Could the Byzantine empire have been thought of as a 'nation?'
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Ah, you are not a turk? I have no interest in battling mere turkophiles. Be gone pls
Keep on man! People just started to see your true face.
Moderator Action: Enough, everyone.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Could it not be argued that a nation is, rather like a language, self-defining? That is, just as a dialect only becomes a language because its speakers believe it to be so, so a community cannot be a nation unless its members believe that it is such?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'd agree with that, yeah.
I suppose then that by the restoration century by the Komnenoi (end of 11th to end of 12th century) the Empire was mostly a nation. Although still less so than the successor states following 1204 (Epiros, Nicaea, Trebizond).
It should be noted that the Byz Empire was not a feudal state, unlike anything else in Europe. It had concrete laws and administrative mechanisms, which were what allowed it to resurrect following 1071 and then even after 1204.
I suppose that in the (much older) age of Heraclios (last Byzantine-Sassanid megawar, and rise of Islam) that also played an important part in the Empire not collapsing, despite the borders being at some point of the war reduced to mostly the Balkan provinces.
It should be noted that the Byz Empire was not a feudal state, unlike anything else in Europe. It had concrete laws and administrative mechanisms, which were what allowed it to resurrect following 1071 and then even after 1204.
I suppose that in the (much older) age of Heraclios (last Byzantine-Sassanid megawar, and rise of Islam) that also played an important part in the Empire not collapsing, despite the borders being at some point of the war reduced to mostly the Balkan provinces.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, why? In light of the previous three pages of discussion.
This has the potential for a 'strong version' in which no nations existed prior to Herder, as well as problems of definition: it's hard to phrase it in a way which doesn't mean that the Germans were not a nation when they went to bed one night, then they woke up in the morning to find themselves just that.
Kyrakios, what definition of 'nation' are you working on?
By Byzantine standards it was an unprecedented period without civil war (although it still took some trying by the three Komnenoi emperors). Let alone what it led to (The Angeloi, and the fourth crusade).
Considering that in the Komnenian era the empire was already much weaker than a century before (death of Basil II), and had to fight on most of the fronts (from the crusader states to the depth of the Seljuk sultanate, to the border with Hungary) it does seem likely that administratively it was a lot stronger by that time. I haven't read more about the era so as to comment in a more insightful fashion, but it does seem to have been a very stable one next to pretty much all of the previous or later ones (while being just one century in an empire of 11 centuries).
That name sounds almost identical to the original term for the Matryoshka doll
That still doesn't tell me what a 'nation' actually is.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Yeah, it's not at all obvious how a lack of civil strife turns a state into a nation, or for that matter why the presence of civil strife should prevent it from being one. Was France a nation in 1847, a non-nation in 1848-9, and then a nation again in 1850?
^Very different periods there. My main point was that without some crucial degree of common ethos and essentially some respect for a common identity, the Empire would have died various times before its actual official death. Like i said i have not read as much about the period to offer a more specific argument than the above overall one..
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,210
you are forgetting as always that Turks also built the Pyramids and invented writing through proxies by the name of Sumerians . All of which still falls short of trying to instigate a Court Coup in 1452 , with the hopes of recovering a lot of things back . Meaning Mehmed II could die either trying taking the city or die sitting passively . The Europeans tend to be real slow in Crusades thatcould save Greeks afterall . Hence the choice being so obvious and safe ... The Frenchies say nothing new under the Sun , eh ?
^Probably turkish, i mean Homer was turkish too, no?
Yeah, when you don't have an answer try to be cool, funny guy. Byzantines weren't a nation, you accept or not, you opinion doesn't change the fact
Edit: I'm glad that you're reading my other posts lol
