New Conquest: Middle East in the Reign of Heraclius

[Vasileius]

I personally tend to be reluctant to use the term "Byzantine" until after the Arab invasions at the earliest...although I should probably not use it at all, as only westerners for some reason like to avoid calling the early medieval Roman Empire by its official name, I am most likely to use the term when the emergence of a Neo-Western Roman Empire emerges amongst the Germanic warlords of the West

Actually , Heracleius , after he became the emperor of the Eastern Empire , he changed his title from "imperator Romanorum , caesar augustus"(latin : emperor of the Romans , ceasar augustus) to "pistos en Christo vasileus" ( greek: "king , loyal to Christ") . He also changed the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek . That's why the historians are setting 610 ( the year Heracleius became emperor ) as the start of the Byzantine period and the end of Rome .

 

[LuckyOrDead]

I tried may times on both links...the links are down for the lists of what builds what.

 

[big_hairy_yeti]

Actually , Heracleius , after he became the emperor of the Eastern Empire , he changed his title from "imperator Romanorum , caesar augustus"(latin : emperor of the Romans , ceasar augustus) to "pistos en Christo vasileus" ( greek: "king , loyal to Christ") . He also changed the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek . That's why the historians are setting 610 ( the year Heracleius became emperor ) as the start of the Byzantine period and the end of Rome .

As far as i was aware, the people still referred to themselves as Romans.
What later historians call them is merely a convenient term to describe a change in Roman history.
At the end of the day, its just a name. We all know that Rome never really fell till the 1400s, whatever you want to call it at that time.

 

[big_hairy_yeti]

I got so caught up in the Historical debate i havent downloaded the scenario yet. I'll download it and have a bash in the next few days.

 

[loseth]

At the end of the day, its just a name. We all know that Rome never really fell till the 1400s, whatever you want to call it at that time.

Part of Rome never fell. There's a big difference between 'Rome' and 'the Hellenic half of the Roman Empire'. There was definitely continuity between the Romans and the Byzantines, but something new was also definitely born when the Western Empire fell. A good example is the name of the people. After the fall of the West, the Byzantines continued to call themselves 'Roman,' using the Greek word. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the term 'Roman Empire' for the Byzantines, but it is traditional to preface it with 'Eastern'.

 

[Elponitnatsnoc]

constantinople shouldnt be starving.... It was the richest city of the time and food was abundant.

 

[Ad Hominem]

Part of Rome never fell. There's a big difference between 'Rome' and 'the Hellenic half of the Roman Empire'. There was definitely continuity between the Romans and the Byzantines, but something new was also definitely born when the Western Empire fell. A good example is the name of the people. After the fall of the West, the Byzantines continued to call themselves 'Roman,' using the Greek word. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the term 'Roman Empire' for the Byzantines, but it is traditional to preface it with 'Eastern'.

Well, technically the Romeoi (Greek term for "Roman") were excactly that: Romans. Of course the prevalent culture in the "Eastern" Roman Empire was Greek and most of it's leaders were either Greeks (all but one dynasties after 650 were of Greek stock or mixed Greek-Armenians - btw Heraclios was Greek not Armenian, his father is well known, the Greek governor of Cyrenaica - maybe you are confusing him with Basil I or someone else?) or hellenized Armenians.

But Constantinoupolis was "New Rome" and the Roman Emperor was just Hellenized to "en Christo Vasilevs Romeon" (which meant precisely the same thing - only in Greek - with the addition of "by Christ").

Don't try looking for the "ancient Roman spirit", that was evaporated well before the reign of Constantinus "the Great" and the creation of Constantinoupolis. Don't look for a "Roman culture" either, the Romans were anyway famous for adoptinig outside influences and shaping their own culture as they went (see how they absorbed the Greek culture and later Christianism).

Another point: The choice of the leaderhead is extremely poor: Heraclios was definitely not some sort of painted uber-barbarian. The long red beard is accurate but as for the rest... he was son of an extremely wealthy man, from a line of top-notch Greek administrators, rather refined and cultivated, not some sort of wild raging barbarian

Again, you seem to confuse Heraclios with the Macedonian dynasty... Basil II was known to be a typical military man, great leader, great fighter, but rough in appearance and ways, with no respect for arts, culture and literature. Heraclios was not like that. He was a warrior king, in the finest Roman tradition, nothing less.

Ah, btw a little nitpicking on something someone else mentioned: in Koene Greek (the medieval Greek language, derived from the ancient Attic dialect and forefather of the "demodes" dialect, which in turn is the forefather of modern Greek - darn, this is all Greek to you, isn't it? ) there is no distinction between "king" and "emperor". The term "Vasilevs" stands for the supreme authoriative ruler. the word "Avtokrator" (that became synonumous to "emperor" in modern Greek) meant something completely different by that time, NOT emperor.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Darn ... Ad Hominem ... you certainly have a lot of self-confidence. Well, all the best to you.

Well, technically the Romeoi (Greek term for "Roman") were excactly that: Romans. Of course the prevalent culture in the "Eastern" Roman Empire was Greek and most of it's leaders were either Greeks (all but one dynasties after 650 were of Greek stock or mixed Greek-Armenians - btw Heraclios was Greek not Armenian, his father is well known, the Greek governor of Cyrenaica - maybe you are confusing him with Basil I or someone else?) or hellenized Armenians.

Both Heraclius' mother and father are known, Heraclius (the Elder) and Epiphania, but their ethnic origins are not clear. Theophylact Simocatta (Hist. 3.1.1.), John of Niciu (Chron. 109.27) and Theophanes (AM. 6078, 6100, 6101 & 6102) claim that Heraclius' background is Armenian, whilst a 12th century historian says Cappadocian ... two ideas which do not contradict each other. None of this would surprise anyone who actually knew about the 5th, 6th or 7th century Byzantine world, whose elite rarely have purely Roman origins. Heraclius the Elder's career took him all over the empire, but your problem is you aren't aware of this. Not that this would be a problem anyway, since other African commanders such as Soloman and John Troglitas (not to mention Belisarius) also had eastern backgrounds.

But Constantinoupolis was "New Rome" and the Roman Emperor was just Hellenized to "en Christo Vasilevs Romeon" (which meant precisely the same thing - only in Greek - with the addition of "by Christ").

Great

Don't try looking for the "ancient Roman spirit", that was evaporated well before the reign of Constantinus "the Great" and the creation of Constantinoupolis. Don't look for a "Roman culture" either, the Romans were anyway famous for adoptinig outside influences and shaping their own culture as they went (see how they absorbed the Greek culture and later Christianism).

You talking to me here?

Another point: The choice of the leaderhead is extremely poor: Heraclios was definitely not some sort of painted uber-barbarian. The long red beard is accurate but as for the rest... he was son of an extremely wealthy man, from a line of top-notch Greek administrators, rather refined and cultivated, not some sort of wild raging barbarian

Well, the intention is not to make him an “über-barbarian”. The intention is to blur the distinction between Roman (or Byzantine if you prefer) and “barbarian”, a distinction which Heraclius’ religious wars did, at least temporarily, make meaningless. If I left people to their own devices, you would assume he was sitting in a great palace wearing purple and a tiara … but in truth Heraclius’ campaigns took him into the Caucasus and Armenian regions of north-eastern Anatolia where he went native (going native is one of the persistent features of his reign to emerge from the sources, e.g. episode with the Turks). With his red beard, the RL leaderhead is far-and-away the best choice I’m afraid

Again, you seem to confuse Heraclios with the Macedonian dynasty... Basil II was known to be a typical military man, great leader, great fighter, but rough in appearance and ways, with no respect for arts, culture and literature. Heraclios was not like that. He was a warrior king, in the finest Roman tradition, nothing less.

Sorry, I think it’d be quite impossible for me to confuse Heraclius with anybody. Nice try

BTW, it’s Heraclius, or Heraklios …. Never Heraclios.

Ah, btw a little nitpicking on something someone else mentioned: in Koene Greek (the medieval Greek language, derived from the ancient Attic dialect and forefather of the "demodes" dialect, which in turn is the forefather of modern Greek - darn, this is all Greek to you, isn't it? ) there is no distinction between "king" and "emperor". The term "Vasilevs" stands for the supreme authoriative ruler. the word "Avtokrator" (that became synonumous to "emperor" in modern Greek) meant something completely different by that time, NOT emperor.

Well, Koine Greek is not medieval … it emerges in the Hellenistic-Roman period as the common language of the eastern Mediterranean.

Basileus has a fascinating history being first encountered in Mycenaean times as a kind of comital official, qa-si-re-u (i.e. quasileus --> basileus--> vasileus), possibly under the wa-na-ka (i.e. wanax--> [Homeric] anax). In Heraclius’ reign the coins are Latin, carrying the title AUG (Augustus), but you’re right that for the Romano-Greeks Basileus did mean Emperor, and classically, King ... but of course, the "Basileus Rhomaiwn" was more than a mere king

 

[NeverMind]

Good scenario for interesting period. Unfortunately, civilopedia is incomplete - I experienced some crashes.

calgacus, don't you plan any patch, update?-)

 

[Balam]

A bit of an old thread, but actually...are you planning an update/similar scenario for this period Calgacus? It was a really fun one...