What if a strong Byzantine Empire survived to the 20th century?

[Knight-Dragon]

Good points, Companiero.

While I've thought about shutting down such what-if threads, but I have also thought they might spur the lurkers to post a bit... Fine line to walk - I am shutting down the wilder ones, but leaving those with a more focused topic-line (or those I know nothing about)...

 

[Xen]

I find it difficult to discuss topics like these, since there's absolutely no way to even predict what might happen if one crucial factor is eliminated from the course of history. However, when such predictions are made based on false facts, then I just might chime in for a response.


It is very clear that there would be independence movements in Byzantine Empire sooner or later, even if the Turks hadn't come to power. So the Turks factor aside, you absolutely cannot maintain the fact about a strong Byzantine Empire for unlimited period. Why? Coz it's stupid. (Officialy, because it's not a factor; it's a condition and practically you're not predicting anything, you're imagining situations.)
Now, it's clear that Byzantine Empire would have fallen apart because it grew week from corruption inside, decentralization etc.
Also, it wasnt essentially Greek, but it was a mix of many different cultures. Plus there's the influx of Slavs around Vi century.
There were various kingdoms arising in Byzantia before the Turks. So, it would be the case again, even without them.

Also, a some form of Pretestant movement would have arisen, since Orthodoxy was just as corrupted as Catholicism. Actually, there have been such movements in the Middle Ages in Buzantia, but the arrival of the Turks in a way united the Christians there for the next centuries, to fight the common "religious infidels".
Another consequence could have been many more kingdoms arising during the Late Middle Ages, since there wouldn't be a strong Ottoman Empire to keep the country together, and the present countries would have formed much earlier. There would be no Islamic and Oriental influences in the Balkan cultures, as well as Anatolia, and Ionia would probably be Greek today.
And the thing you mentioned about the Hapsburgs, it is more likely they would have expanded in the Balkans more, since the Turks were the barrier that kept them from Northern Balkan for so long.

Or, if you dont like how I set the conditions, and would rather talk about a highly hypotetical situation of an everlasting strong Byzantine Empire, then my prediction is that it would conquer the world, and we would all be Orthodox today.

A)Greece wouldnt have rebelled, nor the majority of Anatolia; they were all to "Romanized" to consider rebelling for reasons of culture or "nationality"; the slavs i will grant are a possibility, but an existing Byzantine empire at its height of medieval borders would lean stronglyl tot he fact that the Byzantines had been able to repulse the vast majority of Slavic attacks, and as prrof in Belisarius, Romanize the Slavs who did come into the empire.

B)an Influx of culutres it was; but it was a mix of cultures that made the single, unfied Byzantine culute, a single culture that bound the vast majority of the peoples in the empire together; by the time of Basil II, the areas that had nto adopted the culture were already out of the empire; namelly, Palestine and Egypt

C)I dont see very many rebellions in the Byzantine empire; CIvil wars, i can see alot of, but rebellions, I doubt; a strong Byzantine empire would be more similer to a france of the eastern med sea; relitivlly unfied, and relitivlly strong, more focused on overcomign the threats around it, then trying to break apart, and have every little sub-section of the empire be its own nation.

 

[Greek Stud]

This is the most awesome and inspiring thread for me. My family traces its roots to Greek Byzantine cities: Koroni (Venetian) and Kardamylia (Chios). The one factor that broke the Empire was the strength and introduction of gunpowder to the Turks, famous unit Sapphi. Had the Turks failed, the Byzantine progression would go this direction:

Science: The inventors of the odometer (Archimedes), Lighthouse in Alexandria, the hydro-clock, the first computer in Kythera (you input a date and with gears it showed you the location of all the planets, moons, etc. Science would have been phenomenal (sp). At the end of its existence the Kingdom-Empire became more theological. It would have favored the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Russia, Romania, Serbia, Ethiopia, Coptic, Antioch/Syria).

State of the Union:
The Byzantines did have unrest in central Anatolia within its own peoples. Most citizens were complaining that the laws were to strict, your nose would be chopped off for just about anything. The Union was already consentrating on fortification because it feared the same fate as Western Rome. I would think the States of Byzantion would be:

1) Epirus (Dyrrachium)
2) Macedonia (Thessalonika)
3) Thessaly (Larisa)
4) Kerkyra (Kerkyra)
5) Magna Graecia (Neapolis)
6) Boiotia (Thebes)
7) Attica (Athens)
8) Euboia (Chalkis)
9) Achaia (Corinth)
10) Elis (Patra)
11) Messenia (Morea)
12) Argolis (Argos)
13) Lacedonia (Sparta)
14) Crete (Knossos)
15) Thrace (Adrianople)
16) Aiotolia (Abydos)
17) Bythion (Chalcedon)
18) Lydia (Sardica)
19) Ionia (Ephessus)
20) Caria (Halicarnassus)
21) Lycia (Ataliya)
22) Cyprus (Nicosea)
23) Phygaria (Ceasarea)
24) Pontis (Sinope or Trapezond)
25) Georgia (Tbsili)
26) Armenia
27) Syria (Antioch)
28) Palestine (Ceasarea)
29) Egypt (Alexandria)
30) Rhodes (Lindos)
31) Samos (Samos)
32) Chios (Chios)
33) Lesbos (Myltini)
34) Cyclades (Delos)
35) Ionic Islands (Ithica)

If the Greeks, Romans, Anatolians, Egyptians, Jews, Armenians, and other existing people of that time had survived I feel that it would have been closely represented in these 35 States of Byzantium. You may laugh when I describe it in that context, but inernally the trends were very American like.

Women were beginning to get social rights into work and other atmospheres.

Religion was a freedom in the Empire. Many don't know this but there was even a small Islamic population that was integrated into the Empire. Assimilation would have concreted: Orthodoxy, the Greek Language, Hellenism as a culture, and a strong protected border (like the double wall architecture that protected Constaninople, only in time would capitals had inforced this).

The great exploration:
Western States would have gone to America. Byzantium would have probably be given claims into Africa with Germany, France, Britain, Dutch. Especially since they owned Egypt, maybe Lybia and Ethiopia... The Byzantine Naval force would have become fierce, with innovation and mixture with Portuguesse technology. Greeks have always been know to be seafaring so that why I believe that would happen.

Conflicts:
The Balkin States. Byzantium already had Thessaloniki involved with the disruption between Croats, Bosnians, Illyrians, Serbs, Slovs and Bulgars. They would have most likely supprted a stronger Serbian Empire that would span from Slovenia to Bulgaria down to Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace.

WW1: Would most likely only get involved to protect its allies Serbia, Russia, Venice, France, England.

WW2: Would have still joined the side of the allies. The only reason why Greece didn't fight Mussolini at first was because it didn't have the power to. The Ottomans had crippled the Greeks, yet the still defeated Mussolini in ALbania (Illyria).

Cold War: Had the Soviet Union taking power, Byzantines would strongly oppose the Soviet power and buddy up with the USA to become a nuclear power. Soviets banned the Russian Orthodox Church and killed people who practiced it. The Caucausus would have become a front line for a ground invasion as well as Varna, and a marine invasion into Yalta and Rostov.

Culture today:
The strict Byzantine Laws would have progressed into the Mediterranean leasure laws that it has today (Greece that is). Although it would much more organized, because there would more trust amoung political parties. Byzantium would be strong in modern Research and Development of new technology and medicines. Egypt would still be Egyptian not Arab. The State of Israel would have been both Israel, Judea, Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula, but it would be a State of Byzantium.

Iraq-Iran War:
Had Iraq bombed the Kurds with Byzantium there, they would have lead troops to either liberate Kurdistan as an idenpendent state (because they are muslim) or annexed it with the protection of its nuclear defense. Had Saddam invaded Jordan-Palestine, the US and Byzantium would have defeated Iraq during this conflict with an invassion, much around the time/period of the first Gulf War.

If Russia was experiencing terrorism in Chechnya, it would most likely become involved since it borders Georgia (which would either be the State Georgia or inside the state Pontis)

Minerals and Ore are very abundant inside of Anatolia. Turkey today has great difficulty extracting them because it doesn't have the financial strength that war has brought it. Turkey today spends ove 1/3rd of its economy on defensive military because all the neighbors have lost land and people to them. Byzantium would have settled tensions because Christianity was popular before the Turks invaded through the Caucauses. I have to believe that Byzantium would have a strong economy from investing in its own raw material extration and selling. Maybe even polluted with many factories after following American-Industrial Revolution.

I have to believe that only good could happen because I am Greek, so I would have only wanted it to succeed. he he

Tell me what you think?

-Angelo

 

[Companiero]

the slavs i will grant are a possibility, but an existing Byzantine empire at its height of medieval borders would lean stronglyl tot he fact that the Byzantines had been able to repulse the vast majority of Slavic attacks, and as prrof in Belisarius, Romanize the Slavs who did come into the empire.

But they didnt. In fact quite the opposite happened. Now what you're suggesting here is wishful thinking.
And come again? How did exactly Belisarius romanize the Slavs?!

B)an Influx of culutres it was; but it was a mix of cultures that made the single, unfied Byzantine culute, a single culture that bound the vast majority of the peoples in the empire together; by the time of Basil II, the areas that had nto adopted the culture were already out of the empire; namelly, Palestine and Egypt

Presisely, a unifying culture which wasnt Greek as you said, but Byzantian. Although Hellinism was most prevailent, and Greek language as well, as the language used in administration.

I dont see very many rebellions in the Byzantine empire; CIvil wars, i can see alot of, but rebellions, I doubt

Thats because Byzantia never really effectively controlled much of its territory. The tribes ruled unofficially with much of Byzantine territory, with the official authorities only having the formal claim over those realms. Until of course those tribes extablished leaders of their own and took over the formal control. And that didnt seem as a rebelion since, as I said, they didnt really have someone to rebel against, but effectively it was even stronger than a rebelion. (Certainly I'm talking about the late period of the Byzantine Empire here.)

 

[Greek Stud]

Oops I skipped this one:

36) Sicily (Syracuse)

Where most of the Greeks fled after Burgundy and Norman invasions.

In my oppinion the Byzantine control had to be greatly influential and same as with the Hellinic culture with language. The strength that they held off Norman invasions in Dyrrachium, thwarted Illyrian uprisings and other invasions of Slavs, Avars, Goths. I think the underlining factor that eventually disrupted any chance for stability were the Ottomans. Seljuk Turks were actually a part of the society at a time, and both people lived in Anatolia. If the Ottomans had not followed, I believe that they would have successfully lasted up to now.

Near the end of Antioch, I think had the Empire lasted that the oriental trend would have increased. How cool would it have been to have Oriental influence in Syria/Lebanese regions of today! That would have been neat.

Byzantium was diverse, but it was overwhelmingly Greek. Those Greek populations were even carried into the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't until Greece rebeled against the Ottomans that Greeks fled these Cities.

Sicily, prodominately Greek. Epirus Greek, even when it was its own country. Cappadocia Greek, Sinope, Trapezond, Damascus, Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria (the largest city the world has ever known, prodominately Greek with an interior Jewish settlement). Many people read about all these other ethnicities but you must put the diversity in the same context as USA. Even though it is diverse, white are still the dominate race, in Byzantium it was Greeks as the prodominate race.

And then the national anthem would certainly have to have the word OPA in it! And I would one day campaign to become Prime Minister of the good old BE of Europe.

For the sceptics of how strong the Byzantine power was and their influence, just remember they were called the Defends of Europe. And the Western Empire fell to tribes too. For some reason people nowadays can believe that an ancient Italian/Roman Empire is strong but an ancient Greek/Roman one had to be weak even though they both fell to smaller tribes. The gangs of northern Europe.

 

[Xen]

@greek Stud; the question is what if the empire surived at about its borders at 1035 AD; Egpyt, amoung a good deal of other places isnt under Byzantine control at all, at its damned foolish to assume that the Byzantine holding in Italy would have escapped italian unifcation when its well shown that in the quest to re-unify, the italian were willign to press agiasnt the super power sof thier day, the French and AUstrians, though both politicss, and military action

as far as provices go, the thematic system already takes care of that nicelly; I see little reason why the Byzantine empire woudl go and trash a perfectlly good orginization of provinces

 

[Xen]

But they didnt. In fact quite the opposite happened. Now what you're suggesting here is wishful thinking.
And come again? How did exactly Belisarius romanize the Slavs?!

Belisarius was of slavic descend; I use him as an example to show that eventhe most bitter eneimes of the Byzantien empire could be "Romanized" inot a model Byzantine citizen, with allaegence to the empire, and not the culuture of thier ancestors

Presisely, a unifying culture which wasnt Greek as you said, but Byzantian. Although Hellinism was most prevailent, and Greek language as well, as the language used in administration.[/uote]
a culuture which glued together the provinces that were in existence in 1025 AD; Anatolia ha dbeen throughlyl Hellenized since even before Alexander conqured the area, and after hius conquest the entire area could be cponsiderd throughlly greek in culture, and a good deal in ethnicity as well.

Thats because Byzantia never really effectively controlled much of its territory. The tribes ruled unofficially with much of Byzantine territory, with the official authorities only having the formal claim over those realms. Until of course those tribes extablished leaders of their own and took over the formal control. And that didnt seem as a rebelion since, as I said, they didnt really have someone to rebel against, but effectively it was even stronger than a rebelion. (Certainly I'm talking about the late period of the Byzantine Empire here.)

but we're not talking about the late empire here; were talkign about the empire as it was under one of its pinnacle leaders, the emperor Basil II; to have a powerful state, one assumes that there was no collpse of the thematic system in terms of the military at all, and that Byzantium could continue to feild a good quality, well trianed and equipped army; which in turns lead to imperial power being more then present even on frontir outposts

 

[Companiero]

Byzantium was diverse, but it was overwhelmingly Greek.

Not true. The population didnt have Greeks as a majority, though Greek culture was most influental, notably in administration. Thats a big difference.
The Greeks werent numerous as people, and werent nearly as widespread as you suggest. They were limited to Ionia and Greece really. Proof to that be the fact that when the Turks came those were the only two places with sizable Greek population.

Belisarius is just an isolated example (and btw, hitorians havent reached a consensus yet of his origin), not a model for Slavic Romanization. In fact the opposite process happened, Slavicization of all the people that lived in Byzantia at the time, including the Greeks, Macedonians, Daccians, Pannonians, Thracians etc.
And Xen, as I said, I think its pointless in arguing what would have happened if Byzantia had stayed strong all the time. It didnt. It dissolved from inside first, and then outside with the Ottoman arrival. When the Ottomans came, the Byzantian firm holdings were very limited to the area around Constantinopole and the corruption was ramprant. It was already a crumbling giant, so there are absolutely no chances it would have survived for long at that magnitude, even without the Turks. A key player, yes, but not a dominant power.
Unlike the predictions of Greek stud, which imo are not based on historical facts, but national pride mixed with American patriotism.

 

[Xen]

I've havent argued for affulent Byzantium as a survivng power would be, though i did name a few goals it would try to acheive (namelly, hegemongeny in the Balkans)

that said, I think your base reason for your argument is folly; the question itsel fis if Byzantium had remaind strong; and so that it the base line for the topic goes; fine and dandy if a person wants to discuss Byzantium in a different contextl but thats obviouslly not what the thread creator wanted in the thread to begin with.

 

[Greek Stud]

The reasons why Greece is failing today in unemployment are because of the relocation of Greeks from those cities. Even today, Alexandria has a huge Greek population - along with Antioch. History books even discuss the Greeks fleeing down the Italian boot into Sicily with more large Greek populations. The displacement of Greeks in Thrace and Peloponessos were due to Slavic invassions, and Epirus was dominately Greek and won many great battles against the Normans coming from Italy, they only later left when Albanian settlements and muslim uprisings overwhelmed them.

The overlaying reason to the confusing in power and internal strife was that the trade system within the Empire was faulty. As soon as the Fatimate Calliphate or Arabs sustained power in Egypt, Byzantium had to look to Pontis and Epirus to produce wheat. Those networks were dangerous because of invasions. There was a network that stretched from Dyrrachium to Thessaloniki into Constantinople through Nicea and connected to the orient through Antioch. Byzantium once lead in trade with silks, but the weakness was that trade was bartered.

I'm really not only speaking from nationalistic pride. A lot of what I say is true, and I can defend because I actually know people who can trace their family history and family stories through this time. It might be incomprehendable that we can traces our roots, but if you do understand it, then you understand how important family is in Hellenistic culture. It is also in relation to the format of the Old Testiment. If a Greek family didn't know its lineage or remember its stories they would lose their identity. In the Greek Orthodox Churches in California and Arizona, there are clergy that have on their birth certificates, the city of Constantinople. This Empire is still fresh in our blood to the day to day life. I rely on their stories more than what I read in history books and recordings/documents, because the research is not always correct.

From what I know: Sinope and Trapezond had dominate Greek populations. Armenia is a strong mixuture of Greek culture and maybe even Greek blood, some say that Armenians are descendends of Peloponessos. During this time Cyprus was only Greek, they began to change their idea of identy when the Empire crumbled around them in the same sense that Rhodes did. The two islands became desperate to protect themselves from invasion, and Cyprians established their identy and changed their ethnic identification from Cyprian to Cypriot because of the sexual cognotation that it was getting a reputation for. Rhodes had the protection of Venice, and survived many attacks. Venice was the Greeks hero from pirate invasions and campaign invasions. The French also saved a number of Greek cities in the mainland.

The structure of cities at the time separated ethnicities. The was a Greek sector, Jewish sector, Venetian sector. That is why you sometime notice a bundle of cities right next to each other. All Byzantine cities show this pattern, Koroni inside the castle was Venetian outside was Greek, even when the Turks took the city, Turks in the castle, Ventians to the west of the castle, Greeks to the east. Alexandria was enormus and had separating walls for each sector. Maps of Alexandria will show you the Jewish sector which stayed even during the Arab control. The Jews and Greeks worked and lived strongly with the Arabs there. Even if they didn't want to be under Arab control, when it comes down to protecting your family, the best defense is the only defense.

None of what I am saying here is to say Byzantium was strong and most unified and prosperous. But the Empire did do very well. 1,000 years is a very long time, and even though the maps in your text books show border changes the thoughts of the populace are much different that the words of a historian. The only times the influence disapated were when the city was killed/massacred of its population. The influence of Edessa in Anatolia, a Greek city much like other ones that were raiding and burned to the ground. Not to say that other ethnic cities were not raided by the Empire. Byzantium in the first years raided Cappadocia to rid it of its Christian influences. The underground city in some points goes down 30 stories! It's actually quite amazing to see how the natives in Cappadocia dug into the rocks, the natives are only described as Christian in what I've read, but I know that they were not Greek. But a lot of the Christian art and architecture stems from what you see in Cappadocia. In fact if you look in any Greek home you will find an altar in their house. This is a tradition from the events of Cappadocia. If you cannot freely practice Christianity in public, then we will build our city under ground with its Christian influences and profession. Raiders lost wars against the underground city, there were holes that the civilians would stick their spears through and as the invading army stepped through the city above ground, they were killed by the defense underground behind stone walls. heh Its actually quite amazing.

But I will openly defend the influence of Hellenic population and existence in Sicily, Italy, Epirus, Pontis, Macedonia-Thrace, Egypt, Palestine, Armenia, Cyprus, Lycia, Western Anatolia. Only in the center of Anatolia in cities past Iconium, Sardica, Ancra, Caesarea, Antalya, Issos, was this absence of Greek population, which is not a very large area. It is also in the way you determine power and influence. Militaries never had the power until they killed the civilians, and many of these populations sustained influence well past WW2. It is the integration of diversity that many hisorians see as this new weakness, it was the first time a nation did this and it was seen as weak and unpure. Many times one ethnicity would attack another within its own boundaries, similar to African-Americans and the Black power movement. It was new, and thats why I feel in was shuned upon, but I do agree that it was also necessary for the EMpire to diversify. But what historians cannot determine or state, was the coexistance, and they did live together in day to day life, but for that time in age, they lived under the identy of being Byzantine. Why else would so many other nations want the titlement of being a third Rome. Illyria and Slovenians all wanted to be a Roman Empire because they identified with the Byzantines, Illyrians actually ruled inside Byzantium. I think I should stop here or I will speak forever ha

 

[Greek Stud]

Someone earlier stated the Byzantines did not call themselves Byzantines; I refute that claim. People in that time identified themselves with their capital, and when the capital shifted from Athens to Byzantion, the peoples called themselves Byzantine Romans. Throughout its existance they still recognized themselves as Byzantines even after it was renamed so to remember that the original city was Hellenic (from Megara) and that the Second Roman Empire was now Hellenic.

The capital even today is named Istanbul (Greek: to the city), to the capital city. Byzantines would say this in their travels of trade, tourism or pilgrimage. It was also their religious capital.

On another note:
The USA is 300 years old, do we not all consider ourselves American, after living here only 5, 10, 15 years.

The Byzantine Empire was 1,000 years old, people considered themselves to be Byzantine.

The capital of Armenia would have been Ani. I never inserted a city earlier.

Another thing we would probably see today, is in the Jewish State Palestine, that Old Jerusalem may have been majority Christian, but that the Jews would have been able to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. That would be an awesome site to visit.

 

[Xen]

If you refute the claim that the Byzatines hailed themselves as Romans, i, and I;m sure everyoen else here, woudl liek to see some conclusive proof of that. Conclusive prrof, as in written reference of Byzantine origin (showing that the Byzantines reffered to themseklves, and thier poltical state as anything other then Rome/the incarnation of Rome)

 

[Xen]

.

Another thing we would probably see today, is in the Jewish State Palestine, that Old Jerusalem may have been majority Christian, but that the Jews would have been able to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. That would be an awesome site to visit.

that spoppy cock; the temple fo SOlomon was a church under then reign of the Byzantine empire; ti would have changed however, that dosent matter as the thread is about the border sof the empire being a troughlly tier borders at the year 1025 Palestine was most definatelyl not a part of the Byzantine empire at that point in time.

 

[Greek Stud]

My reference to proof is the fact that they would proclaim to be the new Rome: Byzantine Rome. The Empire itself had three popular trends in identy and lifestyle, in this order:

1) Greek
2) Roman
3) Oriental

Had the trend continued without the disruption of invasions, you would be surprised to note that Oriental influences (Far East) would have surpassed Greek influenced. That was the trend that never occured, because the strength in the Empire failed. If trade and migration favored the Empire, that is where it was leading. People looked towards the idea of being expansive as Rome, they did not want to be Rome. In fact the world dispised the Old Rome, much as they dispised the idea of Byzantium being the second Rome and much as the world today dispises the USA.

_____

The borders as of 1025 are fine to go by because that is when the Empire was its strongest. But if you do not think that Greek authorities with a growth in military strength would not want to recapture Palestine (Saint Helen's pilgramage initiative), Egypt (the strongest producer of wheat), Southern Italy (Old Rome, Sparticus), Sicily (Another strong producer of wheat) then you do not understand the psyche of these people. The Byzantine's did not fight Illyria, the Balkans and Bulgaria for expansion purposes, those States were a threat to the security of the Empire, much as the Celts, Goths, Franks, Normans and so on were toward the Western Roman Empire. Those States also made claims to become the new Rome, had those States had other interests and not feared or hated Byzantium, I don't believe the Empire would have concentrated its efforts in that region.

The proof in how they refered to themselves would have to be in their documents and wars they fought against the Romans. The proclomation of making the Eastern Orthodox the national religion goes against all that is Roman. Romans execute Christians and always held that policy. When Constantine held a campaign against Western Rome he had a vision of God telling him his Empire will bear the figure in his name, and the Western Romans suddenly had the bridge collapse from underneath them.

What I am getting to, are these wars between the two Empires show you that the Eastern Romans would have wanted to be identified as something other than Roman. Why would you want to suffer the fate that they saw Western Rome suffer? And why would you fight for control over Rome herself had you been Roman? The Byzantines definitely viewed themselves as being in a better position than the Romans, they had many different ideas than the Romans, and therefore I begin my claim based on these events that the Byzantine's would not identify with the Western Empire so much as to name the nationalism in the same name of their torn enemy.

 

[Xen]

A)lets get this stright right now; yes, the byzantines DID consider themselves Roman, and considered thier nation the Roman empire; they even reasoned that the reason behind Gods letting of the origional Roman empire expand so much was to, when christianity had been accepted, spread the word; somthign the Byzantines activlly trumped up.

B)I'm sure the Byzantines woudl try to recapture Egypt, and palestine, and Italy (which includes Sicilly), but the peoples in those areas wouldnt have it; the Byzantine empire in 1025 is so strong because that is the extent of the peoples who would have considered themselves Byzantine/Byzantine Roman; everyhting west though fo the Byzantines as Greeks, not Romans, and wouldnt accept thier rule very willingly at all, noen the least because of the catholic church; and come the advent of nationalism, youd see the same area mentioned revolt anyway; particuraley Italy, seeign thier historic precedent for wanting unifacation, and going through just about anythign to get to itl even playign the two greatest european mainland powers agiasnt each other...

The egyptians and th epeoples of Palestine woudl have absolutelly no love of Byzantium; as ever since justinians code, ever religion pther then orthodox chrsitanity had been persecuted; which was the exact reason the Byzantines had spelled out thier own defeat when the arabs conqoured the area, they were haled as Liberators! And considering the strong anti-Byzantine sentiment in Islamic nations beofre Byzantiums fall, even a super-power byzantium woudl have sever trouble keeping watch over the populace over the area

 

[Greek Stud]

Wasn't around this time that the Kingdom of Sicily was created? (Including Magna Graecia) I want to understand why you believe that Sicily would not want to be Roman, as you stated the world recognized Byzantium as Roman and not Byzantine. Was it because the people there considered themselves to be Greek? Or wanted to create a new national identy? All of the Greek thinkers survived in Syracuse, Rheggio, Tarantium, or were slain by the fallen Roman Guards (Western). ex: Archimedes of Syrakuse

Your reference to unwillness to unite to Byzantium in Palestine and Egypt: is it of the Arabs that were migrating there or the natives that lived there? I know for a fact that the dominate Egyptian city Alexandria would have been very willing to join. To this day, the Greek families I meet in Alexandria, speak of the soil on their feet as being that of the ancient Empire. I last visited 1996 where I met an older Greek woman and her Jewish neighbor, and we all sat down to eat. The only topics that related in conversation were that of the Orthodox Church, in which Alexandria today is Old Calendar Eastern Orthodox, and the second being that of when the Greeks were forced to choose single citizenship under an Arab Prime Minister. Many Greek families decided to only keep their Egyptian citizenship but she says the overwhelming culture of the remaining Greeks, is their connection of Christian faith.

I'm not here to thwart ideas of who is right and wrong. You have obviously studied well and made perceptions based on facts you've read from particular texts with particular authors. These authors may as well be correct in their evaluation. I just speak the opportunity of different way to research the past. The traditional stories handed down by the generations that set their feet in the soil of an ancient Empire. The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires are the only things discussed amoung families, friends and enemies. I also loved meeting the Turkish families that saved friends from Ataturk's revenge assault in the 30s. Their frailed bodies and voices echo the torments of WW1 and WW2. And in their tales and remembrance of what was taught to them and what they witnessed, the reflection of the past in the eyes of these beautiful peoples, Turkish, Greek, Jews alike. In my observance their is no spoken word of the Roman. Either they magnificantly disappeared or in my oppinion, it was only the idea of Romanism, in the same efforts of Slavak, Illyric and possibly the Serbian and Bulgar intentions; but Byzantine in all those cities meant Greek. I travelled to the region in 1987, 1993, and 1996. I plan to revisit in 2005. These are valid claims of local residents that must be measured up against an author who is probably either French or British, who have a different focal view on how to document events. They visit sites throughout the region, although Turkey is very restrictive in what they allow, and they throw out evidence that they don't find fitting, as if history was for them to write. I ask those authors to even pronounce Greek literature correctly let alone intrepret the meaning correctly. Once again, I'm not saying my intrepretation is correct. But to validate their claim would be taking the step of stamping history with a few mens view. A scar in our minds that when we do find the truth, we won't be able to distinguish what is correct. My final remark is that the evidence towards how people speak of the past in those cities is critically important. The fact that living people carry these stories on their backs that span so far back, it is incredible and cannot be ignored. The idea that Romans colonized the East or ethnicities would want to identify as being Roman over their own capital sounds odd. Especially since the entire region was endergoing a Hellenisation, and Byzantium was a Hellenistic city.

In my opinion, had the 1,000 year old empired lasted these 500 years, had the Greeks not become slaves for 500 years, had the Empire diversified and strengthen its identy my opinion is the people of all races in the Empire would have been well off. Not because they are Byzantine or Roman, but because their location in the world and the stability in such a prime location, they evaded the Black Plague, if they hadn't fought within the Empire Eastern Europe would be much better off today. Tomas Jefferson may have changed his pivotal vote to the American Greek language instead of English. Maybe even some of you might have cared that one of our Patriarches and plane load of monks and priest crashed into the Aegean Sea today. I'm very interested to see what caused the crash. But had the Empire survived, a lot would have been different. Maybe the Olympics would have been held in Constantinople instead of Athens. I'm just throwing stuff out there heh

Remember, I don't think I'm right about facts and you are wrong. Don't take offense in the facts I present, as I shouldn't take it personally when you present facts. It's just a discussion board.

 

[jonatas]

I just speak the opportunity of different way to research the past. The traditional stories handed down by the generations that set their feet in the soil of an ancient Empire.

My final remark is that the evidence towards how people speak of the past in those cities is critically important.

@Greek stud

you make some interesting points... i view history as interpretation, and what counts for me is that the interpretation is stimulating, rich and imparts some kind of understanding...
i share this same interest in "living history" through knowing the land, people and the influences where history has taken place....

 

[Xen]

@greekStud; you dont seem to understand; by 1025, Sicillians though tof themselves as itallian; yes, even the greek descended ones 9although today, Sicillians seem to liek to think of themselves as a distinctive breed of itallian, but itallian none the less)

It that which you misunderstand i think; perhaps you have met a few famillies in Alexandria who think of themselves as greek; but it shoudl be completlly clear to you, that the vast majority of the people dont; the Byzantine empire aleinated the peoples of those regions, in italy, palestine, and Egypt to the point that when the areas had been conqored form the Byzantine empire; the people in those ares no longer wanted to be a part of the empire in the first place

 

[Xen]

I'm not here to thwart ideas of who is right and wrong. You have obviously studied well and made perceptions based on facts you've read from particular texts with particular authors. These authors may as well be correct in their evaluation. I just speak the opportunity of different way to research the past. The traditional stories handed down by the generations that set their feet in the soil of an ancient Empire. The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires are the only things discussed amoung families, friends and enemies. I also loved meeting the Turkish families that saved friends from Ataturk's revenge assault in the 30s. Their frailed bodies and voices echo the torments of WW1 and WW2. And in their tales and remembrance of what was taught to them and what they witnessed, the reflection of the past in the eyes of these beautiful peoples, Turkish, Greek, Jews alike. In my observance their is no spoken word of the Roman. Either they magnificantly disappeared or in my oppinion, it was only the idea of Romanism, in the same efforts of Slavak, Illyric and possibly the Serbian and Bulgar intentions; but Byzantine in all those cities meant Greek. I travelled to the region in 1987, 1993, and 1996. I plan to revisit in 2005. These are valid claims of local residents that must be measured up against an author who is probably either French or British, who have a different focal view on how to document events. They visit sites throughout the region, although Turkey is very restrictive in what they allow, and they throw out evidence that they don't find fitting, as if history was for them to write. I ask those authors to even pronounce Greek literature correctly let alone intrepret the meaning correctly. Once again, I'm not saying my intrepretation is correct. But to validate their claim would be taking the step of stamping history with a few mens view. A scar in our minds that when we do find the truth, we won't be able to distinguish what is correct. My final remark is that the evidence towards how people speak of the past in those cities is critically important. The fact that living people carry these stories on their backs that span so far back, it is incredible and cannot be ignored. The idea that Romans colonized the East or ethnicities would want to identify as being Roman over their own capital sounds odd. Especially since the entire region was endergoing a Hellenisation, and Byzantium was a Hellenistic city.

Interesting speach; but what dose any of that have to do with the topic?

In my opinion, had the 1,000 year old empired lasted these 500 years, had the Greeks not become slaves for 500 years, had the Empire diversified and strengthen its identy my opinion is the people of all races in the Empire would have been well off. Not because they are Byzantine or Roman, but because their location in the world and the stability in such a prime location, they evaded the Black Plague, if they hadn't fought within the Empire Eastern Europe would be much better off today. Tomas Jefferson may have changed his pivotal vote to the American Greek language instead of English. Maybe even some of you might have cared that one of our Patriarches and plane load of monks and priest crashed into the Aegean Sea today. I'm very interested to see what caused the crash. But had the Empire survived, a lot would have been different. Maybe the Olympics would have been held in Constantinople instead of Athens. I'm just throwing stuff out there heh

Remember, I don't think I'm right about facts and you are wrong. Don't take offense in the facts I present, as I shouldn't take it personally when you present facts. It's just a discussion board.[/QUOTE]

A)the greeks werent slaves; sure, thier were some, and the general high education of the greeks in comparisonwith other peoples certinally made greek slaves more famous, but it was the simple fact that rome eventually granted full rights and citzenship to the greeks that a)made the Greeks themselvs think of themselves as Romans first, Greeks seconds, and b) let the Romano-greeks create a distinct entity of cultur, combinign the two after the empire was split

I'm sure the last thing anyone with pangs of nationalism wants to hear is how thier ancestors thought fo themselves as full members of nation that the common thought is enslaved them; but today, its little differnt; any US citizen has the same sentiment as a roman citizen; Roman citizen first, ethnicty second; as by the fall of the roman empire, "Roman", had for three centuires ceased being an ethnicty, but had become a nationality, applyable to all free-men of the empire; it was the first true nation the world had ever seen; where a person, regarless of ethnicty, could become a full member of society; that is why the greeks, thought of theselves as Romans

-however, none of that has anythign to do with the conversation-
--------------------------------------------------

It a simple fact, i have to say. that the borders of the Byzantine empire in 1025, woudl be, if the empire remained strong, the largest extent of the Borders; the Itallians wouldnt stand ofr Byzantien interference, the other western european nations woudl certinally dislike a an orthidox nation poking baout in the center of catholiscm, and the muslims certianlyl had no want to let the Byzantines expand into thier back yard; combien this with the fact, as i said in previous post, that the Byzantien empire completlly alienated the people of these regions, offended them, and even made it legal to perscute them, it is absurd to think that the Byzantine empire woudl have a firm handed presence in those areas; just liek in real life, any Byzatien occupation woudl have fallen apart in 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuies, if not a great deal sooner

 

[Greek Stud]

I was not refering towards the Byzantine Empire when I spoke of enslavement, I was refering to the 500 years of slavery that Greeks suffered under the Ottoman Empire.

Were it not for the Ottomans, I don't think the Empire would have fallen. You even state that in all ethnicities they were happy to be recognized as Roman. The only sign of withdrawal in the real world are from the people in Armenia (Georgia-Caucaus States-Azerbaijan-Armenia). Georgians are very Orthodox and fiercly loyal towards its ideas. Armenians found Christianity to be popular, and its Kings would have still remained Christian, possibily remaining Orthodox had the Church provide them more property rights and governmental power. Islam would still have penetrated from Persia and Kurdistan but would have paled in comparison to the Armenians. The Seljuk Turk identy may have vanished. Byzantine leaders were ready to annilate them even though the were peaceful, much more than the Ottomans. You refered to Palestine and Egypt as Islam's backyard. The forces from West Africa or Arab lands and Islam itself in Saudi Arabia, had the benefit of the Bubonic Plague and the distractions the Byzantines had to face from the North. Considering the Byzantine Empire united the Christians to fight the Crusades, I have no doubt that stability would be easily obtained had it been given more years. The Western Church and the Patriarch (Pope) of Rome, in my opinion would have turned back to Eastern Orthodox had it been a strong power and land owner. Especially with splits of Protestantism, Lutherism, Anglican Church. This would have revitalized more friendlier conditions between the Churchs, the Eastern Church wanting more land, and the Western Church wanting more ligitamate rights over land in Gaul, England and Germany. Whether the area known as the Kingdom of Naples and Venice, whether they would join the Empire, I do doubt that. But a possibility at warmer relations unless a new ruler ruined it by doing something stupid. Illyria and Daccia areas would have remained a mess. Had the Empire try to sustain borders instead of play politics within those areas. In fact at times Illyria would have complied with either Roman Empire had they allowed them autonomy. Illyrians liked that Emperors of Byzantium were at time Illyrian. But I do remember reading that the Romans had tried to pillage villages and thats where the distrust came. The Illyrians would have been a strong ally against Slavs and Bulgars. Whether they would have become Christian, who knows? Half the Albanians of today are Christian so you could assume so, since they became Christian by choice not force. And if Venice was supported by Naples on one side, Illyria on the other, maybe there would be the possibility that Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzogivina could have been their expanssive land mass. If the fate of Byzantium changes up to the 20th Century, its neighbors conditions must be considered. It only took stupid mistakes for the Romans to piss off its neighbors. Had it settled with its borders in 1025, I believe it would be a strong power today.