Byzantines - The "useless civilization"

[GoodSarmatian]

Although I am not Greek my ancestors were part of the Byzantine Empire for some time, and Stefan Uroš IV Dušan even had himself crowned "Tsar and autocrat of Serbs and Greeks".

 

[cybrxkhan]

this is kinda random... but related anyways...

yesterday (May 29) was the 554th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople (and thus the Byzantines) to the Ottomans... yes, the day they broke down the walls after a long long long and epic seige and the emperor Constantine XI did a suicide epic last-fight.

 

[Titus001]

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.

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.

That is not the link i posted. The greek on this thread is trying everything he can by making that website or thread look biased and not historical. Here is the correct thread, now greek dude don't try on purpose to mix it up again.

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

 

[ww2commander]

Titus001, I am not sure if your refering to me or Martinus when you say greek.

If it is me then I have nothing against the site as it probably is well researched but the way it presents its argument and evidence is a tad bit hard to accept as historically accurate.

When you open any history book and read through it, you dont see random statements in it such as 'this is true and everyone else is brainwashed'!

Serious historical research tends to present a balanced view from both persepctives which allows the reader to make an educated decision on the facts.

I think the main problem that everyone is now showing support for is that you can not categorize instantly a whole empire based only ons its origins and names. There is such a wide range of considerations that need to be made let alone all the various stages of evolution that this empire has gone thru.

As Fruidoc mentioned, when the Ottomans were invading the walls of Constantinople, the Western Roman Empire (aka HRE) sat back and watched even though they knew that they carried the last remaining signs of the former Roman Empire. I think we all need to understand that the date the Roman Empire died is very very hard to pin point as historians constantly debate whether all the spin off countries and empires constitute the survival of the Roman Empire. Byzantine Empire falls into this mixed bag of lollies!

Heres some random quotes from various websites to show that what your website says is not exactly correct and open to a lot of debate.

It's not entirely arbitrary that Medieval / Renaissance History at About.com begins and Ancient / Classical History ends in A.D. 476. Edward Gibbon's 476 date for the fall of Rome is conventionally acceptable because that's when the Germanic Odoacer deposed the last emperor ruling from Rome. There are, however, other reasonable dates for the Fall of the Roman Empire. Some say Rome fell when it was split in two of which the eastern half became the Byzantine Empire. Many say the Fall was an ongoing process lasting more than a century. Since Rome still exists it could even be argued it never fell.

How long did the Roman empire last for ?
This question can't be answered easily. For the definitions of 'Roman empire' can vary.
Generally speaking Rome began in about 625 BC. Although the Romans believed their city dated back to 753 BC. But in the beginning it was only a town, hardly an empire. They controlled Italy by about 260 BC. This could be argued as being a small empire. Yet others would say it was far from it. Only by the end of its first war against Carthage did Rome actually possess any provinces (Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily) - 241 BC.
The earliest point at which everyone would agree on the Romans possessing an empire would be after their victory in the second Punic war in 201 BC.
As for the fall, the date traditionally used for this is the ousting of the last emperor, Romulus Augustus, in AD 476.
It is therfore very much left to the individual reader to decide how long the empire lasted. All you need to do is to decide for yourself when Rome had become an empire and then to work out the years.
http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html

Historiographically, the primary issue historians have looked at when analyzing any theory is the continued existence of the Eastern Empire or Byzantine Empire, which lasted for about a thousand years after the fall of the West. For example, Gibbon implicates Christianity in the fall of the Western Empire, yet the eastern half of the Empire, which was even more Christian than the west in geographic extent, fervor, penetration and sheer numbers continued on for a thousand years afterwards (although Gibbon did not consider the Eastern Empire to be much of a success). As another example, environmental or weather changes impacted the east as much as the west, yet the east did not "fall."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

I could post more but I think everyone gets the point. You cant just label the Byzantine Empire outright as just 'the Roman Empire'.

On a personal note Titus, I have no personal grudge against you and think you are an excellent debator of the topic. I apologise if I come across as agressive as I am not, I like to think of this forum as a bunch of friends down the local bar arguing topics and walking away good mates

The same goes to the rest of you.....this debate has been quite an eye opener and fun...lets not let it turn ugly or the BBB might have to be unleashed on you

 

[Loknar]

If Byzantium hadn't held back the Muslim invaders for all those years, then Europeans might be speaking Arabic, praying to Allah, and all around the world all the colonies in our time, would be speaking a multitude of different languages.

Yes, wouldn't that be wonderful? Reminds me of Nonviolant Ghandi, which is on top of my list. Sadly, it only works with barbarians off, which option wouldn't have existed.

On topic, the question seems if they can be assigned a distinct identity and if they had an expanded enough empire and produced a sufficient number of cultural or scientific achievements to fit into the Civ game. The legendary court ceremonials would suffice in my eyes. Take art or architecture for a sober approach: As a game designer, I certainly wouldn't want to miss the aesthetical potential of Bycantium. Nor as a player, I'm really looking forward to meeting them in Civ.

I'm quite new to the board and find it really weird that one would question that America should be in Civ. Are there threads about it? The important late wonders in Civ4, the Statue of Liberty with its whopping specialist everywhere (this is really one of the most powerful, isn't it?), Hollywood which doubles culture of the city (should be actually some empirewide boost, but that wouldn't fit its purpose), Rock'n Roll and, well, the Broadway, they all represent typically American culture. America is the model for the cultural victory condition, so it can impossibly be left out - well, not as long as it's Civ. I find Statue of Liberty rather explanatory, as it is the idea of freedom that drew and draws people from the world there and using these talents (and pop) makes it big - and influential. From the cultural wonders, Hollywood is most appropriate in my eyes because it really works a bit like a cultural victory in Civ, maybe Rock'n Roll as well, and, well, Broadway, I don't know, why not the Ballet Russe for a change? I'm culturally awake and don't feel much of Broadway's influence here in Central Europe, certainly not like Hollywood's.

we've contributed more to the world in the past 60 years than most civilizations have in the last 2000.

I don't see America quite as Firaxis presents it. Could it be that America doesn't perceive other influences as well as its own?

 

[Basilisk1]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I need to preface this by saying that I'm Greek. (Yiasas ellines.)

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have a few comments.

First, I think when the original post was written, instead of "useless" the poster was trying to say "redundant", as in; Since the Byzantines spoke Greek and are derived from Greece and Rome, and therefore are redundant, shouldn't the space their civ be taking be spent on a more "unique" civilization?

Titus' main objection seems to be, based on the article he posted, that the Byzantines didn't refer to themselves as Byz., but as "Romans" and are therefore heirs to the Roman Empire and... therefore Justinian should just be absorbed into the Roman Empire in the game.

Gaius Octavius (see other threads) said this alot better than I can, but the bottom line is YES the Byzantines didn't refer to themselves as such, YES they considered themselves heirs to Rome and Constantinople as "New Rome" and YES they were ethnic Greeks, speaking Greek and worshipping in the Greek Orthodox church.

But three points. First of all, saying that they considered themselves "Roman" is not the same as saying they were ethnically Roman or the same as classical Rome. "Roman" was an idea/ideal for them, like "Hellenistic" values were pre-Rome. (The Ottomans who conquered Byzantium considered themselves the new heirs of Rome too, by way of the sword, as did the Orthodox Russians, by way of the cross.) The Byzantines certainly considered themselves heirs to the Roman legacy, but we all understand the distinction, right?

Second, an evolution of the culture took place. Look people, it was a THOUSAND YEARS between the fall of Rome and the fall of Constantinople. Cultures constantly evolve, and by 1453 a drastically different civilization had evolved than the one that was there previously. The USA has been around for 250 years only: it's certainly an "heir" of British culture and legacy, but does anyone want to argue that Britain and the United States constitute the same civilization, aside from the grander "Western Civilization" sense?

Finally, Byzantium *was* unique. Its scholarship, art and architecture were VERY different than Rome. For Europeans for hundreds of years, Byzantium was synonymous with civilization. The Justinian Code, Hagia Sophia, Byzantine iconography, the monasteries of Meteora, Mystras, etc etc etc. Byzantine contribution to civilization is profound and deep.

If any civilization merits a place in this game, it's Byzantium. And yes, that's what I'm going to call it when I take my Great General Belisarius and squash Rome, just like he *almost* did. (Sorry Italians, I love you.)

 

[Gaius Octavius]

At long last, words of wisdom and logic. Not bad for a first post!

Welcome to the fora.

 

[ww2commander]

Dropping names like Gaius Octavius is sure to gain you browny points



Its good to see we are getting people out of the shells. I did not know there was that many 'Byzantiphites' in the closet

 

[Slobadog]

What i don't like about the name Byzantine is that the rational for its use is not applied torweds other nations. For example the modern state of Egypt is called by english speaking people Egypt even though its culture is very different from that of ancient Egypt. Other example include Greece and Macedonia which also get to keep their names.

 

[Titus001]

What, If Anything, Is a Byzantine?

Conclusion

"The names by which things are called are important in shaping our interpretation of reality. People are often surprised to discover that historical labels which define the past are inventions of later scholarship and ideology, not parts of the past itself. Men and women of the Middle Ages did not know that they lived in the Middle Ages: people who lived in Classical Athens or Renaissance Italy suffered the same disability.

The people of the "Byzantine Empire" hand no idea that they were Byzantine. They regarded themselves as the authentic continuators of the Roman world: the Romans living in Romania".

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


But i guess it's cool that they are in the expansion. I guess they deserve to be in the expansion even though the "Byzantines" considered themselves Roman and the Roman Empire up until recent times.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

The more Titus posts about this issue, the more I realize he is right in pointing out something very important: our view of the past is shaped by the historians of the past (and the present). Because one or more people decided to use a particular phrase or to characterize a certain people one way, very often subsequent generations pick up on that and create their own "stereotype," for lack of a better term. A good example is Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" phrase, which will never go away. The Roman Empire really did "decline and fall," but that does not necessarily mean all the Romans of those days saw it that way. They certainly wouldn't have noticed some huge change in 180 AD, as though an advisor came up and said "we've entered a new stage of development!" History is seldom so cut-and-dried.

I hope this discussion will encourage more people to look at the true history of all the civilizations involved. Don't base everything you know about a particular people on the way they're represented in the game. You might've gotten the impression that Theodora was the "real" ruler of Constantinople from Civ III, but Justinian certainly wouldn't have seen it that way. Once you know something about the real history of these civs, it will give you a much broader sense of what it meant to live in those times and a greater appreciation (or lack thereof!) for how they behave in the game.

 

[Basilisk1]

Titus, first of all, it's nice to meet you.

Second, you don't need to rebut my argument by linking to the same article. If you read my first post, you know I already took the time to read it and then responded.

Third, you seem very hung up on names, while I'm trying to say that yes, they did not consider themselves "Byzantines," but they were distinct linguistically, ethnically, religiously, and culturally from the Romans of classical Rome.

They were the heirs to Rome. In many ways they were the continuation and legacy of Rome. But they were NOT Rome, I'm sorry.

I know what you are saying; they called themselves the Romans. But you need to understand that today we live in the era of Nation States. To call yourself a Malaysian today, for example, means you are ethnically Malaysian or at least a citizen of the Malaysian state.

But it was different then. The Byzantines called themselves "Romaia" because they were the heirs to the Roman legacy, and the prestige of that title was meant to enhance their own prestige and honor.

The Ottomans, when they initially conquered portions of Anatolia, renamed the area "Rum"... because they were doing the same thing! They considered themselves heirs of Rome too! (My Turkish friends, back me up on this.)

The Muscovites, after the fall of Constantinople, christened their city "The Third Rome" in an effort to do the same thing! Because they were the strongest Orthodox Christian Empire at that point, THEY considered themselves the new "heirs" of Rome. (Russians? Anyone?)

Also, Titus, your argument is ignoring the historical context of the Byzantine claim to be "Romaia". The new kingdoms formed out of the ruins of the Western half of the Roman Empire (just as the others were doing) were claiming to be the true heirs of Rome themselves. (The Holy ROMAN Empire, anyone?) The Byzantines, or whatever you prefer to call them, wanted to make it clear to all the rest that they were the TRUE heirs of the mantle of Rome. In essence, they were calling themselves the REAL Romans, and by doing so, staking their claim.

 

[Tonifranz]

My view is simply that there is no such thing as the Byzantine Empire, that is should be properly be called the Eastern Roman Empire, but I am glad of the inclusion of the Byzantines because then, there would be two Roman civs in the game.

First, let us define what is Roman.

500 years before Christ, Romans were limited to the city of Rome.

200 years before Christ, Romans were spreadout through Italy. The Sabines, the Licunians, the Campanians, and other tribes in Italy, which were earlier not considered Roman, became Roman during this period of time.

90 years before Christ, all the people of the Italian peninsula became Romans, including the Samnites, the Greeks of Southern Italy, and the Gauls north of the Po.

Now would you say during the time of Augustus, the Greeks of southern Italy, the Samnites, the Campanians, the Sabines were not really Roman because they are not ethnically Roman and did not come from Rome?

During the first centuries A.D. Romans spread. They went to Spain. Remember Trajan and Hadrian were Spaniards who were also Romans. They went to Greece and Asia Minor. Slowly, citizenship spread. Until in A.D. 212, all free people in the empire became Romans.

In A.D. 400, all the inhabitants south of the Danube, west of Persia and Arabia, east of the Rhine, north of the Sahara, were considered Romans.

So Greeks, Gauls, Germans, Britons, Spaniards, Italian tribes, Jews, Egyptians were all considered Roman.

During the next 100 years, the western part of the empire fell, and the eastern part survived. Does the fact that the eastern part survived made them into a totally different nation?

Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate. I posted it in another thread so apologies if I gave a redundant point.

For example, what if the British or the French today conquered the United States east of the Mississippi but were unable to conquer the land West of it. Note that the United States started on the eastern seaboard and only later acquired the West after the Louisiana Purchase, the Texas annexation, the Mexican War and the agreement with Britain dividing the Oregon Territory, the same way that Asia Minor, Greece and Thrace, the later base of the so called Byzantine Empire, was incorporated later than earlier in Roman history.

So the U.S. government relocated from Washington D.C. to Denver, which was unoccupied.

So is the Western part of the U.S. that survived conquest a separate nation totally different from the one that existed before the eastern part lost? Wouldn't you agree that the remnant would still be considered the United States, not some other kind of nation? That the people would still consider themselves Americans?

Even if after 200 or 300 years, language shifts, changed the tongue of the people, it would still be considered part of the same country just as the England of 1600 is considered the same as the England of 1060 because English culture and language is much different?

Wouldn't you say it is unfair if some future historian would say that the surviving Western part is not really the United States of America, but say, the Republic of Colorado and the people Coloradans not Americans even if nobody at this time calls them that? They would say the culture is different from before wouldn't that apply to all nations whose culture changes?

It's like saying that England in 1600 is a totally different country from the England of A.D. 900, and that they should call it a totally different civilization name to it.

And if for that reason, the Eastern Roman Empire should be considered a different country, then the Rome before the Republic should be separate from the Rome of Augustus because the Roman civilization before it expanded beyond the city walls is different from the Empire that bordered every land the Mediterranean touches. The France of Hugh Capet should also be a different civilization than the France of Napoleon because of the cultural changes. And the Germany of Otto the Great should be different from the Germany of Adenauer and should merit the label of "totally separate civilizations."

It is simply the continuation of the Roman state that existed in some form or the other since the eight century B.C. They called themselves Roman, and they can trace their line of emperors to Augustus and Nero and Trajan and Aurelian and Diocletian and Constantine and Theodosius. The fact that they speak Greek did not change the fact since ever since 212, all inhabitants of the Empire were Roman citizens.

There is a reason why many people, when asked when Rome fell, would answer, 1453.

 

[cybrxkhan]

There is a reason why many people, when asked when Rome fell, would answer, 1453

and that was yesterday 554 years ago.

 

[Basilisk1]

Tonifranz-

I appreciate what you're saying, and I suppose the central issue is what constitutes separate civilization?

First, let's take the example you put forward. The problem with what you're saying is, first of all, the western and eastern halves of the United States are, to a large extent, ethnically and culturally very similar. If the Eastern half was conquered by an external power, and STAYED conquered, while the Western half continued to evolve on their own, the question you are posing is, isn't the eastern half still filled with Americans?

It depends. What do those conquered people think? Do they convert to the conqueror's religion? Do they speak the conqueror's language? We would need more information than what you've provided. Also, how long since they were conquered? How much control does the external power exert over the Eastern USA?

The United States conquered Florida from the Spanish. Florida had been in Spanish domain for hundreds of years. Would you consider Florida part of Spain or USA? On the other hand, the USA conquered Cuba from Spain, and now Cuba is an independent state in the "Spanish world." We could go on and on...

But as I said, East and West USA are culturally homogenous. But the Western Rome Empire was Latin, and the Eastern "rump" that survived was Greek, and had been for tens of centuries. It already had a distinct cultural legacy of its own, and had been under Roman control from approx. 186AD until 476AD, whereas its Greek heritage stretched back definitely to classical Greece of 500BC and arguably Mycenean Greece a thousand years earlier.

With the Latin West fallen and absorbed into Visigothic, Lombardic, etc states, the Eastern half of the Roman empire, which possessed a PRE-EXISTING IDENTITY, was free to develop on its own.

I see this as starkly in contrast with the American example you've put forward.

 

[Titus001]

I agree with everything Tonfranz said!!

 

[Basilisk1]

Tonifranz, let me counterpose an example to you:

What if the Western USA had a thoroughly Hispanic culture; Spanish language, Roman Catholic religion, etc. And the Eastern USA was Protestant, English language.

If the Eastern USA was conquered, and stayed conquered for a 1000 years, so that it no longer existed as a separate entity, would the Western USA consider themselves still Americans?

Absolutely. They, in fact, would consider themselves the true heirs of the the old American empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

But on their own, a thousand years after the conquest of the East, they are speaking Spanish. They worship in the Roman Catholic church. They have a legal code, let's say, based on European Civil Code and not British-American common law. And on and on...

At what point do we say; this is something new?

At what point do we say; they are like the old USA in alot of ways, but they are a distinct culture and civilization?

Because that's the thing with Byzantium, it owed so much to Rome, so much to Greece, but it was distinct. It had a separate identity as a civilization.

 

[Tonifranz]

Well I would agree with you that if for example, if the Western part became Spanish speaking, Roman Catholic, and so on and so forth, it would evolve into a different thing.

But it would still be the same state as the old one, and even if culturally different, they would still be Americans, which based on the definition of today, is anyone holding the citizenship of the United States. Even today, nobody is disputing that Spanish speaking Hispanics who were citizens of the United States, in Texas, California, and New Mexico and other parts are considered Americans and as American as the descendants of the Mayflower people.

The Eastern Roman Empire, I agree, was based on the Greek language and culture, Roman law and institutions. It culturally evolved from the moment the Western part fell.

But wouldn't you agree that the Byzantine Empire, even if it is and has a totally different culture, is simply the same state as the Roman Empire at its height? I agree the cultural bases are different, being that the Western half is Latin and the Eastern is Greek, but Latin or Greek, they are Romans, and they have been ever since the Edict of Caracalla in A.D. 212.

Romans during the middle of the first millenium is not an ethnic or cultural term, but a political and legal term. The Greeks, the Gauls, the Egyptians, insofar as they are inside the Empire, are Romans, just as the Greeks of Magna Greacia in Southern Italy, the Campanians, the Sabines, Samnites, the Etruscans, the Licunians, and the Bruttians, in Italy, were, during the time of Augustus, considered Romans despite the fact that they were originally not Roman and were in fact conquered by them.

The Byzantines were mostly Greek. That doesn't mean they aren't Roman. They can and were both.

They were the same state, but different cultures.

 

[Basilisk1]

Tonifranz-
I liked your response.

The problem with the argument that you and I are having is that we are arguing different points to each other. My understanding on this board is that this happens alot.

You are taking a legalistic stance and saying that since there was a literal continuation of Roman INSTITUTIONS in the East, that they were Roman citizens. Your statement is that the state survived, and the state was Roman, and on that basis it was a "Roman Empire."

I am willing to concede that to a point. But I have to say, as the centuries progressed, the East looked necessarily less and less like its Western progenitor. But yes, there was the continuation of the Roman state and institutions, at least initially.

But I am arguing something else. I am asking; at what point do we say we're dealing with different CIVILIZATIONS? And the problem with my argument is that it's much harder to define than yours. You can point to the superstructure and say, "The Romans made this."

But a civilization is more than its laws, more than the titles its emperors bestow on themselves, and more than the structure of government bureaucracies.

Civilization is the shared culture and values that unite a people, and in that sense Constantinople in 1453 was much, much different than Rome in 476. Now, when did the change occur? At what point in the development did that happen? I have no idea, all I know is that it did.

Let's take the United States again. The United States, if I remember my history, seceded from the British in the late 1700's. It created a separate state. At the time of secession, it did not abolish the institutions the British had given it.

Yes, the USA chose not perpetuate the monarchy. But British common law was adopted wholesale, almost without exception. Even today, court cases in Britain are more respected in US courts than EU cases, and many old British cases are cited in US court decisions as good precedent.

The United States did not adopt a Parliamentary model, but the bicameral legislature and separation of powers stems directly and wholly from the evolution of British goverment; the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell's republican experiment, the House of Burgesses...

The United States' governmental institutions flow directly and absolutely from Britain, but again, would we really argue that British and American civilizations now are the same?

Now imagine this example, and add in a United States with a distinct and pre-existing culture seceding from the British.

A civilization is more than the sum of its parts.

Anyways, I'm enjoying this conversation alot Tonifranz, and I look forward to your response.

 

[sennomulo]

Also the only people to be such a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire that they felt the need to scatter them throughout the whole empire to shut them up.

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Schtum.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in.