|
Byzantine is an incredibly useful term and I don't think there are too many people who know what the Byzantine Empire was and don't also know that the people who lived there considered themselves Romans and that the state itself was a continuation of the earlier Roman state, etc. I've seen far more historians use the term than not, even if it comes with a clarification, so they must agree too. Besides, the names we call people and places rarely match up with the names those people often use for themselves.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
We should just refer to them as the Romanoi to clarify things
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
I wish that SOME PEOPLE hadn't reused the name so we could call it Romania. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Romaniacs
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I wish that SOME PEOPLE hadn't reused the name so we could call it Romania. Yeah, about that, who was it that was asking about modern day people still identifying as Romans?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What does that mean, though? In the context the history of western Europe, the empire post-Lombards is a very distinct entity from the Rome that features in their histories. The Rome that ruled the territory of western Europe, spread the Latin that seeded the languages people speak there now, built the institutions that laid some of the foundation for those nations, spread the religion to the whole area, and to whose legacy every drat feudal leader aspired to, was not the same Rome that saw all the west as barbarians to be manipulated during the intervals when they weren't actively attacking. i mean, the indisputably roman empire certainly saw the germanic peoples who later became the ruling class of the west as barbarians to be manipulated during the intervals when they weren't actively attacking. that those barbarians were now squatting in half of the empire only intensified the disdain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Byzantine is an incredibly useful term and I don't think there are too many people who know what the Byzantine Empire was and don't also know that the people who lived there considered themselves Romans Maybe among historians but I don’t think this is remotely true for the general population. I learned about the Byzantines when I was a kid from Age of Empires but I had no clue they were the same as the Eastern Roman Empire until...well over a decade later, probably actually when I got an SA account and read that for the first time in this very thread. To be fair I also had no clue the Holy Roman Empire was a thing either until way later since they’re called the Teutons in that game so maybe I’m just a bit dense, but I expect there are tons of people with similar stories. (Incidentally this is the reason I think paying attention to history in games is actually sorta important, it’s legitimately the primary source of understanding of this stuff for lots of people.) Even beyond video games and internet comedy forums, while my Art History courses actually did go into Byzantine stuff fairly deep (although I went a lot deeper into art history than most people probably did), I don’t think they ever talked about their association with the Romans. It’s just a continuation out of Christian art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
I think the best available term since Romania is out and Medieval Rome is confusing is just Eastern Roman Empire. Including the eastern part once there's no west is a little odd but it's fine. There is that overlapping period when the west still exists, but the fall of the west doesn't really affect the east that much--I'd say the first major break point in the east is Phocas's usurpation that introduces that form of political violence to the east, which is well after the end of the western empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Honestly I'd rather read about byzantine history than post-republican Roman history. It's just a more interesting topic. I especially like the part where the empire almost fell apart over an incredibly minor theological distinction that only makes sense in Greek
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Right now I'm looking for a good 300s book, I just finished The Fate of Rome and he talked about how the modern scholarship (informed by archaeology) has come around to the 300s being possibly the strongest century of the empire's entire history and I am sadly lacking in knowledge.cheetah7071 posted:I especially like the part where the empire almost fell apart over an incredibly minor theological distinction that only makes sense in Greek Man if you love people gettin' mad about nitpicking there's hardly anything better than early church history. It's the closest thing the ancient world has to the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
The heart of the disputation over Monophysitism/Nestorianism/Chalcedonianism was as much regional/political as theological. Basically whether the clergy of Alexandria or those of Antioch got to claim the doctrinal primacy over the rest of the empire. The Antiochian position (Nestorian) got slapped down and they broadly accepted Chalcedonian orthodoxy from then on, but the Alexandrians never did, despite a couple of imperial attempts to reconcile both sides to a middle position. The differences in belief were genuine and the arguments, however insane they might appear (esp. in translation) were from the heart. But a lot of the differences have to do with the tensions that came from Constantinople trying to assert its power over the distant provinces through the rising church hierarchy as the old-style curial (probably not the right word for the Greek provinces but idk what else to call) organization of civil society faded away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
There was an actual civil war (maybe 2? I forget) over iconoclasm which is just nuts to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What does that mean, though? In the context the history of western Europe, the empire post-Lombards is a very distinct entity from the Rome that features in their histories. The Rome that ruled the territory of western Europe, spread the Latin that seeded the languages people speak there now, built the institutions that laid some of the foundation for those nations, spread the religion to the whole area, and to whose legacy every drat feudal leader aspired to, was not the same Rome that saw all the west as barbarians to be manipulated during the intervals when they weren't actively attacking. I'm not against periodization and giving nicknames to different periods, let alone noting distinct periods exist. But the issue is people take to literally calling the Eastern Roman Empire "The Byzantine Empire", proper noun and all. And frankly part of your logic here is nationalist tinged for western Europe. "Oh that Rome isn't relevant to us so it's not the ROME Rome anymore at that point". It would be like calling the Roman Kingdom the "Latin Kingdom" because until the Romans expanded and started grabbing up Gaul, Britain, Iberia and so on it didn't really factor into wider western history. Also what contemporary entities do you mean? The Western Empire? The HRE? The former is already differentiated with the y'know.... geographical titles both have. And the latter lol. quote:I don't even know if they really get that short-shrifted treatment in history. I have a fair amount of gaps in my knowledge, but that's more from not having leaned of history in the context of that geographic area, same as how I have gaps in my knowledge of China's history. The people I feel like I should know more about are the muslim societies that keep popping up all over western European history, but people rarely talk about. In the context of bog standard history curriculums they fall in that same gap that medieval Islam does. It contributes to this western eurocentric history issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Right now I'm looking for a good 300s book, I just finished The Fate of Rome and he talked about how the modern scholarship (informed by archaeology) has come around to the 300s being possibly the strongest century of the empire's entire history and I am sadly lacking in knowledge. As far as contemporary authors go I associate Peter Heather with this view, but he hasn’t really written about the 4th century as such afaik. He starts his history of the Fall with the Gothic war. cheetah7071 posted:There was an actual civil war (maybe 2? I forget) over iconoclasm which is just nuts to me The iconoclasms are probably best understood as a general social response to the empire getting its geopolitical poo poo kicked in during the 8th/9th centuries and various people concluding that something had to change because God was obviously upset. There weren’t major civil wars about them in the sense of ideologically opposed leaders fighting for monarchy under their doctrine, it’s more like a lot of civil unrest and sometimes violent tension between church and state. There were still civil wars during iconoclastic periods, but this is Rome we’re talking about, there were civil wars as often as not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:General European history post-476 is very poor at covering anything east of the Holy Roman Empire. It's not just Rome. One of the great empires of the later middle ages and early modern period was the various incarnations of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and how often does that get mentioned outside of internet nationalists demanding winged hussars in every game? Yeah, I know I mentioned it kind of being a "Catholic/Protestant Europe history getting all the focus", but Catholic Eastern Europe gets ignored real bad too. I remember hearing about the Hungarians a bit, but only in the context of them being horse raiders bashing up against the eastern areas of the Frankish realm. And of course the other big gap left by ignoring the Orthodox world aside from the Balkans/Anatolia in that period is the emergence of Russia. Like ok sure, more general history can slide by Romania or Bulgaria, but Russia? C'mon. Koramei posted:Maybe among historians but I don’t think this is remotely true for the general population. I learned about the Byzantines when I was a kid from Age of Empires but I had no clue they were the same as the Eastern Roman Empire until...well over a decade later, lol this is loving exactly copy/pasted from my life. Followed by the odd realization that I had never at any point thought to wonder what the Greeks had been up to after all that ancient statue stuff, and before the modern thing with the spinning meats and plate breaking. Grape fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Grape posted:Yeah, I know I mentioned it kind of being a "Catholic/Protestant Europe history getting all the focus", but Catholic Eastern Europe gets ignored real bad too. I remember hearing about the Hungarians a bit, but only in the context of them being horse raiders bashing up against the eastern areas of the Frankish realm. I was kinda amazed playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance -- for all its foibles -- at how much that era and region of history had just *poofed* from anything I'd ever read of European history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Maybe among historians but I don’t think this is remotely true for the general population. I learned about the Byzantines when I was a kid from Age of Empires but I had no clue they were the same as the Eastern Roman Empire until...well over a decade later, probably actually when I got an SA account and read that for the first time in this very thread. To be fair I also had no clue the Holy Roman Empire was a thing either until way later since they’re called the Teutons in that game so maybe I’m just a bit dense, but I expect there are tons of people with similar stories. (Incidentally this is the reason I think paying attention to history in games is actually sorta important, it’s legitimately the primary source of understanding of this stuff for lots of people.) I also learned about the Byzantines from Age of Kings and also turbonerded into Art History, and did a bunch of art history presentations comparing greco-roman and byantine art with the point that maybe there are better words for all of those things. So my point is frankly don't know, but I think late eastern roman would be more logical than totally different word that is also an unrelated adjective. E: Semi-related The Byzantine Empire was assuredly byzantine
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
There's a bit of a case to be made that once the Roman Empire entity no longer included the actual city of Rome that maybe a different name is in order, even if just for clarity in discussion. And if we're talking the continuity of some "Roman Identity" past that point, remember that "Roman Identity" is as diverse as "Roman History," so we'll still need some kind of distinguishing terminology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
What about calling it Byzantine Rome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:There's a bit of a case to be made that once the Roman Empire entity no longer included the actual city of Rome that maybe a different name is in order, even if just for clarity in discussion. And if we're talking the continuity of some "Roman Identity" past that point, remember that "Roman Identity" is as diverse as "Roman History," so we'll still need some kind of distinguishing terminology. I really don't accept the idea that what made the Roman Empire a thing was the city. Even before the split Constantinople had become more relevant and powerful after all. As for clarity, part of the whole issue is that for people who aren't in the know stuff like calling it something entirely different does the exact opposite of provide clarity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
FishFood posted:What about calling it Byzantine Rome? The eastern empire reconquered and controlled Rome for a while so that would have issues too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The eastern empire reconquered and controlled Rome for a while so that would have issues too. That period would be Roman Byzantine Rome
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Grape posted:That period would be Roman Byzantine Rome Eastern Roman Byzantine Roman Exarchate Duchy of Exarchate of Ravenna Empire. E: Exarch is still my favorite title for a government official ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The eastern empire reconquered and controlled Rome for a while so that would have issues too. I get that, but the capital remained Constantinople, and wasn't it just for a while under Justinian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
FishFood posted:I get that, but the capital remained Constantinople, and wasn't it just for a while under Justinian? It was for a couple of centuries. The eastern empire doesn't get kicked entirely out of Italy again until.. the 11th century I think? 11th or 12th. If someone wrote "Byzantine Rome" without any context I would presume it was referring to the city of Rome during the time it was under the eastern empire's control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if the residents of 1200 AD Constantinople didn't call themselves "Byzantine" in their daily lives for the same reason that it doesn't matter that residents of 2018 AD Dusseldorf don't call themselves "German" in their daily lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
skasion posted:Romaniacs We are the Romaniacs And we're Christian to the max So just sit back and relax, You'll pray til you collapse We're Romaniacs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Eastern Roman Byzantine Roman Exarchate Duchy of Exarchate of Ravenna Empire. Church titles > secular titles. Archimandrites and hieromonks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
FishFood posted:I get that, but the capital remained Constantinople, and wasn't it just for a while under Justinian? Rome was held under Justinian from the mid 550's until Leo the Isaurian effectively lost control of the Exarchate of Ravenna in the 730-740's. So a good while held under by the ERE. They managed to hold onto southern Italy more or less until 1071. shirunei fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:There was an actual civil war (maybe 2? I forget) over iconoclasm which is just nuts to me Empress Irene blinded her son over it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
The Roman Empire stopped having their capital in Rome in the 200's, under Diocletian. Literally 200 years before the "fall of Rome". It was a city that was important for cultural, religious, and historical reasons, but Rome wasn't the center of government after the 3rd century crisis. There were 1500 years of Roman Empire and they only involved actual Rome for 2-300 of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Don't forget, New Zealand and the Roman Empire fought a common enemy. People get a slightly panicky look when you bring that up. Anyway, seconding (thirding? fourthing?) the bit about discovering Byzantium through Age of Empires. I still remember, as an awkward teenager in a sport-obsessed town, reading in the in-game encyclopedia about this luxury-and-learning-obsessed empire that had zero qualms bribing its enemies if that was cheaper than stabbing them, and thinking, these are my people. Grand Fromage posted:E: Exarch is still my favorite title for a government official ever. Absolutely. skasion posted:Church titles > secular titles. Archimandrites and hieromonks! Although....
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Don't forget, New Zealand and the Roman Empire fought a common enemy. People get a slightly panicky look when you bring that up. Who? The Emus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Don't forget, New Zealand and the Roman Empire fought a common enemy. People get a slightly panicky look when you bring that up. Refugees?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Who? The Emus? The Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Ottomans. Yep! And Australia and New Zealand are different places, guys... e: and now I want an alt-history pulp novel where Justinian, instead of getting monks to smuggle silkworms out of China, sinks his efforts into despatching a fleet to Australia. Tree Bucket fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Who? The Emus? Emus are Australian!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Emus are Australian!! Is that why they fought New Zealand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Yep! And Australia and New Zealand are different places, guys... Just play Civ VI and make that history. (You'll have to settle for Trajan though, Byzantium is not in that version (yet?))
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Oh right, because of Gallipoli and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 07:43
|
|