Byzantine Empire

[Lyceum]

Yes...right in mid post... :x

Not exactly. We WERE digressing from the Byzantine Warrior impression thread, fair's fair. That quote of mone that this begins with was from wayyy back!

Well, I started that post in the old thread....and when it confirmed it appeared in the new thread! :wink: So..... :mrgreen:

As for classification, well, what did the Eastern Empire classify themselves as?
They certainly did not call themselves the Byzantine Empire, or so I understand.

Romans /Romaioi/ with names like Romanos, Konstantinos, Kostas, Antonis etc being very popular alongside Hebrew names.

Essentially they always called themselves Romans; followed Roman Law; Lived in a Roman style; had the consulate for a lengthy period; folk songs from the period actually show Roman influence etc etc.

Essentially, they were Romans in any meaningful sense, though its complicated.

The idea of them being non Roman/"Byzantine" essentially has its roots in the time of Charlemagne and is caught up in the problems of the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire and even the authority of the papacy to grand imperial regalia. It is a lengthy and thorny issue. However, academic opinion has finally turned and labelled them Roman. Though we still are somewhat burdened by our Carolingian inheritance. But then, he was basically the reason Europe is how it is...so...

It's funny this has been brought up, actually, considering how popular this topic is now in academia.

EDIT: This also leads well into the discussion on the other thread about the name of Byzantion/Nea Roma/Konstantinopolis. Incidentally, a recent volume called something like "The Two Romes" has came out with reference to many of the inscriptions/documents Macedon was talking about alongside discursive essays etc.

EDIT #2: THIS is the right place for this edit, not the other thread. :S

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes...right in mid post... :x

Not exactly. We WERE digressing from the Byzantine Warrior impression thread, fair's fair. That quote of mone that this begins with was from wayyy back!

Well, I started that post in the old thread....and when it confirmed it appeared in the new thread! :wink: So..... :mrgreen:

As for classification, well, what did the Eastern Empire classify themselves as?
They certainly did not call themselves the Byzantine Empire, or so I understand.

Romans /Romaioi/ with names like Romanos, Konstantinos, Kostas, Antonis etc being very popular alongside Hebrew names.

Essentially they always called themselves Romans; followed Roman Law; Lived in a Roman style; had the consulate for a lengthy period; folk songs from the period actually show Roman influence etc etc.

Essentially, they were Romans in any meaningful sense, though its complicated.

The idea of them being non Roman/"Byzantine" essentially has its roots in the time of Charlemagne and is caught up in the problems of the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire and even the authority of the papacy to grand imperial regalia. It is a lengthy and thorny issue. However, academic opinion has finally turned and labelled them Roman. Though we still are somewhat burdened by our Carolingian inheritance. But then, he was basically the reason Europe is how it is...so...

It's funny this has been brought up, actually, considering how popular this topic is now in academia.

EDIT: This also leads well into the discussion on the other thread about the name of Byzantion/Nea Roma/Konstantinopolis. Incidentally, a recent volume called something like "The Two Romes" has came out with reference to many of the inscriptions/documents Macedon was talking about alongside discursive essays etc.

EDIT #2: THIS is the right place for this edit, not the other thread. :S

Yes, I was aware this is not my own idea of the term Byzantine, not being correct.

And actually, my transported post was intended for the other thread...however...I am still discussing the topic of the digression here, despite that, while maintaining an interest in that thread as well.. mile:
I was merely answering the query as to the point of this thread, as the confusion seemed to arise from my post, relating to the other thread being sidetracked! ;-)

[Macedon]

... and of course Greek names were also all the rage (Nikolaos, Basileios, Georgios, Theodoros etc).

The Byzantines, for the most part of their history, called themselves Roman as far as their collective identity was concerned. They viewed themselves as the natural continuation of the Roman Empire. Yet, they also, like for example the ancient Greeks, had a regional nationality that was as important (if not more in most cases). They were Cappadocians, Armenians, Cilicians etc. For the most part, "ethnic" Greeks replaced their Hellenic identity with the Roman one as far as the term was concerned and reserved the former for use as an adjective for their language and other cultural traits. But, as an identity, to be a Hellene, for some centuries was a synonym to an idolater or simply used for ancient Greeks (idolaters) only. Later on things changed and the term reappeared in a nationalistic context.

[Robert Vermaat]

... and of course Greek names were also all the rage (Nikolaos, Basileios, Georgios, Theodoros etc).
The Byzantines, for the most part of their history, called themselves Roman as far as their collective identity was concerned. They viewed themselves as the natural continuation of the Roman Empire. Yet, they also, like for example the ancient Greeks, had a regional nationality that was as important (if not more in most cases). They were Cappadocians, Armenians, Cilicians etc.

I agree with that description.

For the most part, "ethnic" Greeks replaced their Hellenic identity with the Roman one as far as the term was concerned and reserved the former for use as an adjective for their language and other cultural traits. But, as an identity, to be a Hellene, for some centuries was a synonym to an idolater or simply used for ancient Greeks (idolaters) only. Later on things changed and the term reappeared in a nationalistic context.

Would 'Hellene' also have referred to a pagan identity, whereas the Byzantines would see themselves as champions of Christianity?

[Macedon]

Not a general pagan identity. Only the one that had to do with the old Graecoroman gods and generally from the broader Hellenic world. A Syrian of no Greek ethnicity could have been referred to as a Hellene if he believed in the older pantheon as would an Armenian or a Cilician. A Gaul or a German would not.

[Robert Vermaat]

Not a general pagan identity. Only the one that had to do with the old Graecoroman gods and generally from the broader Hellenic world. A Syrian of no Greek ethnicity could have been referred to as a Hellene if he believed in the older pantheon as would an Armenian or a Cilician. A Gaul or a German would not.

That is logical of course, I was referring to an identification 'Hellene=pagan', not 'pagan=Hellene'. But still good to spell it out.