bloodofages
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 597
I know that the Byzantine Empire was created out of the Roman Empire, but i don't know if the rulers of the Empire was Greek or Romans.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Was the Byzantines Greek or Roman?
- Thread starter bloodofages
- Start date
Gelion
Retired Captain
Leifmk
Deity
The only adequate answer is: Yes. Yes, they were.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I would say cultualy more Greek than Roman. The change happened a few centuries from the split. In short: read that Wiki article 
taillesskangaru said:
Technically, the Greek Orthodox Church did not exist in the days of the Byzantine empire. They were merely Orthodox. And that wasn't invented by Greeks.
Surely if the Byzantines had a single culture it was not Greek, precisely, but Hellenistic - ie, Greek with lots of other stuff mixed in. It was the culture of the eastern Mediterranean. The fact that Greek was the major language in most of this region does not entail that its culture was solely Greek and nothing else.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Good point Pluto 
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
In the early days of the Byzantine Empire, I belive they were Roman. But towards the time of the Crusades or even around the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, I view them as being more Greek than Roman.
Hey Joni
Warlord
bloodofages said:
Good question! I would say Greek.
Though they were officially successors of the Roman Empire there are too many cultural differences between the Byzantines and the original Romans. I think that the original Roman society was based to a large part on violence and brutality, despite their enormous cultural achievements. A lot of the Roman traditions had to be changed, more or less, with the christianization. So with the christianization of both Roman Empires a significant part of the original Roman identity was lost.
On the other hand the main European portion of Byzantine lands was Greece, at least most of the time. So the Greek identity kind of came naturally...
EDIT: A question for Plotinus: could you post a link explaining the difference between "Hellenistic" and "Greek", I awlays considered these to be the same thing.
Well, of course "Hellenistic" is just the Greek for "Greek", as it were. But it is often used to mean the culture of the eastern Mediterranean in the centuries following Alexander's conquests. So when we talk about the culture of that area in (say) the first and second centuries AD, it is often called "Hellenistic", meaning that it was very Greek-inspired, but not solely Greek. There were influences from Egypt, from Judaism, and so on, in addition to Roman culture, such as it was. So that's what I meant.
Kahran Ramsus
Warlord
They were more Greek than Latin, if that's what you mean.
They were both. Their culture was more akin to modern greek (...well, duh - but by this I mean orthodox and sensitive to their heritage as successors to the ancient Hellenes - however, their religon was extremely important) but they identified as Romans; up to the point where they had sort of become a proto nation-state. However, they weren't Latins; you need to differentiate between the two, since the actual latin civilization had diverged hugely since the fall of the WRE.
Rambuchan
The Funky President
They were Byzantine.
Greek Stud
Prince
Just the category itself (Greek Orthodoxy) itself will give you an accurate view into what Byzantine means and meant. The word Greek is Latin for Hellene and Orthodox was the mindset of the aristocrats of the Eastern Roman Empire. First and true Christians (Orthodox) with the Armenian Church and Armenian Emperors of Byzantium, the Latin Emperors, the Carthaginian Emperors like Heraclius, and the Patriarches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria the right in theology also meant the right in thought, religion and geography.
This of course never stopped strong internal and external corruption. The relation of East and West was parallel to the Latin and Greek thinking between the varrying Romans. And dont exclude the Holy Roman Empire either. A marriage between a Greek Byzantine Princess and the son of Otto from Germany would have united the Empire had not Otto died. Because their marriage never happened it was the tearing point between East and West and Latin culture with Greek culture. Italians and Greeks today have this separation feeling beginning with that historical event. It led to some bad new Emperors in Constantinople who distanced themselves from Roman Papal visitors. With a religious schism finallized in 1050AD and the Norman Franks sacking Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade weaking it for a Turkish onslaught not long after.
Ottoman Turkish rule taught to equate identy of race and religion as being one and the same. This made a cultural concrete attachment of Orthodox Christians to identify their Roman identy being separate from Rome itself forever. But the word Greek is a Latin word. That in itself should spark the same confusion of what Byzantines are. Greek, Hellenes, Latins; they are truly very diverse, but you have to look at what identity unified the Empire into one identity. First comes the Greekness, then the diverse Christian culture, and lastly the Western nature of the Empire.
This of course never stopped strong internal and external corruption. The relation of East and West was parallel to the Latin and Greek thinking between the varrying Romans. And dont exclude the Holy Roman Empire either. A marriage between a Greek Byzantine Princess and the son of Otto from Germany would have united the Empire had not Otto died. Because their marriage never happened it was the tearing point between East and West and Latin culture with Greek culture. Italians and Greeks today have this separation feeling beginning with that historical event. It led to some bad new Emperors in Constantinople who distanced themselves from Roman Papal visitors. With a religious schism finallized in 1050AD and the Norman Franks sacking Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade weaking it for a Turkish onslaught not long after.
Ottoman Turkish rule taught to equate identy of race and religion as being one and the same. This made a cultural concrete attachment of Orthodox Christians to identify their Roman identy being separate from Rome itself forever. But the word Greek is a Latin word. That in itself should spark the same confusion of what Byzantines are. Greek, Hellenes, Latins; they are truly very diverse, but you have to look at what identity unified the Empire into one identity. First comes the Greekness, then the diverse Christian culture, and lastly the Western nature of the Empire.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Its a combination of both. They sort of merged together. Some institutions still reflected the late Roman Empire they once were, others were closer to Greek culture. The church was a big factor as a continuation of Roman order, but it combined eastern philosophy (Eastern being Greek and Persian in this case) and factored in things like iconoclastism and stuff like that (but Roman policies of deifying the emperor continued where, even though they didn't worship him as a god, they tried to make it clear that the Emperor was the most important person next to God).
Iconoclasm was never very popular, though: it was an imperial policy and it was ultimately rejected. I don't see much influence of Persian philosophy on the Byzantine church (remember that the Persian church was in schism from the Byzantine one from the early fifth century onwards, and still is today).
ArneoKerdarun
Chieftain
I think neither roman or greek adjectives are relevant for Byzantines : they were byzantine ^^. But this is the "a bit too simple answer" and I'll try to get something more relevant.
This question mainly comes from the views and the ideas foreigners to the Byzantine Empire we use to create its history. Emperors of Constantinople were of course seen, and wanted to be seen, as Roman Emperors, and their foreign policy had always been to act as if they were (attempts to reconquer the former possessions of the Roman Empire in Spain against Wisigoths, Africa against Vandals and Muslims, Levant, South Italia...). Another evidence is the name Seldjuks gave to their conquests on the Byzantines : "Sultanat of Rum". But I would add that Europeans often used the Roman Empire ideology for the Byzantines when they wanted to pleased them, or to be recognized. When things were going worse between Westerners and Byzantines, I would here agree with Plotinus, the Hellenistic approch prevailed and was often used with pejorative purposes. Hellenistic culture indeed includes oriental influences, which was seen as decadence or futility. (I would advice to read Liutprand's ambassades reports for both admirative and despiteful sights)
Now, if we consider the Byzantine opinion about themselves, it requires two parts : one for the high-level byzantine social group (let's call this aristocracy), and another for the common people.
I think we can trust the aristocracy to have strongly believed in their roman heirloom ; being Christians, there still were some roman customs actively practiced in power, administration and military domains : its name "Basileia Rômaiôn", a lesser cult of the Emperor (though they were Christians, the byzantine Emperor is THE exemple of a thaumaturge king), legions, the ideology of universal monarch (which will effectively disappear, fighted by Ghalifa and Holy Roman Empire, both of them reclaiming it too), the idea of the triumphant general as emperor. This last one is very interesting, as many byzantine emperors were victoious generals. The Roman Empire didn't use lineage successions as the Byzantines were theorically doing, and often, Byzantines have accepted both male primogeniture and this ancient notion to choose their leader (Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes or Michel IV the Paphlagonian are good examples). On the other hand, we cannot deny to christianism its powerful influence on their culture, nor the fact that Rome in Greece and Asia has never actually been Rome, hellenism has been too strong not for the Romans to be acculturated there ; they even had been in Latium. So the more I can say is that byzantine elites were "hellenistic people with a mixture of christian and ancient roman ideology".
Common people are more difficult to determine, as they left less testimonies of how they were feeling about all that and I must say that I don't know very much about them... The base of the byzantine economy was agrarian, and the population was regrouped around manors (aristocratic manors or possessions of monateries) and villages. Villages were communal free entities (koinotes) which included the inhabitations (oiketores) and the surrounding fields (kôrion). In the manors, the workers were mainly parekos (some kind of serfs if I understood well). These last facts tend to make me think the people were more "Greeks" than Romans, but I may greatly mistake on that one, because I'm only influenced by the similarities between oiketores/kôrion and ancient asty/kôra, and by a bit of bad teleology : after all, the Greeks of the XVIIIth century were more greek than roman (and of course, christian)...
Conclusion : if you're considering Byzantium as a state, I would say "Greek" is not the right term, "Roman-Hellenistic" would be better. Then, if you're considering Byzantium as a people : Hellenistic and Christian. Now, I would like to add that "Greek" isn't a relevant term only because we don't use it during the whole Middle Age, which is quite confusing : of course inhabitants of Greece and Asia Minor are not Ancient Greeks anymore, their culture has evolved, influenced by other ones, but I daresay that's the same with every culture at anytime of history... so if you were asking this question in a matter of continuity, the answer is that they were approximatively Greeks, in the same way we can say Angles were British, or Franks French... culture's a everchanging conceptual thing, with variation between people of the same group, so you can never be 100% right when trying to put a name on it ^^.
This question mainly comes from the views and the ideas foreigners to the Byzantine Empire we use to create its history. Emperors of Constantinople were of course seen, and wanted to be seen, as Roman Emperors, and their foreign policy had always been to act as if they were (attempts to reconquer the former possessions of the Roman Empire in Spain against Wisigoths, Africa against Vandals and Muslims, Levant, South Italia...). Another evidence is the name Seldjuks gave to their conquests on the Byzantines : "Sultanat of Rum". But I would add that Europeans often used the Roman Empire ideology for the Byzantines when they wanted to pleased them, or to be recognized. When things were going worse between Westerners and Byzantines, I would here agree with Plotinus, the Hellenistic approch prevailed and was often used with pejorative purposes. Hellenistic culture indeed includes oriental influences, which was seen as decadence or futility. (I would advice to read Liutprand's ambassades reports for both admirative and despiteful sights)
Now, if we consider the Byzantine opinion about themselves, it requires two parts : one for the high-level byzantine social group (let's call this aristocracy), and another for the common people.
I think we can trust the aristocracy to have strongly believed in their roman heirloom ; being Christians, there still were some roman customs actively practiced in power, administration and military domains : its name "Basileia Rômaiôn", a lesser cult of the Emperor (though they were Christians, the byzantine Emperor is THE exemple of a thaumaturge king), legions, the ideology of universal monarch (which will effectively disappear, fighted by Ghalifa and Holy Roman Empire, both of them reclaiming it too), the idea of the triumphant general as emperor. This last one is very interesting, as many byzantine emperors were victoious generals. The Roman Empire didn't use lineage successions as the Byzantines were theorically doing, and often, Byzantines have accepted both male primogeniture and this ancient notion to choose their leader (Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes or Michel IV the Paphlagonian are good examples). On the other hand, we cannot deny to christianism its powerful influence on their culture, nor the fact that Rome in Greece and Asia has never actually been Rome, hellenism has been too strong not for the Romans to be acculturated there ; they even had been in Latium. So the more I can say is that byzantine elites were "hellenistic people with a mixture of christian and ancient roman ideology".
Common people are more difficult to determine, as they left less testimonies of how they were feeling about all that and I must say that I don't know very much about them... The base of the byzantine economy was agrarian, and the population was regrouped around manors (aristocratic manors or possessions of monateries) and villages. Villages were communal free entities (koinotes) which included the inhabitations (oiketores) and the surrounding fields (kôrion). In the manors, the workers were mainly parekos (some kind of serfs if I understood well). These last facts tend to make me think the people were more "Greeks" than Romans, but I may greatly mistake on that one, because I'm only influenced by the similarities between oiketores/kôrion and ancient asty/kôra, and by a bit of bad teleology : after all, the Greeks of the XVIIIth century were more greek than roman (and of course, christian)...
Conclusion : if you're considering Byzantium as a state, I would say "Greek" is not the right term, "Roman-Hellenistic" would be better. Then, if you're considering Byzantium as a people : Hellenistic and Christian. Now, I would like to add that "Greek" isn't a relevant term only because we don't use it during the whole Middle Age, which is quite confusing : of course inhabitants of Greece and Asia Minor are not Ancient Greeks anymore, their culture has evolved, influenced by other ones, but I daresay that's the same with every culture at anytime of history... so if you were asking this question in a matter of continuity, the answer is that they were approximatively Greeks, in the same way we can say Angles were British, or Franks French... culture's a everchanging conceptual thing, with variation between people of the same group, so you can never be 100% right when trying to put a name on it ^^.
#1 Person
The Cow
I would describe their culture as more "christian" than either Greek and Roman. I am not only revering to Christian as a religion, but as a cultural group that is sortof a combination of Jeduaism, Roman, Syrian, and others.
Of course different area's were different. Constantinople itself, by formally being a greek trade colony was most likely more greek than anything else. However Lydia and Anitola were more Syrian and Christian (before, of course, the spread of Islam to that area). And Macedonia was more Macadonian and Greek than Syrian.
Of course different area's were different. Constantinople itself, by formally being a greek trade colony was most likely more greek than anything else. However Lydia and Anitola were more Syrian and Christian (before, of course, the spread of Islam to that area). And Macedonia was more Macadonian and Greek than Syrian.
Tboy
Future world ruler
I think they were more Greek than Roman in just about every way except that they considered themselves Roman (for the most part). But, of course, Greece was only a small bit of the Empire. There was Turkey, Egypt, even Italy and Spain at one point.
Similar threads
