Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was the Byzantine Empire mainly a Hellenic Empire?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Alkiviades View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
  Quote Alkiviades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was the Byzantine Empire mainly a Hellenic Empire?
    Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 06:10

Every empire in the course of time is dominated by a culture (or many cultures as years pass by) and the Roman Empire (no "eastern" empire, it's THE Empire) is no exeption to that rule.

The Greek culture, beeing strong, vibrant and a more or less common ground for all people throughout the central and eastern mediteranean (as result of a process that started from the 8th century BC colonisation and culminated in the conquest of Alexander the Great and the hellenistic empires) and as far as the borders of India, was bound to dominate the "Roman" world.

The dominance of the Greek culture, besides the obvious loans to the Roman culture, is present in the hellenization of elites throughout the whole eastern mediteranean, even if they had nothing to do with Greeks to begin with (Pontians and Parthians for instance - the Pontians being an amalgam of Anatolians, the Parthians of Iranian origin, yet both elites became extremely hellenized - Thracian and most of the Anatolians like Karians, Lydians, Lykians had been hellenized more thoroughly, not only the elites).

Roman arms and administration, Greek culture and art - that's what the Graeco-Roman world was all about.

Later on, when the Roman arms became... not so Roman and the administration became more "Eastern" (imitating the hellenistic kingdoms who imitated the "real" easteners), there had to be a new "glue" to put everything under perspective. The Greek culture and tradition became that glue, but I guess it wasn't enough, so the Romans (practical, oh so practical) adopted Christianity as the "new" glue that would enforce the Roman bonds.

What resulted was a Greek-Christian culture, that was dominant in the "eastern" Empire long before the fall of Rome, and that resulted in the gradual adjustment of the (still Roman) administration over the ages.  In Heraclius' times this resulted to the sweeping of the last (alright, not "last", since several elements remained sort of Roman till 1204 but still)  strong "pure" Roman elements and the replacement with "Greek" elements - starting from the official titles, the official language and others.

Stating that Byzantium was a Greek empire is an oversimplification, really. It's not a lie and it's not distant from reality, but its way too simplifying. Surely, most emperors were Greeks, the administrative elite was predominatly Greek (the militaire elite, though, was mostly Isaurian, Armenian and only partially Greek). Most, not ALL.

 It would be much better (and accurate) to describe it as a multinational empire, based on the (orthodox) Christian religion and with a dominant Greek culture.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 05:20

^ I'd agree with that as well. I think of the Bosniak conversion to Islam from the Bosnian Church, etc...as an evolution, moreso than a destruction - mainly because it involves the same Bosniak people.

I think it's the same with the Byzantine empire: the people considered themselves Roman before and after the conversion to christianity, so it's an evolution that involved the same people. After this conversion there may have been some fanaticism that opposed sience, but if I'm not wrong knowledge (even the ancient greek one) was very appreciated in the Byzantine empire. I don't know if we can say that it was an Hellenic state, but the Hellenic culture was not a stranger.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 18:35
I think we could call Byzantium an evolution of the Hellenic people, keeping in mind the Empire was often multi-ethnic. Any nation which retains the language, urban structures, literature, political structures and original homelands and changes other details like religion could still certainly be called a continuation.
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 15:04
^ I'd agree with that as well. I think of the Bosniak conversion to Islam from the Bosnian Church, etc...as an evolution, moreso than a destruction - mainly because it involves the same Bosniak people.

I wouldn't, for example, consider the founding of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia to be a continuation of ancient Illyria because we're not the same people who founded and developed Illyria. We of course absorbed a certain number of the Illyrian people into our own, but we're overwhelmingly a completely new "empire".
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 13:10
I tend to think of the Byzantine empire not as the destruction but as the continuation of the Hellenic one. More of an evolution rather than destruction.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 12:10
I don't understand this line of thinking at all.

The Byzantine Empire destroyed the Hellenic Empire. You can't compare a pagan empire that expanded the world's understanding of everything from democracy to science to a religious heirarchy that did it's best to smother such thought and advancement.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
merced12 View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
  Quote merced12 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 09:46
byzentine of course greek maybe the first period roman but next time greek
http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``
Back to Top
Menippos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1134
  Quote Menippos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 09:06
I am so tired....
CARRY NOTHING
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 08:28

 Hi to every one , Im new to this forum, I can see that there are very interesting topics here.

 First at the topic at hand, as every one probably knows here the so called " Byzantine Empire " was called " The Eastern Roman Empire ", and reading some of these posts here, by naming this empire " Greek or Hellenic " is a false distinction, there isn't any " Byzantine"  texts claiming this empire being " Greek, Hellenic " or any other ethnic group, this empire wasn't owned by no ethnic group, espescially any modern group of people, the empire used Latin and Koine as it's standared language, it was a multi-ethnic empire, and i don't agree with the above post that Slavs, Bulgars or other groups were not included in this Empire. After the Slavic tribes settled through the Balkans including modern " Greece ", a lot of them were in service of this empire, later the Byzantines recruited Bulgars (Tatars- not to be confused with modern Bulgarians of mixed origin) in there army and settled them in the north of modern Bulgaria. On the language issue speaking Latin or Koine in this empire didn't mean that you were part of any ethnic group, all that were in service in this empire were called " good Romans" or " Romioi", even when the Turks held this region it was called " Rumelia" and its inhabitants " Rum",  even though there were various ethnic groups here they were still called by this name. Using the word "Rum" wasn't really an ethnic term but a religious one, the " Byzantine " empire was a Christian Orthodox empire, so anyone that was Christian was called a Rum, no matter there ethnic origin Serb, Greek (Romiosini), Macedonian, Bulgarian or Albanian. But from all these groups only the modern Greeks adopted it duiring Ottoman rule to be there ethnic origin. Above post stated there was " Greek " character to this empire, correct me if i'm wrong i do not remember reading the Greeks inventing the "Legion" because they were still in use duiring this empire, and the only thing left from ancient Hellas is the Koinon language, not it's ethnicity, Ethnic structure changed in the Balkans duiring the height of Roman power, a lot of modern countries in this region don't want to admit it.

Back to Top
dorian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote dorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 08:32

Originally posted by Phallanx


No one has actually attempted to explain, why we find the terms like "Bulgaroktonus" (Bulgr-slayer 9th cent) and the demographic measure named "epi tas Sklabinas" (on the Slavs 8th cent.), used for the already assimilated in the empire ethnic groups.
What is the purpose of using these terms when they could have easily used the term "Romaioi" that was allegedly cultural and not ethnic???

It is also interesting that Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his "De Administrando Imperio" clearly makes a seperate reference to the ethnic groups of Bulgarians, Slavs and Armenians and does not name them "Romans-Romioi".




The region of Armenians sometimes was a part of the Byzantine Empire, but generally it wasn't given that the peoples of Caucasia (Armenians, Albanians, Georgians etc) were on the side of the Byzantines and the latter tried to ally with them specially against the Persians. So, Armenians had kinda of autonomy and they couldn't be described with the classic term "Romans" or "Byzantines" 

Btw, I don't think that any of these nations (Slavs, Bulgars, Egyptians, Syrians, Palaistines etc) were called Romioi. I'm not sure for that but maybe it explains the especial use of this term.

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
Back to Top
dorian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote dorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 08:02

Originally posted by Komnenos



Isn't there a slight flaw in your logic?
"The Ostrogoths unsuccessfully tried to convince the indigenous Roman population that the East-Roman were Greeks and therefore an alien invader.
The Roman population however refused to acknowledge that and in the contrary regarded the East-Romans as brothers, as Romans."
What you are saying is, that a Germanic tribe called the East-Romans Greeks for propaganda purposes, whilst the Romans, who should know better, regarded them as fellow Romans. Im my books, this is not a proof for the Hellenisation of the East-Roman Empire.

Apart from that, the premise that the indigenous Roman population in Italy welcomed Belisarius' or Narses' armies with open arms, is at its best historically inaccurate.
The City of Rome and its administration switched allegiance on a few occasions, especially during the siege of Rome in 538, and so did a number of other cities during the campaigns. The Roman population basiscally regarded both the Ostrogoths and the East-Roman as foreign invaders.
In fact, this would be a far better argument for your claims.

It's not the strongest proof but obviously it's a fact that indicates the greek character of the Empire even before the change of the official language which was such an important step toward the sanction of the Greekness of the Empire.

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 06:44

Originally posted by Phallanx

About the Bulgarians you're correct, seems like I missed four yrs, but with the Armenians, we'd expect a different treatment.
Since we know of Emperors of Armenian descent like Leo V, one would expect that they would "deserve" the title "Romaioi/Romioi"

The Armenians were often also politically autonomous to Byzantium for much of their history. In a similar vein to the Bulgars, the Armenians had their own autonomous leaders, national army and language. I am speaking generally here, as for certain periods of history Armenia was annexed by Byzantium completely. But because the Armenians generally did not recognise the Byzantine Emperor as their political leader, and even at times fought against the Byzantine Empire, they could rightly be considered foreigners. Another important sticking point is that the Armenians were usually staunch monophysites, which further distinguished them from being called a people of Byzantium.

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 04:42
About the Bulgarians you're correct, seems like I missed four yrs, but with the Armenians, we'd expect a different treatment.
Since we know of Emperors of Armenian descent like Leo V, one would expect that they would "deserve" the title "Romaioi/Romioi"
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 03:31
Bulgarians were not subjects of the empire at that time. They were independant and a very strong adversary of Byzantium. Armenians too were sometimes part and sometimes not of the empire.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 02:58

No one has actually attempted to explain, why we find the terms like "Bulgaroktonus" (Bulgr-slayer 9th cent) and the demographic measure named "epi tas Sklabinas" (on the Slavs 8th cent.), used for the already assimilated in the empire ethnic groups.
What is the purpose of using these terms when they could have easily used the term "Romaioi" that was allegedly cultural and not ethnic???

It is also interesting that Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his "De Administrando Imperio" clearly makes a seperate reference to the ethnic groups of Bulgarians, Slavs and Armenians and does not name them "Romans-Romioi".




To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 01:14
Originally posted by dorian


During the Byzantine campaign in Italy in 535 AD, the habitants regarded the Byzantines as the brothers who came to join them to the Eastern Empire. The Ostrogoths who had conquered Italy tried to persuade the population not to help the Byzantines stating that they were only Graekoi conquerors and they were not the prior Romans anymore. In my opinion this fact is another proof that the Byzantine Empire was considered as a Hellenic one early enough after the division of the united Roman Empire.


Isn't there a slight flaw in your logic?
"The Ostrogoths unsuccessfully tried to convince the indigenous Roman population that the East-Roman were Greeks and therefore an alien invader.
The Roman population however refused to acknowledge that and in the contrary regarded the East-Romans as brothers, as Romans."
What you are saying is, that a Germanic tribe called the East-Romans Greeks for propaganda purposes, whilst the Romans, who should know better, regarded them as fellow Romans. Im my books, this is not a proof for the Hellenisation of the East-Roman Empire.

Apart from that, the premise that the indigenous Roman population in Italy welcomed Belisarius' or Narses' armies with open arms, is at its best historically inaccurate.
The City of Rome and its administration switched allegiance on a few occasions, especially during the siege of Rome in 538, and so did a number of other cities during the campaigns. The Roman population basiscally regarded both the Ostrogoths and the East-Roman as foreign invaders.
In fact, this would be a far better argument for your claims.

Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
dorian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote dorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 16:04

During the Byzantine campaign in Italy in 535 AD, the habitants regarded the Byzantines as the brothers who came to join them to the Eastern Empire. The Ostrogoths who had conquered Italy tried to persuade the population not to help the Byzantines stating that  they were only Graekoi conquerors and they were not the prior Romans anymore. In my opinion this fact is another proof that the Byzantine Empire was considered as a Hellenic one early enough after the division of the united Roman Empire.

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
Back to Top
GENERAL PARMENION View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 07-Jun-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75
  Quote GENERAL PARMENION Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 15:16

Originally posted by TheSicilianVespers

I think the Greeks here are confusing the term Roman in the Byzantine Empire. It wasn't used to describe Greeks, it was used to describe Christians in the Byzantine Empire. The term Greek or Hellene were considered pagan after Christianity took its hold in Europe. Therefore, Roman was used because Roman meant Christian, and Greek meant pagan. Simple as that.

But yes, the Byzantine Empire in many aspects was Greek. Not in all aspects, but in a very large portion of it. However, strangely enough, during the empire's decline, the empire began to be partially Italianized due to the increasing dominance of the Italian city-states like Venice and Genoa.

Wrong! Bulgarian christians , slavs or Armenian christians where not called Romans. Only Greeks where called like that.

"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks."
(Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author" In Interview with newspaper TO BHMA)

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:02

Of course Byzantium saw itself as the direct continuation of the Roman State, rather than a purely Greek one. An enormous amounts of what made up the Byzantine Empire were Greek, I would argue the majority of what made up Byzantium what it was was Greek. Read the journey of Liutprand of Cremona (highly amusing). When he called the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas Emperor of the Greeks rather than Emperor of the Romans there was uproar in the court over the disrespect. The Byzantine court would not tolerate the usage of such a term, to them it was an insult. For the Emperor of Constantinople only Emperor of the Romans was a sufficiently worthy title.

 Also look at the treaty signed under the auspices of Nikephoros I and Michael I with Charlemagne over the appropriate imperial title to be used in the wake of Charlegmagne being crowned by the Pope. It specifically, because of the Byzantine drafting, allows the Frankish ruler to be called Emperor. However, the title of the Byzantines is not Emperor but Emperor of the Romans.

All this said, the idea of being a Byzantine had less to do with ethnicity than it had to do with your religious orientation and ideology. Byzantium, much like Rome, easily integrated many peoples because being a Byzantine meant you were an Orthodox Christian, typically spoke adequate Greek and acknowledged the ruler of Constantinople as the direct successor of the Roman Emperors and accepted his primacy in the world of man.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2005 at 07:44
I think the Greeks here are confusing the term Roman in the Byzantine Empire. It wasn't used to describe Greeks, it was used to describe Christians in the Byzantine Empire. The term Greek or Hellene were considered pagan after Christianity took its hold in Europe. Therefore, Roman was used because Roman meant Christian, and Greek meant pagan. Simple as that.

But yes, the Byzantine Empire in many aspects was Greek. Not in all aspects, but in a very large portion of it. However, strangely enough, during the empire's decline, the empire began to be partially Italianized due to the increasing dominance of the Italian city-states like Venice and Genoa.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.