Byzantines - The "useless civilization"

[Titus001]

The same problem that quite a lot of people have is that their argument is based on the Bazy empire's origins and name.

The Great Schism is what finally made the Bazy empire seperate from its western counterpart. So the argument does stand in that they were the remanents of the Roman empire and even considered themselves Roman, but in the later period, Rome and Constantinople were seperate and considered seperate empires.

One was Catholic and the other Orthodox. Thus, whilst the Bazys may not have the same violent struggle as, lets say, the American against the British...the same occured in that a region and peoples officially sperated from their former fathers and created their own empire.

In fact, the irony of having Greece in the game is incorrect as prior to the Roman conquest of the Greek region, city states still ruled like wild fire. The true united Greece came about from the Eastern Orthodox Empire (aka Eastern Roman Empire, aka Bazyntine Empire) in that our religion and cause united us as one people.

Try telling a Greek that right up until its collapse, the Bazy empire was Roman will probably get the same response to telling an American that they are British because they still associate and support the UK. It just does not make sense.

All empires go through stages and era which define and redefine their importance and uniqueness....and all Empire are formed from the ashes of older Empires.

Rome > Holy Roman Empire > Western European country empires
Rome > Eastern Roman Empire > Greece, Balkan countries, Russia
Huns > Seljuks Turks > Ottoman Empire > Modern Turkey
Rome > Britian > United Kingdom > Modern UK, Australia and America (to name a few)

I think you get the examples above....the original empire does not equate to the new empire.

I dont agree with your analogies, i also dont agree with your list. Here is my mine.

Imagine if USA was invaded by the Germans and everything East of Texas was taken by the Germans. But the western side of the USA survived and prospered and had a new capital. Would the western United States be considered a totally different civilization or the same country?

The same exact thing happened to the Roman empire with the Germanic invaders that brought the end of the empire in the West. Do you think the people in the east that still lived in the Roman empire still considered themselves Roman? Just b/c Rome the city fell does not mean the empire fell also, and surely since the City Rome fell Does not mean a whole new civilization just popped up out of nowhere either. The phase "Byzantine Empire was coined and popularized by French scholars such as Montesquieu. The people that lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine" They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the Rome on Bosporus, dubbed Constantinople, the emperor Constantine 1 has transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine 1, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the eternal city on the tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived.

In 89BC Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. The same thing happened again in 212AD when emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the empire to be ROMAN CITIZENS, entitled to call themselves Roman. Instead of being a latin empire "Imperium Romanorum" it became an empire for all not just for the latins.
The very name "Byzantine empire" is infact an insult. It is the Roman empire and most of history up untill the 20th century was called the Roman empire not a made up name like the "Byzantine empire".

Cheers history fans....

 

[ww2commander]

Sansevero, its a very bad habit I have of mispelling the name since years ago

You know those unique situations where you mis-spell it long enough it seems correct to you

 

[ww2commander]

Imagine if USA was invaded by the Germans and everything East of Texas was taken by the Germans. But the western side of the USA survived and prospered and had a new capital. Would the western United States be considered a totally different civilization or the same country?

It depends on the passing of time and the directions government, religion and culture take. Your example seems to be stuck in a modern frame of thinking. If any country was to be invaded today it would more than likely remain the same in name and culture. However, if your example was to be applied across the ancient and middle ages then I would say your example is very broken.

All the countries we know of today did not just pop up from old empires but slowly and gradually built or rebuilt their identity. Thus is the case of the Greeks, Russians and other orthodox based countries from the Byzantine Empire. You notice how I keep mentioning Orthodox all the time....there is a reason . Lets say the west US was conquered by the east. If the east did collapse, would you think they would not seperate and probably build their own unique identity.

The same exact thing happened to the Roman empire with the Germanic invaders that brought the end of the empire in the West. Do you think the people in the east that still lived in the Roman empire still considered themselves Roman? Just b/c Rome the city fell does not mean the empire fell also, and surely since the City Rome fell Does not mean a whole civilization just popped up out of nowhere either.

Actually they were Greek by origin and still considered themselves Greeks. This however does not mean they did not share the belief of being a part of the Roman empire. The actually Romans were located in the proper Rome region. Your view seems to be stuck on the early Byzantine empire rather than the late period empire which is the one consider unique. Also, some countires do just popup over night from old empires such as the US, Mexico, Zimbabwe, East Timor, India, Pakistan. The reason they do is because they are a part of an empire that eventually they no longer share any common views or direction. Thus the reason the Byzantine Empire did eventually split from Holy Roman Empire.

The phase "Byzantine Empire was coined and popularized by French scholars such as Montesquieu. The people that lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine" They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the Rome on Bosporus, dubbed Constantinople, the emperor Constantine 1 has transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine 1, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the eternal city on the tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived.

Once again, your thinking revolves around late Roman period of history with focus on (St) Constantine. This view is correct but can not be stamped on the whole period of existence for the Byzantine empire. As pointed out above, the Byzantine empire eventually evolved into its own unique identity which had a predominante Greek culture.

And the term Byzantine is actually are reference to the earlier name for Constantinople which was Byzantium (sp?). As to whether or not the term was used by anyone in the later period is debatable but thats beside the point which is its importance in history and eventually being a unique empire.

In 89BC Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. The same thing happened again in 212AD when emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the empire to be ROMAN CITIZENS, entitled to call themselves Roman. Instead of being a latin empire "Imperium Romanorum" it became an empire for all not just for the latins.

This may well have been good in the ancient period, but in the early middle ages this would have all but been irrelevent as the Roman empire was no longer the dominant empire.

The very name "Byzantine empire" is infact an insult. It is the Roman empire and most of history up untill the 20th century was called the Roman empire not a made up name like the "Byzantine empire".

This is utter rubbish. Who told you that. As an Orthodox Greek myself, I take great pride in my past and the Byzantine Empire. You really need to check the source of this last point as up until the 20th century the region was not know as the Roman or Byzantine empire.

P.S Does this mean that us Greeks should also consider ourselves Turks given that we were a part of the Ottoman empire? I can only imagine the response you would get to this kind of thinking. Just remember that the views that some people portray on this thread is identical to calling the US the United Kingdom as they were British subjects, speak English, adopted the English system of law and maintain relations with the British.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Imagine if USA was invaded by the Germans and everything East of Texas was taken by the Germans. But the western side of the USA survived and prospered and had a new capital. Would the western United States be considered a totally different civilization or the same country?

More or less the same country for the first one or two centuries, or as long as the culture and language doesn't change much.
But if the Western US start to speak Spanish and exist almost 100 years longer than the Eastern US they could easily be considered a different country (I am avoiding the term Civilization because I see not enough differencies between Rome and Greece to really call them different "Civilizations").

 

[scy12]

ww2 , it seems that foreigners always have their own version regarding Greek history and always seem to think they know better than Greeks them selfs .

I name that phenomenon as the Greek , History complex .

 

[ww2commander]

scy12....lmao.

That is so true. When you think of it, all of ours lives, other countries have been trying to redefine our culture and tell us how it should be.

My church and culture is based around late Byzantine era. Even during the Ottoman occupation, we tried to maintain our heritage.

I dont think you will find a more stubborn race on the face of the earth than the Greeks considering since the word 'go' we have been invaded by one empire/country after another.

 

[Titus001]

Source for my opinion my greek friend.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

 

[Edgecrusher]

I think the key difference between "Rome" and "Byzantine" is that the "culture" (Art, Architecture, values, etc...) for the Byzantine people during the 800's-1300's is completly different than the "culture" from the Roman Empire up to the schism.

That IMO is what I look at, what the empire produced.

By the same argument your saying that France and Germany are "the same" because they were both decendents of Germanic Kingdoms (Franks, Goths, Lombards, etc...) England too for that matter.

 

[ww2commander]

This gets better by the moment

I loved the site you provided....it is such a neutral and well studied website rolleyes: sarcasm intended).

f) The Byzantine Empire Lie is clearly exposed by Rumeli of the Ottoman Empire.

49. Between 330 and 1453 Constantinople New Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire and then continued to be, with same name, that of the Ottoman Empire. She was never the capital of any Byzantine Empire. The whole European part of the Ottoman Empire was called "Rumeli" which means "Land of the Romans." Even the Ottoman conquerors of the Roman Empire of New Rome ignored any Byzantine Empire. The so-called Byzantine Empire never existed. Those who say and write such nonsense are either intentional liars with a hidden agenda or else brainwashed by the creators of this Byzantine Empire which never existed. Those who hide the Roman reality of this Empire are agents, knowingly or not, of the Frankish propaganda of Charlemagne who decided in 794 that the Roman Empire is a "Greek" Empire in order to hide it from West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins. Then this so-called "Greek" Empire had to become a "Byzantine" Empire in order not to confuse the Modern Hellenic State with the Greek Empire invented by Charlemagne in 794. This resulted in a clear distinction between Hellenes and Greeks in international law. Hellenes are the citizens of modern Hellas and the Greeks are those who are called Greeks by Western powers, but who continue to call themselves Romans in their native languages. For example, the four Roman Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem call themselves Roman in Greek, Turkish and Arabic. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem call themselves Roman in Arabic, but Greek in European Languages because of French and British occupation after World War I. Only Constantinople New Rome was excepted from such treatment because never occupied by the British and French who faithfully apply their Great Father Charlemagne's lie of 794 to the Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Indeed letters sent from Italy to the first capital of liberated Greece were addressed to Napli di Romania in order to distinguish it from Napli di Italia.

This part was the best and had me in tears. The bolded line especially shows true scholaristic value and no sign of an agenda what so ever

There is a difference between real historical sources and this trash that is posted on this website. You need to open your mind and read quite a few sources and opinions before you draw a line in a sand. In addition, I would take everything on the internet with a pinch of salt as most 'historical' sites have a racist, right wing, prejudice or down right wrong view on historical events.

Ask yourself this question....why would someone go to so much trouble to prove the Byzantine Empire was a lie after thousands of sources have proven its existence, documented its course in history and even today clearly demostrate its unique culture as opposed to some long dead Roman culture that this site keeps beating up. Calling an apple an orange aint gonna make it an orange no matter how much you want to prove that they shared the same soil when growing!

 

[Sansevero]

ww2commander,

The passage that you quoted is from a lecture by John S. Romanides, which may partly excuse the passionate tone. I realize that you came upon it by going to the homepage (romanity.org) and clicking on the first link. I haven't read that article, and it isn't the one that Titus has been linking to, by Clifton R. Fox. This article I have read, and it seems fair to me. I don't think anyone's disputing the dominant Greek culture of the Roman Empire from the sixth century onwards. The main issue is with the word "Byzantine" to describe it. The author is explaining how that word came into use. (Why call an empire after the name of the previous settlement (Byzantion) on which the capital was founded?) He also shows how the Emperors viewed themselves as Roman (not in any modern "Italian" sense), e.g. the coins marked "Michael, Basileus Romaion". If and when you read that article, let me know what you think.

By the way, I'm glad to see the Byzantines in Civ IV, and I don't really mind calling them that.

 

[Sansevero]

From Explore Byzantium (http://byzantium.seashell.net.nz/articlemain.php?artid=intro):

In fact by the four hundreds, the Roman Empire's most important territory existed in the eastern Mediterranean. Centered upon Constantinople (now Istanbul in Turkey) this half of the Empire survived the fall of the West to forge a distinct identity. Greek speaking and Orthodox Christian, citizens of this Empire continued to call themselves Romaioi or "Romans" although later historians identify their civilisation as Byzantium, after the original name of Constantinople.

The fall of that empire in 1453 happened on a Tuesday, May 29...

 

[ww2commander]

I would have to admit that I am getting off track and you make a very valid point Sansevero.

My concern is that unfortunately its not black and white as people make it out to be. To answer the original question which is are they are useless civ, then I would say no.

As to whether they considered themselves romans whilst we consider them byzantine's...well thats where we are all not finding any agreement.

As a Greek, I take great pride in this empire that is being debated, whatever it may represent, and I do not feel that labelling them just Roman is correct as all empires evolve into others and the fact that the Holy Roman Empire and the Eastern Orthodox Empire existed concurrently leaves alot more questions than answers.

All I can say is that a unique empire did evolve in that region that broke away from its Roman heritage and final fell to another powerful empire.

 

[Martinus]

ww2commander, thanks for quoting this - otherwise I wouldn't bother to read the site. Rightwinger fanatical idiots like this are too funny - I bet it's the same kind of people who protested Oliver Stone's "Alexander" for depicting Alexander's relationship with Hephaistion.

Incidentally, even more than the bolded part, I loved:

the British and French who faithfully apply their Great Father Charlemagne's lie

I'm sure modern French and British governments are part of a great Charlemagne conspiracy, probably ran by Templars and Freemasons.

 

[Martinus]

ww2commander,

The passage that you quoted is from a lecture by John S. Romanides, which may partly excuse the passionate tone.

If whoever owns the site wants it to be considered a serious historical source, they shouldn't post an article written by a frothing idiot. If they do, they either are careless or believe that crap, which deprives them of any credibility.

I realize that you came upon it by going to the homepage (romanity.org) and clicking on the first link. I haven't read that article, and it isn't the one that Titus has been linking to, by Clifton R. Fox. This article I have read, and it seems fair to me. I don't think anyone's disputing the dominant Greek culture of the Roman Empire from the sixth century onwards. The main issue is with the word "Byzantine" to describe it. The author is explaining how that word came into use. (Why call an empire after the name of the previous settlement (Byzantion) on which the capital was founded?) He also shows how the Emperors viewed themselves as Roman (not in any modern "Italian" sense), e.g. the coins marked "Michael, Basileus Romaion". If and when you read that article, let me know what you think.

By the way, I'm glad to see the Byzantines in Civ IV, and I don't really mind calling them that.

That may be all true, but the term "Byzantine Empire" functions now in both popular and scientific Western language, and no amount of protests will change that.

Incidentally, quoting Arab and Ottoman names for Byzantines will get you nowhere either - the same Arabs and Ottomans called English, French and Germans "Franks", and that does not make for example Richard Coeur de Lion a "King of Franks" either.

 

[ww2commander]

Using Ottoman sources to define meaning of the Byzantine Empire is probably not the best idea

 

[Martinus]

Using Ottoman sources to define meaning of the Byzantine Empire is probably not the best idea

Yeah, I believe they kept calling the Basileus in all official correspondence the "Roman Dog".

 

[jimkatalanos]

The official language of byzantium after 800AD was greek. The Macedonian dynasty of byzantium and all the other dynasties after it called themselves kings of the greeks not romans. Until the Macedonian dynasty the Byzantine Kings called themselves kings of the romans and the Empire was called Roman Empire.

 

[ww2commander]

Can somebody spot the Greeks in the room

I think we need to start a committee called Byzantine Bashers Beware (BBB)!

 

[Fruidoc]

Oi vey, where do I start?!

First, no civilization is based or influenced completely by one group of people - even when the 'Byzantine Empire' was 'Roman,' do you think it considered itself the same? If it did, why did it split (Eastern Roman Empire) where it did, eh? The 'Byzantines' were influenced by a great number of groups - they were a blend of Roman, Greek, and Arabic and Persian (for a more broad term). This is obvious in their architecture, customs, and especially Military Tactics. Give any isolated group of people enough time, and they will form a whole new culture.

I will compare America and the 'Byzantines' in a different way - they are both a melting pot for a multitude of different people. You cannot say that either is 1) Greek, Roman, etc, or 2) British, Irish, German, African, Hispanic, etc.. Neither then, can you separate by language - when my Great Grandparents immigrated to America, they spoke nothing but Swedish, and were taught English as a second language. Languages are irrelevant in this debate.

The Byzantines developed, over time, a unique culture of their own- one that, by 1453, the year of their fall, was imitated nowhere but in their domain. They were well known for their adept ability for diplomacy and for their special contributions - Greek fire was never used by the Greeks or the Romans. It's a shame that these great people aren't getting the recognition they deserve. Without their contribution, Europe and the Middle East would not be the same. They stopped the Arabic invaders for many many years (Charles Martel was responsible for stopping their advance in the West, the 'Byzantines' in the East) and kept some form of Western Civilization alive while the 'Frankish' peoples were still developing. And their style of Warfare is especially fascinating (though I won't go into detail on that, I'd get too carried away-oops! Too late for that! )

The argument over the name BYZANTINE EMPIRE is also irrelevant. No matter what they were called, there was, beyond doubt, a unique, unified group of people that did far more that anyone is willing to give them credit for. It doesn't matter who they were or who they descended from - they were there, they were different, and they contributed a hellofalot to the world today.

I am a serious fan of the Byzantine Empire and was overjoyed to hear they were going to include it. When I read the book, 1453 by Roger Crowley, I almost cried when the last Constantine was killed leading is remaining, broken men into the breach in the Theodosian Wall where the Turkish Jannisaries were pouring through. So sad. But as it is, I've read many different views and standpoints on the Byzantine Empire - whenever you submit your opinion, you cannot (well obviously you CAN) base it on one article that sounds good and say that it must be correct.

No one thing defines a civilization. Taken on the whole, the Byzantine Empire deserves to be in more than most. Truly, why is it that in other posts about possible civs are there always the same few? Poland? POLAND? AND NOT BYZANTIUM?! heh, oh well, I know very little about the Poles. But compare the Poles to the Byzantines. Try it.

And concerning Israel, it really is deserving to be in, however, to avoid controversy, I doubt whiether they would ever be included - it's a debate that stems along the same lines as including Hitler. Some people get so offended by so little, it's very hard for game developers to decide what is acceptable and what is not. What is perfectly fine in some places may be blasphemy in others. Consider the whole perspective, not only your own.

Thank you very much for reading,

Fruidoc

 

[Fruidoc]

Can somebody spot the Greeks in the room

I think we need to start a committee called Byzantine Bashers Beware (BBB)!

I'm not even remotely Greek, but I think I'll join anyway...I could be of the Varangian Guard!