Was the Byzantine Empire mainly a Hellenic Empire?

Originally posted by Belisarius True it was that the Byzantines in their devotion to Christianity destroyed many monuments from ancient Greece because of their pagan history.

As discussed before, without Christianity as the one stable and unifying factor in their long history, the Byzantine Empire would have succumbed much earlier than 1453 to one of many attacks on its existence, and thus even less of the heritage of Greek antiquity would have survived and eventuall disseminated to the West.

Byzantine state was a multiethnical empire and "Orthodoxy" was the connecting element within the population;and the dividing element between the Greeks who were distinguished as "Hellenes"-those who remained attached to their traditions and finally destroyed-and those who identified themselves as "Romans" and assimilated to the eastern christian melting pot.
However-especially after Justinian-Byzantine Empire was established in lands that were in the sphere of influence of Greek culture for centuries,from Magna Gracea to modern Syria, and the population was either hellenic or hellenized.
In a modern parallel we would say that Greeks were for Byzantine Empire what Russians were for the Soviet one.Byzantines called Romans themselves but they were the Greeks for all the others,just like Soviets were the "Russians" for the rest of the world as they were the dominating population in the state.Communism would be the "Orthodoxy" of USSR...
In my opinion Byzantine Empire was heir of the ancient Greek states but the destroyer of Greek civilazation and culture the same time.

Complicated,eh?





Edited by Polemidas

What you said is agreed by some historians to be one of the key causes of the downfall of the Byzantine Empire. While the Byzantines were concentrating efforts on encorporating the Armenian church as part of the Greek Orthodoxy, and while they were trying to subdue Armenian leaders and undermining their efforts against Muslim invaders, the Byznatines lost their buffer-zone, and eventually, their empire.

You would think they would learn something after the Bagraduni Dynasty of Armenia fell to the Seljuks. But when the Rubenian Dynasty established an Armenian kingdom in Cilicia the Byzantines pulled the same act, allowing the Egyptian Mameluks to topple the kingdom in 1375. Again, no more buffer-zone, and their eastern flank was left wide open. You know what happened after


Edited by ArmenianSurvival

Ya, all rulers of the Byzantines were culturally Greek with a few exceptions. I would imagine he was part of the Greek Orthodox church as you said (Armenians had/have a completely different form of Christianity). The Byzantines ignored pleas from Armenia against Muslim invaders, all because the Armenians refused to place their church under the authority of the Greek Orthodoxy. This fact is proof enough to me, that all Armenian rulers of Byzantium were most probably nominal to the Greek Orthodox Church (they were probably crowned by Greek bishops too). Also, Armenian rulers of Byzantium were very agressive towards Armenia, trying to incorporate Armenia into the Byzantine Empire, levying heavy taxes towards them, and ignoring their pleas against Muslim invaders.

Well, I know Greek was probably their strongest language, seeing as they ruled an empire that was more or less Greek. But I was saying that in response to people that say "He wasnt Armenian because he probably didnt speak the language". Unless it was documented, no one really knows how well they actually knew Armenian, all we know is that they are of Armenian origin. In Armenian culture family ties are everything, in some cases it actually defines who the person is. Whether or not they had these same family ties as rulers of an empire is not widely known.

Originally posted by Alkiviades Heraclius was also Greek by blood

His father was an Armenian, wasnt he? At least i know he was born in Armenia.


What you guys say is understandable, about them being aligned with the Greek culture because of their duty to the state. But how would you know if Basil II (or any Armenian emperor of Byzantium) didnt know how to speak Armenian? Is it mentioned in a history book or something?

Ingerina is derived from Scandinavian, I have never heard a Greek name similar to it. Now that I think about it the source I used (J. Norwich) said she was half Scandinavian, and that apparently was the cause of some consternation in the court.

The first foreign Empress that I recall off the top of my head was another Eudocia, a Frankish girl who married Theodosius II. Clearly the Empire did not suddenly turn Frankish on account of that .

The only other Armenians in the Macedonian dynasty were John I and Romanus I, the Armenians have obviously provided some very capable men for the Byzantine army and throne. But Alkiviades is correct, people identified themselves by language, religion and culture more than blood-ethnicity more in those days. None of the Armenian Emperors ever tried to impose monophysitism on Byzantium, were happy to speak Greek and kept up court protocol.

Alkiviades, I should point out that the mother of Leo VI (Eudocia Ingerina) was not Greek, she was Scandinavian. Eudocia Ingerina was an import from the Rus princedoms. Like you mentioned, though, bloodlines were less important than cultural alignment.

Originally posted by Komnenos Heraclius(610-641) whose father was Armenian Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) Leo V the Armenian (813-820) Basil I (867-886) of Armenian/Macedonian descent

I was under the impression that the entire Macedonian line of Byzantium was Armenian in origin, and not Macedonian at all. Please correct me if im wrong.

I read somewhere that out of its 1123 years of existance, Byzantium was ruled by emperors of Armenian origin for 786 years (again, correct me if im wrong). Heraclius, Basil II "Bulgar Slayer", Leo V, Nicephorus Phokas and John Tzimiskes to name a few.


About the Armenian-Byzantine relationship, the Armenians lost their capital city Ani in 1064 to the Byzantine Empire, and after establishing a kingdom in Cilicia (1080-1375), they maintained in an autonomous stance against Byzantium. The Armenian kingdom in Cilicia was shaped by two Armenian dynasties, the Rubenids and Hetumids. The Hetumids wanted to rule Cilicia under the rule of Byzantium (winning the support of the emperor), while the Rubenids wanted an autonomous Armenia. After numerous power struggles the entire region of Cilicia fell under the control of the Rubenid dynasty, and would remain so for virtually the entire existence of the kingdom (until late in the kingdom's history when a Rubenid princess married a Hetumid prince and combined the two dynasties). The kingdom collapsed because of a Mamluk invasion, in which Byzantium did not offer Armenia any help, because of the Armenians refusal to place their church under the Greek Orthodoxy (Armenians have had their own form of Christianity, Armenian Apostolic Christianity, since 451...Apostolic because the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholemeu spread Christianity to Armenia in the 1st century A.D.). This created the religious strife that Phallanx was referring to.

Back to the original topic, i view the Byzantine empire as culturally Greek, even though their laws might have been Roman and they were originally part of the Roman Empire. Their official language was Greek (after Heraclius), and Byzantium was a dominatly Greek city, and the official religion was Greek Orthodox. Yes, they were multi-cultural and had many foreigners contribute to the empire (such as Armenians), but they were mainly Greek.

And about the Armenians referring to themselves as "Romanoi", this was not true. The Roman Empire under Trajan only controlled Armenia for 3 years (114-117 A.D.), and Armenia had to ally with Rome or Persia for reasons of national security. Other than these brief encounters, and some Armenian kings being nominal to Rome, Armenians never referred to themselves as "Romanoi". This was not even the case when the entire eastern flank of the Byzantine Empire was Armenian land, because Armenia was at its largest extent (culturally) at this time than almost any other period. I cant say the same for Bulgars and others because i do not know their history well.