similar to Greek Gods, the later adoption of Mithras, Isis, and other Eastern Deities during the unified Empire can in fact be seen a simply extending that tradition.
Religion would not be a good indicator of civilization either. Pagan religions greatly influenced Christianity while Daoism & Confucianism greatly influenced Mahayana Buddhism in East Asia.
1) Greek was for a very long time the "high" language of the Roman civilization, quite frankly.
2) The intelligentsia, and probably quite a few of the common people, were still Romans in Constantinople long after Theodoric abolished the Western Roman Empire.
3) Worshipped Jupiter? So once Constantine promoted Christianity as the Empire's official religion it stopped being the Roman Empire?
4) Same as 3. Constantine, among the last powerful rulers of the unified Roman Empire, had his capital in Constantinople. Besides, you just admitted that the Roman civilization wasn't strictly geographical.
1. This is seen in my other cultures - English spoken worldwide. Spanish spoken in the Phillipines. Hanzi characters adopted in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.
2. Yes, I still consider the Eastern Empire as Roman during the period immediately after the split. But the majority of the Byzantine's history up until its destruction in the 15th century made it a distinct civilization from the Romans.
3. Not at all, I'm just pointing out more differences between Rome and later Byzantines. These differences may be small and first but they still add up, and later on they became quite distinct.
4. Yes, civilization is cultural and many other factors. And by those factors, the majority of the Byzantine's existences made it a separate civilzation from
the Romans.
completely disagree. The core culture, religion, etc. of the late unified Roman Empire and the early Byzantines are the same. First, Japan was not the direct successor of the Chinese state the way the Eastern Romans were to the single Roman Empire. Second, the Roman intelligentsia -- the ones that made a civilization a civilization -- moved East. In a way, Rome literally moved to the shores of the Bosporus.
Chinese bureaucrats didn't move to Japan en mass...
And finally, the Byzantines considered themselves Romans -- their contemporaries consider them Romans -- that's not the case for the Japanese.
In fact, the Chinese-Japanese example is probably more fitting as a comparison to the Greek-Roman exchange than a supposed Roman-Byzantine one. For obvious reasons.
As I've said before, I consider the early Byzantines the same as the late Romans. However, the Byzantines lasted a thousand years, and for the majority of the time, they were distinct from the Romans.
You're right in the fact that Japan was not a direct successor, but it was a successor in terms of religion, culture, philosophy, etc
The Roman migration was due to necessity - the west was falling under barbarian attack. The same may not have happened in East Asia, but the Japanese adopted many elements of Chinese burecracy (ie civil examination, hiearchy, etc) and civilization.
As for the Byzantines considering themselves Roman, early on yes, but later on no they certainly weren't.
AntiochusIII
08-12-2007, 09:13
IMO, it was more like the "semi-confederation of Germanic principalities." lolAgreed. You gotta give some of the stronger and more ambitious emperors credit for trying to make the Papal propaganda come true though. :inquisitive:
Poor Barbarossa. He's up there with Eumenes and Julian the Apostate in my book of Historical Leaders Who Are Great But Aren't Really Ze Winners.
'Sides, who knows what happens if the Habsburgs won the Thirty Years' War? They already owned Italy for all intends and purposes. Though I'm going off topic here I guess.
Religion would not be a good indicator of civilization either. Pagan religions greatly influenced Christianity while Daoism & Confucianism greatly influenced Mahayana Buddhism in East Asia.Indeed, which is why I think the worship of Jupiter -- or more precisely lack of one -- is not an indication of Roman-ness.
1. This is seen in my other cultures - English spoken worldwide. Spanish spoken in the Phillipines. Hanzi characters adopted in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.
2. Yes, I still consider the Eastern Empire as Roman during the period immediately after the split. But the majority of the Byzantine's history up until its destruction in the 15th century made it a distinct civilization from the Romans.
3. Not at all, I'm just pointing out more differences between Rome and later Byzantines. These differences may be small and first but they still add up, and later on they became quite distinct.
4. Yes, civilization is cultural and many other factors. And by those factors, the majority of the Byzantine's existences made it a separate civilzation from
the Romans.1) Precisely. Which is why dropping Latin doesn't end the Roman civilization. After all Greek was already the lingua franca of at least half the Empire.
*noticed the irony of using lingua franca in this case*
2) Then please draw us a line. When was it that the Byzantines stop being Roman?
3) The differences between the Republic and the Empire may be small at first but they add up, quick. Was the Empire Roman when half the people spoke Greek? Was it still Roman when the administrative capitals became Mediolanum and Constantinople? Was it still Roman when Christianity became the majority religion of the Empire? In fact, was it still Roman when the last remotely "Ancient" (archaic, even) emperor, Julian the Apostate, died? If Aetius was the Last Roman (sorta), where does that leave Julius Nepos and Zeno?
Then why must Theodoric ending Odoacer's little diplomatic nicety finished off "Roman?"
4) So the Byzantines to you are two different civilizations? Early Byzantine = Roman and Late = not Roman?
You're right in the fact that Japan was not a direct successor, but it was a successor in terms of religion, culture, philosophy, etc
The Roman migration was due to necessity - the west was falling under barbarian attack. The same may not have happened in East Asia, but the Japanese adopted many elements of Chinese burecracy (ie civil examination, hiearchy, etc) and civilization.
As for the Byzantines considering themselves Roman, early on yes, but later on no they certainly weren't.Thing is, the same did not happen in East Asia. The Byzantine upper class came from the Roman upper class -- a direct transition. Their law was not "adopted" from the Romans -- it was the Roman law. Corpus Juris Civilis (Codex Justinianus, though that's only a part of it), created long after the Fall of Rome, is often considered the pinnacle of Roman legal achievement. The Japanese and the Chinese, no matter how you put it, are not the same. Genji Monogatari didn't make the Chinese National Epic.
Japan adopted elements of Chinese culture, lots of it in fact, but then they developed distinctly from the Chinese mainland. Constantinople...was created by the Romans (built on top of an existing Greek colony, technically :clown: ), ruled by the Romans, and maintained by the Romans.
I still don't believe the comparison is valid.
Also, I do need to establish this: I consider "Roman" to include citizens of the Empire that are relatively well Romanized, that obviously include the citizens in the Greek mainland, Asia Minor, and elsewhere.
In the end though, the key thing is: You ought to establish a clear point as to when you consider the Byzantines to lose their "Roman" identity and why, otherwise we'd be just debating in the winds without any clear indication except the vague differences between the "Early Byzantines" and "Late Byzantines."
Intranetusa
08-12-2007, 18:49
Agreed. You gotta give some of the stronger and more ambitious emperors credit for trying to make the Papal propaganda come true though. :inquisitive:
Poor Barbarossa. He's up there with Eumenes and Julian the Apostate in my book of Historical Leaders Who Are Great But Aren't Really Ze Winners.
Ah the poor Franks... :(
2) Then please draw us a line. When was it that the Byzantines stop being
Roman?
You can't exactly put an exact date on cultural diffusion. Byzantines adoption of various cultures took place over the centuries. If you want a date I'd say the 7th-8th century CE-sh.
Was it still Roman when the administrative capitals became Mediolanum and Constantinople? Was it still Roman when Christianity became the majority religion of the Empire? In fact, was it still Roman when the last remotely "Ancient" (archaic, even) emperor, Julian the Apostate, died? If Aetius was the Last Roman (sorta), where does that leave Julius Nepos and Zeno?
But you're still stretching it if you consider the mid-late Byzantines as Roman.
Especially when so much of their cultural traditions, science, architecture, etc comes from the Greeks and Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Islamic Caliphate. The Caliphate during its golden age had a profound impact on the Byzantines, with them adopting elements such as Islamic gardens, domed architechture, elements of caligraphy, use of soup/perfume, etc (and I'm not referring to the sack of Byzantinum in the 15th century or the Hagia Sophia
4) So the Byzantines to you are two different civilizations? Early Byzantine = Roman and Late = not Roman?
Thing is, the same did not happen in East Asia. The Byzantine upper class came from the Roman upper class -- a direct transition. Their law was not "adopted" from the Romans -- it was the Roman law. Corpus Juris Civilis (Codex Justinianus, though that's only a part of it), created long after the Fall of Rome, is often considered the pinnacle of Roman legal achievement. The Japanese and the Chinese, no matter how you put it, are not the same. Genji Monogatari didn't make the Chinese National Epic.
Japan adopted elements of Chinese culture, lots of it in fact, but then they developed distinctly from the Chinese mainland. Constantinople...was created by the Romans (built on top of an existing Greek colony, technically :clown: ), ruled by the Romans, and maintained by the Romans.
Again, there is no single transition point. I would consider it similar to the transition from Phonecia to Carthage, early Mycenians to Hellenic Greeks, etc
As for the upper class, Japanese aristocracy was considered "upper class" due to their proficiency in Chinese classics and calligraphy. As for your example of Romans transfering to Byzantines, yes I consider the early Byzantines as Roman.
I'm not saying the Chinese and Japanese are the same. I'm saying they're different in the same way the Romans and late Byzantines are different.
"often considered the pinnacle of Roman legal achievement. "
Yes, because it was written less than 100 years after the fall of the western empire, while the empire is still considered Roman.
Also, I do need to establish this: I consider "Roman" to include citizens of the Empire that are relatively well Romanized, that obviously include the citizens in the Greek mainland, Asia Minor, and elsewhere.
In the end though, the key thing is: You ought to establish a clear point as to when you consider the Byzantines to lose their "Roman" identity and why, otherwise we'd be just debating in the winds without any clear indication except the vague differences between the "Early Byzantines" and "Late Byzantines."
It's a bit funny though. The Greeks and Egyptians being considered Roman when they provided the core culture and traditions that Roman civilization was based on.
The differences between early and late Byzantines is fairly clear, as different as modern Italy and modern Greece or Turkey.
That brings up another point, would you consider the British as Roman? Even though much of their populace and culture were Romano British, they still developed into a distinct civilization.
AntiochusIII
08-13-2007, 06:22
Ah the poor Franks... :( :beam:
You can't exactly put an exact date on cultural diffusion. Byzantines adoption of various cultures took place over the centuries. If you want a date I'd say the 7th-8th century CE-sh.Alright, so we narrowed down the position of this alleged transformation to the 7th-8th century. My question is: what exactly constitute those changes you speak of?
And also, as a preliminary argument, I'd argue that if the Early Byzantines and Late Byzantines are two different civilizations (strange, considering the concept of "Byzantine" was supposed to separate Imperial Constantinople with Imperial Rome in the first place...) because they have certain different characteristics, the same argument can be used to separate the Roman civilization into god knows how many civilizations as well, something which I've actually implied just a little bit throughout some of my posts.
Put it another way, if one say that the Early Byzantines and Late Byzantines are two different civilizations (one Roman and the other not Roman) because the empire that Justinian reigned over was drastically different from the empire of Alexius Comnenus, then will I be wrong if I say that, say, Constantine didn't really reign over the Roman Empire as it was so drastically different from Augustus' own? What if I say that the Roman Empire isn't Roman in the first place because Augustus changed a whole lot of things and adopted many an Eastern model compare to the Republic of (mythical?) Brutus' time?
But you're still stretching it if you consider the mid-late Byzantines as Roman.
Especially when so much of their cultural traditions, science, architecture, etc comes from the Greeks and Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Islamic Caliphate. The Caliphate during its golden age had a profound impact on the Byzantines, with them adopting elements such as Islamic gardens, domed architechture, elements of caligraphy, use of soup/perfume, etc (and I'm not referring to the sack of Byzantinum in the 15th century or the Hagia SophiaI have given you similar specific examples showing the change s throughout Roman history. Virgil was just copying Homer (lol); Isis was an Egyptian goddess, Mithras even further East, and Epona of Gaul certainly wasn't a Roman creation; the "Roman" architecture in the first place was highly influenced, if not downright copied in wholes, from the Ancient Greeks and the enigmatic Etruscans (the Etruscans arguably influenced Early Rome in countless ways). Cultures adopt from each other all the time, they don't change their civilization identity halfway through because the accumulated changes, looked back in hindsight, seems large.
Which leads us to the Japanese example (in a way)...
Again, there is no single transition point. I would consider it similar to the transition from Phonecia to Carthage, early Mycenians to Hellenic Greeks, etc
As for the upper class, Japanese aristocracy was considered "upper class" due to their proficiency in Chinese classics and calligraphy. As for your example of Romans transfering to Byzantines, yes I consider the early Byzantines as Roman.
I'm not saying the Chinese and Japanese are the same. I'm saying they're different in the same way the Romans and late Byzantines are different.My point here, and this is why I think your analogy doesn't work, is that the Japanese and the Chinese are two distinct peoples. Cultural traits exchange between them, almost one-sided even, and a few intermarriages here and there, but no major migration movements from either the common people or the aristocracy happened. These are two civilizations.
I assume you admit that the Early Byzantines are Roman. Then, if the Late Byzantines descended largely from the Early Byzantines, who are Roman, and maintained a more-or-less constant political structure at that, in fact directly from Augustus (quite a feat to qualify it as one civilization too; China, though admittedly mostly static in ethnic demographic throughout the centuries, changed its governments, entire empires centered around dynasties, quite a few time...and we still consider it one civilization), how did they lose their Roman identity according to you?
It's a bit funny though. The Greeks and Egyptians being considered Roman when they provided the core culture and traditions that Roman civilization was based on.The Greeks call themselves in what sounds surprisingly close to "Roman."
The differences between early and late Byzantines is fairly clear, as different as modern Italy and modern Greece or Turkey.Not really. When was modern Italy as a political structure created? Cavour's? When Piedmont became Sardinia-Piedmont? When was modern Greece created? The Greek rebellion when Byron was running around and all that, right? When was modern Turkey created? Wasn't it by Kemal Ataturk?
When was the "Byzantine" Empire created? As far as I'm aware it was the Eastern Roman Empire all the way to the end and that started from the Arcadius-Honorius split, though solidified some time later.
That brings up another point, would you consider the British as Roman? Even though much of their populace and culture were Romano British, they still developed into a distinct civilization.They remained Romano British? I thought the upper class was replaced by the invasion of various tribes, Angles and Saxons for example -- possibly even the common classes are replaced (debated) -- then the Vikings came and carve their share, then the Normans came and made themselves masters of "England" by then.
The Roman aristocracy pretty much escaped the Fall of the West for Constantinople. In fact what made up a large part of the Roman aristocracy during the unified Roman Empire already came from the region.
I believe defining a civilization (pretty hard) rely on many aspects, among which include some geographic consistency; descending from more-or-less the same upper class, as those are the ones that made a civilization a civilization; a continued political entity; self-identification; and cultural, social, economic, political (etc.) traits. Missing one doesn't make it lose its heritage as a named civilization, but missing a lot does.
- geographic consistency: the Roman Empire, in fact as early as the Roman Republic after the Macedonian and Seleukid-Roman Wars, ruled over the regions that made up the heart of this "Byzantine" Empire.
- continuation of the upper class: I stated several times that the Roman upper class continued in Constantinople, the new Center of the Empire long before the times of Odoacer and Theodoric.
- a continued political entity: Absolutely straight on. The only major break I could see was after the 4th Crusade, and that's long after your designated time.
- self-identification: They obviously considered themselves Roman.
- cultural/social/political/etc. traits: Your main point is here. Though I still see a *lot* of consistency around. The Emperor was still donning the Purple, the City remained what it was, the Law, like I said before, was the Roman Law. Not even "adopted from Roman Law," it was the original so to speak.
By the way, why is it necessary to differentiate between them anyway.
I've got a feeling the EB mods might not like our thread hijack :clown:
The Caliphate during its golden age had a profound impact on the Byzantines, with them adopting elements such as ......., domed architechture, ...etc
.
you have really got that the wrong way around, the mohamedeans copied domed architecture from the byzantines.
Tellos Athenaios
08-13-2007, 12:36
Who in turn got it from the Parthians via via... :inquisitive: ?
I'd say the Arabs got it from the Sassanids, who got it from the Parthians in the first place.
No, the Byzantines were a mishmash culture of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Roman influence. They are not Roman because:
1. They did not control Rome and had Constantinople as their capital
2. They did not speak Latin, they spoke Greek
3. Were Greek Orthodox instead of Catholic (later periods)
4. Later came into political, millitary, and religious conflict with Italy
etc
Just because Byzantines were heavily influenced by the Romans doesn't make them Roman.
Let me give you an anagology: would you say Japan and Korea are continuations of Chinese civilization? The vast majority of their culture, language, religion, etc is based on pre-Qing dynasty China. And for much of their history, they were either governed by or a tributary of China - does that make them a continuation of that Chinese civilization? Nope, they have developed elements of their own culture and lanugage. Same for Roman-Byzantines
Umm, yeah, no. Methinks you need to actually read something on the subject rather than spew detritus. The de-Romanization of the Empire began largely by renaissance authors who couldn't dream of associating the Eastern Romans (who, per chance, called themselves Romaioi) with an idealized version of Rome that had been created from the fragments of literature and massive imaginations prevalent at the time.
Are you so naive as to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire spoke Latin at some point? Copt remained the language of Egypt, and Aramaic and Greek the languages of the Eastern half. All but legal texts were largely written in Greek in this area throughout the entirety of the Roman period.
Rome ceased to be an 'Italian' state by around 150 A.D. (or earlier), being largely Hellenized and influenced (heavily) by Iranian, Near Eastern, and Gallic custom.
You seem to have a very ill-informed and ideologically centered view of things here, since mathematics, science, architecture and the arts largely passed from the Sassanians and Romans to the Muslims, and not the other way around. 'Byzantine' studies were reviled for a long time, and viewpoints like yours were quite common among Classical scholar and the 'Dead White Male' crowd (probably the only such alliance ever, as classicists have a natural dislike of those who dismiss their whole field). Fortunately, as a result of scholarship in the last thirty years and a renewed interest in the Archaeology of the period, we're now filling in some of those gaps. (when I say renewed interest, I mean that people are no longer discarding byzantine material in their attempt to get to earlier material, as was often the case earlier).
I can point you to scores of wonderful books on the subject, should you wish to be apprised of what the 'Byzantines' actually were, rather than cling to an outdated, religiously biased, and archaically quaint view of the Roman Empire's continuation into the middle ages.
I find it rather interesting when people consider the middle and late byzantines separate civilizations. It implies to me a complete ignorance of the legal, religious, technological, philosophical, and political foundations which formed and carried the Empire almost a thousand years beyond the fall of Rome. Indeed, from a purely military standpoint, one need look no farther than the Taktika of Νικηφόρος Ουρανός, and the Praecepta Militaria of Νικηφόρος Β΄ Φωκάς. They compare favorably with the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Strategicon and Mid/Late Roman army manuals. There is no question that the society evolved and adapted to meet challenges, and appeared quite different from earlier Roman society. However, a modern Frenchman from Paris and a Parisian Frechman of 1200 A.D. would both still consider themselves French. (note that I am deliberately not assigning value judgment to the later time period.)
Intranetusa
08-16-2007, 02:10
Umm, yeah, no. Methinks you need to actually read something on the subject rather than spew detritus. The de-Romanization of the Empire began largely by renaissance authors who couldn't dream of associating the Eastern Romans (who, per chance, called themselves Romaioi) with an idealized version of Rome that had been created from the fragments of literature and massive imaginations prevalent at the time.
Are you so naive as to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire spoke Latin at some point? Copt remained the language of Egypt, and Aramaic and Greek the languages of the Eastern half. All but legal texts were largely written in Greek in this area throughout the entirety of the Roman period.
Detrius? Awww that's a bit harsh, no? It's not like the academic community has a overwhelming consensus on this issue either.
Obivously, but were such non-Hellenic people actually considered Roman? Instead of just being a colony/client state being drained of its natural resources for the benefit of the Roman homeland. The British Empire included India, parts of Africa, SE Asia, etc with hundreds of different languages...yet they were no more than colonies to be exploited.
As for Byzantines calling themselves Roman up until 1453...
hell even even the Franks called their empire the Holy Roman Empire...
Rome ceased to be an 'Italian' state by around 150 A.D. (or earlier), being largely Hellenized and influenced (heavily) by Iranian, Near Eastern, and Gallic custom.
You seem to have a very ill-informed and ideologically centered view of things here, since mathematics, science, architecture and the arts largely passed from the Sassanians and Romans to the Muslims, and not the other way around. 'Byzantine' studies were reviled for a long time, and viewpoints like yours were quite common among Classical scholar and the 'Dead White Male' crowd (probably the only such alliance ever, as classicists have a natural dislike of those who dismiss their whole field). Fortunately, as a result of scholarship in the last thirty years and a renewed interest in the Archaeology of the period, we're now filling in some of those gaps. (when I say renewed interest, I mean that people are no longer discarding byzantine material in their attempt to get to earlier material, as was often the case earlier).
" passed from the Sassanians and Romans to the Muslims, and not the other way around"
When did I ever say Muslims passed culture to the Romans? I didn't.
I said the Arab Caliphate preserved many aspects of western Roman culture, science, etc while they influenced the Byzantines in aspects such as gardens, etc
I find it rather interesting when people consider the middle and late byzantines separate civilizations. It implies to me a complete ignorance of the legal, religious, technological, philosophical, and political foundations which formed and carried the Empire almost a thousand years beyond the fall of Rome. Indeed, from a purely military standpoint, one need look no farther than the Taktika of Νικηφόρος Ουρανός, and the Praecepta Militaria of Νικηφόρος Β΄ Φωκάς. They compare favorably with the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Strategicon and Mid/Late Roman army manuals. There is no question that the society evolved and adapted to meet challenges, and appeared quite different from earlier Roman society. However, a modern Frenchman from Paris and a Parisian Frechman of 1200 A.D. would both still consider themselves French.
Well they were the Eastern Roman Empire so of course they would have had the same foundations and core concepts.
The problem is what makes civilizations unique and distinct...otherwise we'll just simply place them under one category and call them western civilization
and hell, say the Greek city states and Macedonians were the same civilization too and Ancient Egypt was the same as Ptolemic Egypt.
I recomend to read this.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE? (http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm)
Intranetusa
08-17-2007, 03:39
I recomend to read this.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE? (http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm)
Yup...basically a rehash of what we just talked about.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.