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

[Traitorfish]

I see - that's quite interesting, actually. Any account of what happened to them?

Some of them are still there, but numbers seem to have declined pretty heavily over the 20th century. The Metaxas and Colonels' regimes suppressed its formal use, and it never really seems to have recovered. Still quite a lot of Albanian-speaking Greeks in the North-West, which is helpfully closer to Albania and further from Athens, but Attic Albanian-speakers were looking at the reverse.

 

[Kyriakos]

Some of them are still there, but numbers seem to have declined pretty heavily over the 20th century. Metaxas and Colonels' regimes surpressed its formal use, and it never really seems to have recovered. Still quite a lot of Albanian-speaking Greeks in the North-West, which is helpfully closer to Albania and further from Athens, but Attic Albanian-speakers were looking at the reverse.

A tiny bit of the reason they aren't there now was also due to the small regional war called WWII, at the conclusion of which the albanians were expelled.

 

[Domen]

I'm also not convinced that 'Roman' identity was particularly strong in the Greek parts of the empire, but that's another story.

Greek-speaking Byzantines called themselves "Romoi" or "Romaioi" and their language "Romeika".

These Greek words translate from Greek to English as "Romans" and "Roman" language.

This alone suggests that they had a strong Roman identity indeed.

 

[Flying Pig]

Indeed, but I think those words actually corresponded to what we would now call 'Greeks' and 'Greek'. I don't think they identified themselves as of the same breed as Gauls and Egyptians, for example.

 

[otaman1]

First of all, define Roman. Roman is comprised of Greeks, Celts, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Latins etc.

 

[Lone Wolf]

An inhabitant of 5th century Roman Egypt or Gaul would likely also refer to himself as "Roman". It's not like Late Antique Gauls were the ones from Asterix and Obelix.

 

[Flying Pig]

An inhabitant of 5th century Roman Egypt or Gaul would likely also refer to himself as "Roman". It's not like Late Antique Gauls were the ones from Asterix and Obelix.

Yes, in the sense of a citizen of the Roman empire, but I don't think that they would have felt a common identity, or at least I have yet to see convincing evidence that they would - this is ordinary people, mind, not the elite, who did extensively adopt Roman ways.

 

[Domen]

Well - inhabitants of Gaul at some point after the Roman conquest became Latin-speaking people.

This is why historians refer to them as Gallo-Romans. This is why modern French is a Romance language.

Please also remember that in Imperial times, almost all inhabitants of the Roman Empire became citizens.

 

[Domen]

I suppose that the Edict of Caracalla (year 212 AD) - which granted equal citizenship rights to all free males - greatly contributed to development of a common Roman idenity among all tribes and all ethnic groups of the Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship#The_Edict_of_Caracalla

The idea that inhabitants of the Roman Empire remained a collection of tribes with different identities is - in my opinion - a mistake.

Of course some regional identities survived - in some regions they were stronger, in some other regions weaker.

But in general after the Edict of Caracalla, all citizens had a feeling that they were Romans with equal rights and thus developed a Roman identity. It is possible that their Roman identity in some cases coexisted with regional identities, for example they could think of themselves as both Romans and Egyptians.

 

[Flying Pig]

But in general after the Edict of Caracalla, all citizens had a feeling that they were Romans with equal rights and thus developed a Roman identity. It is possible that their Roman identity in some cases coexisted with regional identities, for example they could think of themselves as both Romans and Egyptians.

Indeed. Equal citizenship is one thing, and it's important. The Greek parts in particular though never lost their language, and the actual day-to-day running of things rarely changed. In religious processions, the gods and patrons of the city were paraded along with the emperors. I think people would still have seen themselves as Athenians first, Roman citizens second, and related only in citizenship to those barbarians in togas in Gaul.

 

[Domen]

Indeed, but I think those words actually corresponded to what we would now call 'Greeks' and 'Greek'.

Greek language was - together with Latin language - one of languages which carried Roman identity.

This is why they called themselves "Romans" - either in Latin language, or in Greek language.

You are going to have a Scottish independence referendum soon there in GB. These people speak English, but have a Scottish identity.

This case was similar. Please note, that expansion of Greek language into parts of Asia, was related to Roman political expansion there.

Latin and Greek were - quite simply - official languages of the Roman Empire, and also carriers of Roman identity.

The Greek parts in particular though never lost their language

It does not mean that they did not adopt Roman identity - just like those people who lost their language and started to speak Latin or Greek.

BTW - recently on another forum I have been reading interesting posts written by a person who was born as a Pontic Greek.

He wrote that the only language his grandparents spoke was Russian (just like most of the town where they lived), but they were Pontic Greeks.

He wrote that modern Greek language was unknown among the Pontic Greeks in early 20th century. They spoke either "Ponti" or Russian.

He was born in Pontus region, but when he was a child his family came to Greece together with other Pontic Greek repatriates.

They settled in territories from which Bulgarians and other Slavic-speaking groups had been deported before (as "foreign hostile elements").

But later he emigrated from Greece to Poland to study at the university, and he stayed here to work as well.

==================================================

I am involved in a discussion about Balkans on another forum (historum.com), but the more I read, the less I understand their situation:

Ah!, that Balkan Kettle... :

http://s28.postimg.org/46pupdbsd/Balkans_Kettle.png

Here are the links to that discussion, in case if someome is interested in reading that (but watch out - Balkan nationalists are behind each corner!):

http://historum.com/european-history/67757-what-type-nation-first-balkan-4.html

http://historum.com/european-history/66180-justfied-call-modern-slavic-macedonia-fyrom-33.html

=======================================

Edit:

My biggest surprise was, when those Balkan genetic nationalists finally agreed with me that nationas are to some extent artificial constructs. Here are some fragments of that discussion (mostly my posts in which I described what that Pontic Greek guy described about himself and his family on yet another forum):

I have just read interesting posts about Slavic-speaking Macedonians on Polish historycy forum written by a Pontic Greek who was born in Pontus, later moved to Greece, and now lives in Poland - where he emigrated from Greece to study at the university and to work. He was born in Asia Minor and then his family was among the repatriates who came to Greece. He writes that when he was a child so called Pontic "Greeks" did not speak modern Greek language, but either Russian or so called "Ponti" language. His own town was Russian-speaking. When they moved to Greece as repatriates, people greeted them as strangers, especially that they were more modern than local Greeks (for example he writes that Russian-speaking Pontic Greeks already had modern clothes, while in the region of Greece where they came, girls were still wearing traditional, rural peasant costumes, including typical peasant headscarves). He writes that they were greeted by those Greek peasants with xenophoby and hostility. Local Greek peasants were albo jealous, because the government of Greece and Greek Church granted land to settle to those newcomers for free. Often that was land from which Bulgarians or Slavic-speaking Macedonians had been deported before. Very interesting posts so far, I must read all of them. Maybe I will write more about this soon.

============================================

It is albo fascinating - at least for me - that Greeks considered Slavic-speaking population of Pontus as fellow Pontic "Greeks", while at the same time claiming, that Slavic-speaking Macedonians are "another race" (as one user in this thread wrote).

That Pontic Greek I mentioned writes, that many modern Greeks still consider Russian-speaking Yelena Isinbayeva (she is one of those Pontic "Greeks") as a Greek person.

Sorry, but if Slavic (Russian) Yelena Isinbayeva can be one of those "descendants of Alexander and Philip" - and Greeks claim so - then Slavic Macedonians can be them too.

===========================================

Many of those Pontic "Greeks" spoke Russian as their first language.

This guy spoke Russian as first language - he had no problems with communication when he came to Communist Poland, where Russian was obligatory as foreign language in schools.

Now he writes in Polish fluently, as I can read on that forum.

He was born in Pontus, not in Russia, and most of people in his town spoke Russian.

His grandparents spoke only Russian, like most Pontic "Greeks" from that town.

==========================================

This Pontic Greek guy who lives in Poland today writes, that there is also a group in Pakistan, who claim they are descendants of Ancient Macedonians.

They are Muslims and they speak in local languages, but they claim Macedonian ancestors. What is interesting, Greeks from Greece agree with them, rather than considering them as "another, hostile race" like they do with Slavic-speaking Macedonia.

==========================================

You say that people of Pontus probably forgot Greek language.

But what language they forgot, before they started to speak Ancient Greek?

Before Greeks came, what language was spoken in Ancient Pontus?

Surely yet another one.

Russian Isinbayeva is as "much" Greek as modern French are Romans or Gauls.

BTW:

This Pontic Greek guy supports the right of Slavic-speaking Macedonians to call themselves Macedonians if they want. If even Urdu-speaking Muslim Pakistani people can claim Philip as their ancestor (and Greek nationalists are happy, that they do - perhaps they would like to annex Pakistan as part of Greece, after all Hellenistic world used to extend as far as India "not so long time ago" ), then people from actual historical region of Macedonia can too.

=========================================

All nations are to some extent artificial constructs.

And during just several generations the same family can change their national identity. For example - in Eastern Poland (Red Ruthenia region) which never belonged to Ukraine - there lived Ruthenian-speaking people who were loyal citizens of Poland. Then Ukrainian nationalist propaganda brainwashed those people into believing, that they were Ukrainians.

And many Russians claim, that both Ukrainians and Ruthenians are in fact Russians.

So the point of view depends on which side of the border you stand...

=====================================

In Poland during the 1930s there was for example a Szeptyccy family.

One guy in that family was a Polish nationalist, and his brother was an Ukrainian nationalist.

This shows how artificial constructs nations are, if they can divide families in half.

======================================

That is right. But some nations are more artificial than others.

======================================

Mmmm, this is the late 20-th Century liberal theories but they haven`t too many historical grounds.

"Slavic Macedonians" (or Slavic Speaking Greeks) is euphemism for Bulgarians who lived in Greek territory.

=======================================

I keep following the thead hoping to distinguish all ingredients and spices. Anyway, it's never boring with Balkan posters around.

BTW:

So far during discussion in that thread I noticed, that Slavic-speaking Macedonians have a very hard situation:

1) Bulgarians claim that Macedonians are Bulgarians.
2) Albanians claim that Macedonians are Albanians.
3) And Greeks claim that Macedonians are FYROM-ians and "a distinct and unnamed race" (as one apparently racist user even wrote there)



There was also the usual dispute on "who is descendant of Alexander the Great" in that thread.

One of Greek users wrote:

nor his son Alexander are not direct ancestors of today's Slavic Macedonians.

I replied:

Alexander had no grandchildren, which means that he is direct ancestor of nobody today.

Alexander the Great had only two children:

1) Herakles, son of Alexander's mistress Barsine

2) Alexander IV, son of Roxane

Both children were killed before they reached adulthood, and they left no offspring.

So nobody of modern people descend from Alexander.

This definitely solves the years-long dispute between Greece and Macedonia-FYROM.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's notable that Copts and Syriacs were also in the Roman Empire, but identified Greek-speakers as 'Romans'. But this is not particularly weird. We still call France and its people after a Germanic tribe from the lower Rhine. The Franks gave birth to the state, and there are still Frankish-descended dialects in Europe, but the modern Franks (French) are Latini. Likewise Bulgaria, from a Turkic tribe, Russia from a Finnic name for Scandinavians, and so on. No-one tells the French they are actually Gallo-Romans and the 'real French' are the Dutch/West-Germans.

 

[Domen]

Likewise Bulgaria, from a Turkic tribe

Indeed. However, when exactly Proto-Bulgars / Bulgars started to speak Slavic (i.e. when exactly they became Slavicized) is disputed.

Another Turkic tribe - the Huns - possibly also spoke at least some Slavic. We don't know much about Hunnic language, but there is a little evidence.

The following excerpt can be found in primary sources (description of the funeral meal / funeral luncheon of Attila the Hun in 453 AD):

"(...) After he had been mourned with such lamentations they celebrated a Strava, as they call it, over his tomb with great revelry, coupling opposite extremes of feeling in turn among themselves. (...)"

Source: Priscus of Panium (5th century AD Byzantine diplomat and historian), the report on the death of Attila the Hun.

"Strava" is a word of Slavic origin (and today it is still used in Slavic languages) which means "diet, food, meal".

The Franks gave birth to the state,

Yes - but majority of population of the Frankish Empire was most likely never Frankish-speaking, only minority spoke Germanic.

At first Latin-speakers and then Romance-speakers were most likely always the majority of population in West Francia.

Perhaps Germanic-speaking barbarians (Franks) themselves became assimilated and started to speak Romance.

========================================

We can also mention, that although the name of England is from the tribe of Angles, the state was founded in year 1066 by French-speakers:

Which English Kings actually spoke English?

For the next several hundred years following 1066, English kings and English aristocracy spoke French, while only peasants spoke English:


Link to video.

English vocabulary has more words of French and Latin (brought to England after year 1066) origin, than of Old English (Germanic) origin:

An analysis of 80,000 words in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary apparently yielded the following results for the origin of the words:

"Latin, 28.34 percent; French, 28.3 percent; Old and Middle English, Old Norse, and Dutch, 25 percent; Greek 5.32 percent; no etymology given, 4.03 percent; derived from proper names, 3.28 percent; all other languages, less than 1 percent."

The grammatical structure of English sentences are more closely related to the Germanic languages, which is why it is considered Germanic.

The word origins of the English language are roughly 30% Germanic, 30% French, 30% Latin, and 10% Greek. The Latin in the English language was not because of the Romans, but because of the Norman Conquest and terms that were later added in the early modern period.

One of English national myths, is that the Hundred Years' War was a war fought between the states / nations of England and France.

In fact, it was a war between one French dynasty (which accidentally happened to rule also over England) and another French dynasty.

Of course the point of view depends on which side the border you stand - people in England also considered that dynasty as "their own".

So this national myth is not totally false. But a fact is that people in many regions of France also considered that dynasty as "their own".

 

[caketastydelish]

yeah its not like the first world war was caused by the destruction of the ottoman empire in europe or anything like that

I've never heard that one before.

What could possibly make you think WWI would continue as in OTL with the presence of a "strong" Byzantine Empire?

Why not is the real question. Supposing a solid Byzantine empire was on the side of the central powers (as opposed to the dwindling, borderlines useless Ottomans) things could have been much different.

 

[r16]

yeah , they like would be planting their flag on the Moon in 1941 and protecting their capital with a wall that no gun could penetrate . Not knowing why they would need that considering they would have the biggest army in the World anyhow . There have been better threads on that . Though that wouldn't have saved the Sasanis one bit nor stopped Islam into Iran .

 

[Kyriakos]

yeah , they like would be planting their flag on the Moon in 1941 and protecting their capital with a wall that no gun could penetrate . Not knowing why they would need that considering they would have the biggest army in the World anyhow . There have been better threads on that . Though that wouldn't have saved the Sasanis one bit nor stopped Islam into Iran .

Afaik the Byzantines gave up on sending people to the moon cause they focused on transporting them into the so-called "Byzantine icons", where enormous numbers still live up to this day.
They are all silently waiting for the King in Marble to rise from his tomb, so that they can also leave their isolation, and fill the streets of the riot-infested Constantinople once again, carrying the Christogram banner while looking austerely at the seljuk police

 

[r16]

the Police ain't no Selçuk , no reading recent posts where people say they be Romans ?

 

[Kyriakos]

the Police ain't no Selçuk , no reading recent posts where people say they be Romans ?

Is it the Nika stasis already then?

 

[r16]

ahh , sorry am not that good with history , being a mere 20th Century construct instead of -you know- real .

 

[Dachs]

I've never heard that one before.

Oh.

Um. I'm not sure what other explanation of the cause of the First World War that one could possibly come up with. But, okay...

Well, it was. Perhaps you have heard of the Balkan Wars? They resulted in the effective destruction of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. They also directly resulted in both the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the responses of the Serbian, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian governments to the same. Which is, you know, the proximate cause of the First World War.

also some stuff about russian plots to destroy the rest of the ottoman empire but frankly the basics are all right there