| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#Art-Of-War-Club
#HistoryLovers
#HistoryRocks
#Knigths
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
I noted in previous comments that you consider the Byzantines as just part of the evolution taking place in the Roman Empire. From what reading of this and later periods I have done (some, not a lot), I would agree. That evolution was influenced by the cultural influences and geography of the Eastern Empire, I would think.
About "Byzantines"-just imagine if you woke up one day and somebody from completely different age came to you and says:you are not an Australian!
And you naturally asked him:really?why?And his answer would be:becouse you doesnt look like Australians do in 1901!
Or maybe he would claim that you are not an Australian,because you speak english,so you must be an Englishman.Like that silly argument that if byzantines spoken mostly greek then they must have been greeks not romans(but in the eastern half of the roman empire greek language was always main language not just in medieval times-so why nobody speaks of them as about greeks?)This is just examples of how term Byzantine is twisted.
It only has been accepted with Enlightenment movement era thinkers like Montesquieu who do not like how roman state was like in the middle ages(although,in fact,not even taking their time to really study it into deep,so having been full of misjudgments from the very beginning),so they felt need to have clear line between that "real" romans and those "wannaby" byzantine romans,no matter that there were NO LINE at all between ancient and medieval romans.Roman state just continued on in the east in every aspect of private to public life and its inhabitants were doing it fully consciously with a knowledge of clear historical self identity.
Of course that they doesn't look the same as in a Julius Caesar's time,of course they had many different features as time passed.Republican Rome is also very different in many things from that of Imperial(or that even older royal),but somehow, nobody seems to have problem with both having been simply roman states.
Nobody says that (for example)modern day Frenchman's are not real frenchman's because they didn't look like those from the time of hundred years war.So why the hell should it be different in the case of Byzantium,when in fact,byzantine state had much more fluently continuous history than any other state in european history.
Truth is that if there were not thinkers like Montesquieu(who,moreover,was more a philosopher the real historian),who influenced greatly first modern scholars,who then often uncritically accepted their ideas and views,we would have probably still use only historycaly correct name Roman Empire,with term Byzantine empire being totally unknown.
Fortunately,Now I Am encountering more and more increasing tendency in most recent works to treat the byzantines as real romans(only not ancient) and if they are using byzantine terminology,they at least mention its historical artificiality.
Well,this is something that can make me angry and because byzantine romans cannot defend themselves anymore,so at least I will.
And thanks for comments.Late roman army is not widely depicted but you could find definitely more of it.
What is cultural 'romanism' and 'latins' culture(s)... different bits.
They called themselves 'Romanois', but also turned to Greek language gradually, like 8th century.
To me,They were combained ancient Greeks and Romans,which over many centuries of close co-existence became very much the one and the same nation and it is even more complicated because there were,especially in earlier Byzantine centuries many other ethnicities.In this way Greek dont stop to by greeks by their ethnicity and greek culture was especially dominant after 6th century,but they(and all other free inhabitants of other ethnics)were of Roman citizenship.Maybe you herd somwhere that saying:Romans conquered Greeks politicaly but Greeks at the same time conquered Romans culturally.I think it is very well exspressed in this sentece.
Roman citizenship.With later loose of greater part of the Roman controled area in the more latinized west,Greek element with its strong tradition in the east became naturally dominant,but the core idea of their Roman statehood stát didn't disappear at all.
What is the most important for me is the fact that in the east Roman state continued in existence completely uninterrupted and that its inhabitants were doing it quite consciously about their roman past,with keeping many ancient Roman traditions and laws to whom naturaly new one,as time passed,emerged.Most of Byzantine historians if doing a list of their Emperors stated Augustus as first one.And emperors themselves done the same-some of theme were proud of how well they know Roman history.
Just imagine how would you feel if somone have claimed from day to day you are not what you always was anymore.
I think a lot of people have a block due to absence of latin in the medieval empire, even myself to an extent. But as you said, greek was the language spoken in the East throughout the Roman Empire, even in earlier times, there was seemingly no effort to make latin the spoken language. When Heraclius changed the administrative language from latin to greek, it was reflective of the reality that the use of latin in the mostly greek speaking regions of the empire was impractical. I found it interesting to note that the parts of Southern Italy that the Empire maintained a hold on up to the eleventh century spoke greek.
Ultimately, the people of the Empire continued to call themselves Romans, even if they said it in greek. That says enough to me.
P.S. I think your comment about the difference between medieval and modern France was quite illustative.