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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Discovering Byzantium

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Discovering Byzantium
    Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 20:37
 I havent read that book, but there is definately something about that name that is just so......interesting? Its got a very musical quality to it.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
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: 22-Aug-2005 at 20:03

Well in my opinion if today's Greeks want to disown Byzantium then they are losing out. Hehe, no I am not a professor of Byzantine studies, though doing such units as Medieval Europe and The Crusades at university has allowed me to indulge my interest in the topic.

What I am wondering though is, apart from Byzantium's theological orientation and ultimate decline and death, why else would modern Greeks feel contempt for this fascinating civilization. How can they ignore the fact that it was the greatest bastion of Christendom in the Middle Ages, kept alive and advanced works of arts, learning and culture. That it provided a standard of living and education for many of its citizens considerably in excess of that which other nations of the period could. How can they ignore the heroic wars of self-defence, like those of Heraclius, Alexius I, the Nicene Emperors, Michael VIII, Andronicus III, Constantine XI etc etc etc.

The Empire certainly had its bad points, but how on earth can so many good points and achievements be overlooked?

Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 22:08
I asked a Greek man this very question. He told me that to speak of Byzantium was to recall the humiliating manhandling the Greeks recieved from the Turkish invaders. Also, it recalls the sensitive situation between the Greeks and the Turks since most of the Byzantine Empire was in Asia Minor
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 22:38

Originally posted by Belisarius

I asked a Greek man this very question. He told me that to speak of Byzantium was to recall the humiliating manhandling the Greeks recieved from the Turkish invaders. Also, it recalls the sensitive situation between the Greeks and the Turks since most of the Byzantine Empire was in Asia Minor

Yeah, I have heard this as well.  In my hometown there is a big Greek festival on the grounds of the local Orthodox Church.  The church actually sponsors it.  Of course there is the Greek food / drink and the dancing.  In the room where they have Greek souvenirs, however, the ENTIRE display is almost exclusively ancient pagan Greek stuff!  There is maybe one table with a few Byzantine icons or crosses for looks...it is so annoying!  My favorite part of the festival, which they manage to have held onto, is the tour of the church.

He told me that to speak of Byzantium was to recall the humiliating manhandling the Greeks recieved from the Turkish invaders.

Well, what about the humiliating manhandling that the ancient Greeks received from the Romans?  That is what I would say in answer to that guy's statement.

Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 22:52
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Well, what about the humiliating manhandling that the ancient Greeks received from the Romans?  That is what I would say in answer to that guy's statement.

Who was really conquered? The Greeks who were semi-autonomous during the Republic, eventually coming to own half of the Empire, and spreading their civilization to the Romans, effectively conquering them culturally? Or the Romans, who took over their territory?

I think that the Greeks' fate under the Romans was exponentially better than under the Turks.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 23:06

Originally posted by Belisarius

Who was really conquered? The Greeks who were semi-autonomous during the Republic, eventually coming to own half of the Empire, and spreading their civilization to the Romans, effectively conquering them culturally? Or the Romans, who took over their territory?

I think that the Greeks' fate under the Romans was exponentially better than under the Turks.

Well, yes the Romans received their culture from the Greeks.  Everyone knows that.  And yes the Greeks were semi-autonomous in the Republican period.  But one could also point out that the Ottomans gave the Greeks and Orthodox Christians a good deal of autonomy in the millets and through the Patriarch, at least in the beginning of the Turkokratia.  However, the pitiful remnants of the Hellenistic kingdom (in a political and military sense) were hammered into submission by the Romans.  But I think you understand what my original point was!



Edited by Byzantine Emperor
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 05:54
I am proud for Byzantium,and those "Hellens" who do not like it or they do not consider part of our culture are morrons,no need to waste time for them.The truth is that the Byzantine Empire was indeed magnificent,but i prefer modern history,and especially modern military history.Another thing is i am not intrigued by an empire whose life was characterized by a religion.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 10:19

Spartakus:

"Another thing is i am not intrigued by an empire whose life was characterized by a religion."

Well then you miss a very big part of history.

Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 10:43

Bloody me...

"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
Red_Lord View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 19-May-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166
  Quote Red_Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 18:59
Originally posted by BlindOne

[Constantine you can't imagine how negative is the opinion that most of the greeks have about Byzantium. First in school we learn almost nothing about it. We learn that it was a theocratical state with almost no interest in any part of life there, hehe when i finish school i believed that Byzantines was just religius fanatics and nothing else.

 

 

Well I also think that acient byzantine history is not part of greek history.

It is like USA and Britain

The first use English take good things from England but they are americans it is the same in byzantia they respect greece philosops and achievements but it is an empire with different doctrine.

Well as a Bulgar I have to say that four years in school we are learning for Byzantia but with  a some kind of little propaganda well I can separate the thruth.May be you know that about 800 we were neighbours with this great empire 



Edited by Red_Lord
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
  Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 19:20
Originally posted by Red_Lord

Originally posted by BlindOne

[Constantine you can't imagine how negative is the opinion that most of the greeks have about Byzantium. First in school we learn almost nothing about it. We learn that it was a theocratical state with almost no interest in any part of life there, hehe when i finish school i believed that Byzantines was just religius fanatics and nothing else.

 

 

Well I also think that acient byzantine history is not part of greek history.

It is like USA and Britain

 

Oh, but Byzantine History is part of greek history just as British history is part of american history.

All the important figures in the begining of the colonization were english, the pilgrims were english, they are important. English was still language of Usa. There are more but

Most Byzantine people were greek people. So it is the history of Greek people.  I do not know what side you get that from. Explain a little more then.

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: 29-Aug-2005 at 22:03
Spartakus

While I can understand reasons for not 'liking' the empire,(not considering it part of our culture is out of the question) simply claiming it was characterized by a religion and overlooking the cultural among other achievments or the Hellinic ethnic character is equally if not more 'moronic'.

Byzantium literally dominated for over 1000yrs making it the longest lasting empire humanity has seen. The cultural achievments and the knowledge held there were literally the reason the rest of Europe managed to reach enlightment. Without overlooking the fact that it was literally the rampart for European civilization against the attacks of the  'barbarians'.

Literature, historiography, medicine, art, achitecture....etc are the achievements stongly connected if not what identified the empire. But of course all adopted from the ancients see the neo-Platonic G.Gemistos Plethon. All passed on to the 'West' with success..

I guess which historic period you choose to be more interested in is actually a personal decision or taste if you prefer. So how can anyone be a 'moron' for not 'liking' any part of history or prefering one over the other???


Edited by Phallanx
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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2005 at 11:09

Most Byzantine people were greek people.

We cant be sure about that. The Balkan population of Byzanthine Empire was consisted of Greeks, Slavs, Thracians, Bulgarians, and even minor Turkic population (Oguz, Pechenek Turks). Altough the Greek population was always the majority around the coasts of Aegean, inner Anatolian lands of Byzanthine Empire was an ethnic mixture of its natives.

Armenians were the majority of the population in lots of Anatolian cities from Sivas to Kastamonu. The rest, were Greek speaking Rumois, their ethnic origins arent clear, definately descendents of ancient Anatolians. There were also some Turkic population settled in Eastern and Central anatolia, coming long before the Seljuks, such as Kipchak, Guz, Velentur Bulgars etc.

But no doubt that they are the inheritors of Byzanthine civilization and descendents of the empire.

Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2005 at 13:30
Originally posted by Phallanx

Spartakus

While I can understand reasons for not 'liking' the empire,(not considering it part of our culture is out of the question) simply claiming it was characterized by a religion and overlooking the cultural among other achievments or the Hellinic ethnic character is equally if not more 'moronic'.

Byzantium literally dominated for over 1000yrs making it the longest lasting empire humanity has seen. The cultural achievments and the knowledge held there were literally the reason the rest of Europe managed to reach enlightment. Without overlooking the fact that it was literally the rampart for European civilization against the attacks of the  'barbarians'.

Literature, historiography, medicine, art, achitecture....etc are the achievements stongly connected if not what identified the empire. But of course all adopted from the ancients see the neo-Platonic G.Gemistos Plethon. All passed on to the 'West' with success..

I guess which historic period you choose to be more interested in is actually a personal decision or taste if you prefer. So how can anyone be a 'moron' for not 'liking' any part of history or prefering one over the other???
I am not overlooking anything.The Byzantine Empire was in simple words,a Hellenic empire(latest years) in which the Christian Church was dominant.That's what it bothers me,and that's why i only mentioned it.I believe in God,but i do not like the Church to be part of everyday life in  such an extent.For this reason,it simply does not attract me.Morons are those who say that the Byzantine Empire was not a part of our culture,which is stupid.So your small reference to the achievements of the empire is pretty much useless.I do interest about the achievements but not for the empire itself.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
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 Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 04:34

Very nice topic!

I discovered the Byzantine Empire in my scooling years, tried to learn more about it but later, with my growing antipathy for the christian church and legacy and my growing admiration for the ancient Greek world, I kind of abandoned it.

I only started coming back to Byzantium in my late 20s (I am in my early 30s right now) and it is an evergrowing interest eversince.

I find certain aspects of Byzantium rather uncomforting or downright repulsive (the absolute rule, the extreme cruelty as illustrated through the gloriously rich torturing customs and ethics, the all-powerfull theocracy and others) but all in all I find it fascinating and historically very, very interesting.

The Empire itself, a Greekified Roman Multiethnic State, with Theocratic buildup, is perhaps the most interesting, diverse, stunningly vibrant and everchanging example of a state the world has ever produced.  Also, Byzantium is a real treasure for fans of military history too.

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: 02-Sep-2005 at 10:03

Basically my views are in alignment with those of Phallanx, and thanks to him for introducing Plethon who is a most interesting character in that he managed to synthesise so much of what was best in Byzantium with Classical Hellenic creativity.

I have repeated this in half a dozen posts before, but for the benefit of those here will repeat it once more. The Byzantine Empire was an entity distinguished by its political ideology (A new type of Roman Imperium) as well as its theological leanings (a Christian Orthodox state). Nationalism and ethnicity were far less evident and relevent concepts in the medieval period compared to modern times, though I freely admit that the largest cultural influence on this nation was a Hellenic one. As I have mentioned ethnicity in the medieval period was so different compared to modern times that it is often a little inappropriate to apply it to medieval peoples. But the Byzantine nation was a religiously and politically defined entity which was usually multi-ethnic but which had Greeks as the largest single bloc.

I think the analogy between Britain and the USA is not quite right, Byzantium was a continuation of Greek culture and political entity which rightfully deserves to be considered a major part of Hellnic history.

Back to Top
Dawn View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
  Quote Dawn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 13:20
Lets assume that I know nothing about Byzatine (which isn't that far from the truth) could you explaine the differance in the political ideology you mentioned.
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: 02-Sep-2005 at 19:41
Sure, basically Byzantium thought of itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire. The ideology of being Byzantine was having an autocratic ruler, God's vice-gerent on earth, who traced his succession back to Augustus and ruled over a one indivisible Roman Empire. Aside from an absolutist autocracy being a Byzantine meant to be a Greek speaking citizen who followed the teachings of the Orthodox faith. The ideology asserted that a citizen of the Empire could be originally of any ethnicity, but they must accept the legitmacy of their Emperor as ruler of the Romans, the correctness of Orthodox teachings and they their nation constituted nothing less than a continuation of the classical and ancient world.
Back to Top
Dawn View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
  Quote Dawn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 22:41
A few more questions-  Because they thought of themselves as the Roman empire what factors brought them from being Latin speeking to Greek, the total domanency of the orthodox faith, and blind faith in the right of their emperor to rule? 
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: 03-Sep-2005 at 04:40

The Romans began conquering the lands in the East following the conclusion of the Second Punic War, using the ineffectual help Phillip V of Macedon gave to the Carthaginians as a pretext. From that time in the 2nd century BC right through to Trajan the continued pushing East. The lands they conquered were, for the most part, already immersed in a Hellenic culture. Linguistically Greek was the most common international language spoken in the East Roman lands. The Romans set up government structures, wrote laws, established some settlements for retired army veterans and of course established military bases and in each of these cases Latin was the language by which the people functioned. However, the populations in such regions would much more commonly speak Greek, the Latin being an artificial introduction which the local populations did not fully absorb. As the gravity of power shifted away from Italy, the Roman Empire was split between a Latin dominant West and Greek dominant East. The East Roman Empire now had its capital in Byzantium - a Greek city. Now drawing on the local populations for their administrators, soldiers and elites, the hierarchy was increasingly speaking Greek instead of Latin. When Heraclius completed his reign in 640 the Empire had lost all of the Middle East except Anatolia, was about to lose North Africa and Egypt, and was largely confined to Greek dominant areas of Italy and the Balkans. The Empire had been largely reduced to areas where the dominant language was Greek, and so increasingly for sheer practicality Latin was simply discarded.

The dominance of the Orthodox faith was part of the fact that Christianity had always distinguished the Byzantines from other nations, including Christian ones. As Byzantine religion developed it attained a mystical, eastern dimension which distanced it from many other churches. It was also an instrucment of state control, the Emperors pushing for the supremacy of the see of Constantinople as a measure of their theocratic superiority in this religious age. Anyone who did not conform to Orthodoxy was mercilessly persecuted as enemies of both the church and the state. This was a continuation of the practice of Caesaro-Papism which began under Constantine I.

The right of the Emperor to rule was tied in with the Orthodox religious doctrine which all subjects adhered to. Ever since Augustus there had always been an Emperor, alternative forms of government being unthinkable. The Emperor was ordained by God as His special representative in the world, autocratic Emperorship being a theocraticaly sanctioned form of government which was therefore ordained by God to rule the Empire. Just as Heaven had one all powerful ruler so did Earth and this was embodied in the person of the Emperor. While revolts against an individual would occur (if you succeeded then obviously you had the blessing of God, otherwise you would clearly have always been doomed to failure), the actual practice of an autocratic Emperor was always considered the only proper form of government structure in keeping with historical tradition and theological speculation.

Hope this helps.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>

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 0.094 seconds.