The True Fall of Rome
Draconifer
Historians seldom aknowledge the Fall of Rome should really be 1453 a.d.. Though the Romioi or Byzantines were not culturally that of Republican Rome, neither were the peoples of the early years after the Etruscans, nor the Empire period. Millitarily Western Roma was adopting the armour-clad cavalrymen. Eastern Roma was a linear continuation of that transition from legions to heavy Persian-influenced cavalry.Konstantinopolis was the last bastion of Roma. The Byzantines were certainly more Roman than the Holy Roman
Empire or Latins. The difference would be more strikingly illustrated during the fourth crusade. It was a millitary schism, not a fall.
Linguistic differences are not decisive in delineating as they are GrecoRoman. We all know that Greece influenced Roman culture profoundly. Why else would the Renaissance be Roman-influenced hence Bottocelli's Venus, not Aphrodite. 1453 a.d. Rome falls.
Report offensive material
| Draconifer |
1
If Alexander the Great can adopt Eastern dress
and yet still be considered Macedonian/Greek
I think it plausible to consider Eastern Rome
as Rome itself of the so-called middle ages.
The influence of other adjacent cultures was clearly
seen in Roman armour and in the civilisation itself.
Posted: 06-Jul-2009 06:36
Report offensive material
|
| Mr Mac |
2
I agree. The Byzantines called themselves "Romanoi." Everyone else called them Greeks though. Rather interesting to see how people perceive each other.
Posted: 06-Jul-2009 15:55
Report offensive material
|
| Württemberger |
3
it's always perplexing to see how people always choose to point out the continuity of Rome and Byzantium and the similarities, but are quite on the more numerous differences and most importantly, the SPLIT in western and eastern empire. fall of Rome (the city) was 476, that's perfectly valid. of course there was still Eastern Rome but Eastern Rome is not exactly THE Roman empire. the much despised Holy Roman Empire actually DID control Rome (the city) for most of its early history and golden age, so don't they have a legal claim to be a continuation of Western Rome as well? it's not that this was even challenged at all by the contemporary world.
Posted: 06-Jul-2009 21:39
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
4
On the contrary to the skepticism of Roman identity one
can see a linear and smooth transition from Western Roman to
Eastern Rome in terms of military styles that were undergoing modification. You obviously see the transformation from legion-based
infantry to heavy-armoured cavalry,originating in Western Rome.
You can see in the Osprey title Warrior "Byzantine Infantryman"
that the testudo formation of ther legions was still being used.
Cultures and civilisations after all are not static.
It's like saying a continental army soldier or union soldier is not an American but a marine of the 20th century is.
The military split was just that hence "Eastern Rome" as opposed
to Western Rome. The word Eastern Roman empire and Eastern Emperor is readily used in histories.
But the Holy Roman Empire so-called was surrounded by Lombardian
duchies not the Roman patrician families as such. Clovis and Karl Magna were considered "a barbarians" by classical standards.
In fact counter-measures and attempts at a Reconquista
were launched by the Eastern Emperor against the Western Roman
Empire's new overlords. The linguistic influences of East and West Rome are based by necessity on the needed modifications of a mercantalist economy and trade. "Greek" was the language of commerce.
Many nations would derive titles and identify with Rome's legacy.
Facism for example. Also the Kaiser and Czar. The idea is cosmetic
and emulating a past they admired and aspired to.
As for what is in a name: The Spartans did not call themselves "Spartans" nor "Greeks".
Posted: 07-Jul-2009 09:34
Report offensive material
|
| Württemberger |
5
the language here means not much, how many middle eastern empires were ruled in the Persian language, they are innumerable. if you're familiar with the middle ages you'll need to considder the split of the Frankish Empire into west and East as well. you'll find that one became France and the other Germany, and there's not really much in common between the two. also look at the Timurid and Mughal Empries. why do historians make a difference at all? we have here a single dynasty from Timur (as empire-founder 1370) right down to Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal who reigned until 1857. the Byzantine Empire had much more dynasties in their history. but coming back to the Frankish example, what we have here, in the form of Byzantium, is if anything, a continuation of Alexander's Empire and his sucessors. of course the years of Roman occupation were not "undone" and as you noted Rome herself before her rise to Empire was already significantly influenced by hellenism, yet what does stand out are the people and culture, which were distinctively un-Roman, like language, religion and more. if you want to know when Rome really ended, it's not in 1453, and it wasn't in 476 either, Rome already ended when Christianity was adopted and the Empire was split in a manner typical of oriental despotism, where the empire was divided between the heirs.
Posted: 07-Jul-2009 19:11
Report offensive material
|
| Strategos(Kay Boers) |
6
Partition of the Roman Empire in other parts was perfectly common in the history of the empire. And the definitive split in East and West by Theodosius is myth. The Eastern Emperor was nearly always the dominant one. Speaking about Hellenism. The question remains what Roman culture really means. Roman culture was from it's earliest beginnings infused with Greek aspects of culture. People who fully deny the continuation of the Roman Empire forget that states, identities and cultures change over time. A Senator from the 4th century bce would be chocked to see what had become of the Republic by the time of Trajan. And a senator from the time of Trajan will equally be chocked about the way Diocletian ruled his empire. We must also not forget that the Christianity was more Roman than we usually think. Haldon suggested in his influential book Byzantium in the seventh century that the Roman Empire transformed into the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century because of certain changes in Religion and the governmental structure of the Empire. Denying the fact that change in the way a state is governed en what is the dominant culture does not necessarily need to result in the changing of the state's name or the name we should give it. And if the capital is really such an important aspect for the identity and the names we give to a state. We may as well stop calling the empire the Roman Empire from Aurelian or perhaps even earlier. What is also important is that the great majority of the people who had contacts or lived at the border of Byzantine territory called it the Roman Empire and it's inhabitant's Romans. Except for great parts of Western Christendom since the coronation of Charlemagne. The Roman Empire, by which I mean both state and culture/people existed till 1453. It was the closest state we had to a Nation state in the Middle Ages. The process on the way to an nation state consisting of Romioi with a shared identity, culture and history began with the Edict of Caracalla. Last it was not a Roman Empire, it was the Empire of the Romans. The name Byzantine is nowadays just an historical convenience, most historians acknowledge that is was just the Medieval form of the Roman Empire. Even in our own times there are still people who don't live in Rome but who call themselves Roman. The Romiosi of Ionian Turkey. Sorry for my horrible English and don’t have the time to explain it any further in more detail!
Recommended reading on al sides of the discussion:
Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century
El Cheikh, Byzantium viewed by the Arabs
W. Keagi, Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium
G. Page, Being Byzantine
A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium
M. Whittow, The Making of Byzantium
Posted: 22-Aug-2009 19:28
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
7
That was a truly insightful response. Thank you.
Quite correct that culture is not static or stagnant. Everything from fashions to philosophies to paradigms alter considerably as time passes. Staus quos in those dynamic times were very tenous. Roman history was comprised by dynasties and their presiding Emperor's administration,not as a collective and linearly consistent "Roman history." That is only of course if you consider the empire alone. Think of the Republic v.s. the Triumverates. At the very least the Romioi or "Byzantines" had more claim to be The Roma Empire than the Western Republic of Roma or the Triumverates. Roman culture and military traditions adapted readliy to swiftly shifting balances of power.
It has long been said that Roma conquered Greece only to be conquered
by Greek culture, hence the pantheon being equivalent, i.e. Jupiter and Zeus. If one can say Alexander the Great was a "Greek" conqueror
as opposed to Macedonian or that Celts of Hispaniola and Britannia's Iceni are both "Celts": Why cannot one then say Eastern Rome was Rome? No reason. For that matter the Hellenist Greeks thought Romans
were as "barbarian" as Visigoths or the Keltoi/Celts.
It is though interesting the persistent of that Western Frankish bias in that the Franks would say call the Eastern Emperor," The Emperor of the Greeks" in contempt of the Romioi during the Fourth Crusade.
That's the same mendacity of the term Kaiser or Czar.
I believe it was Voltaire who finally pointed out that "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman." That is the coup de grace.
Posted: 04-Sep-2009 08:43
Report offensive material
|
| Württemberger |
8
i still maintain that the Byzantien Empire was not the Roman Empire but Greek. you all wasted a lot of words explainign how Greek the Romans were but this is not about how Greek the Roman Empire was, but how Roman the Byzantine Emprie was. there are a lot of similarities between Roman and Greek culture but at the end of the day Greek is still distinct from Roman. do you believe Greeks suddenly fell from the sky in the 19th century? of course not. Greeks existed at least 500BC and they exist today. and in between they were still Greek, not Roman or whatever they fancied to call themselves. if we want to be pedantic we need to call it Empire fo Romania but apparently Romania isn't as cool as the Roman Empire. technically they're just as valid "Romans" by your definition as the Sultanate Rum, which translates as Roman Emprie as well. and the Ottoman Emperors amongst others had the title of Roman Emperor. all that doesn't make one Roman. in fact, by pointing our how Greek the Romans were you're just prooving my initial standpoint because the Hellenistic world prooved culturally dominant. you make it sound like byzantium was just the eastern half of the Roman Empire. it wasn't. even well before the establishment of the Roman Empire, the Republic effectively was already an Empire but in name before Augustus. the Greek world was a matter of sattelite states and annexed provinces ADDED to the Roman world, like Egypt, Gallia, Africa or Iberia. and btw, at the time Voltaire said that, the quote was true indeed. incidentally though, Voltaire hismelf was a Xenophobe of the Orient and contributed to the spread of the myth that Mongols were savage barbarians. so much for Englightement.
Posted: 09-Sep-2009 22:25
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
9
But weren't many of the accounts of Mongol atrocities
actually by Asian and MiddleEastern sources? This includes but is not limited to "The Secret History of the Mongols." Not all accounts were by European sources you understand. There are scribic accounts by the Chinese and Persians that confirm that the Mongol atrocities were more
than "a myth" of an unconfirmed oral tradition. Once accounts become
texts by definition they are not "myth" anymore. Once archaeological
and genetic evidence confirms the accounts than neither the terms myth nor legend are applicable in that context. You have not only a consistency between scientific disciplines such as geneticists and and archaeologists but a consistency between peoples who had no prior contact to orchestrate a stylised propaganda. Finally Grunwald and Peipus have enough historic evidence to confirm the written record as the Battle of Leignitz for example.
The same methodology applies to the Roman identity question.
The Roman matter stands as 1453 Rome's Fall.
Posted: 14-Sep-2009 19:19
Report offensive material
|
| Strategos(Kay Boers) |
10
I agree with dragonifier. We must not forget that the name byzantine and that the empire was presumably Greek are some of the great scholarly examples of 'Invented Tradition' that has been unconsciously picked up by historians and non-historians. The Turks of the Sultanate of Rum indeed weren't Romans because they saw themselves as Turks living in Rum (Roman Empire) and being governed by a Sultan. The Ottomans saw themselves as Turks, the adaptation of the title of Roman Emperor by the Sultan was just a way of legitimizing his regime for his newly conquered subjects. Which is of course is another indicator that even the indigenous people of the Morea and the territory around Constantinople still considered themselves Romans and not Greeks. We must also not forget that our word 'Greek' is also an invented tradition, the word Greek referred to a Greek tribe/people which the Romans encountered. Still I do understand(but I do not agree with him) würtenberg's confusion about the supposed 'greekness' and 'Hellenistic character' of the Byzantine Empire(which name is just a scholarly convenience); Indeed the way the empire was governed looked awfully similar to the Hellenistic Kingdoms and indeed most of the written sources are in Greek. But one must not forget that though Hellenistic kingdoms and the byzantine empire look similar, they are still not the same. To say that they are the same is again denying that there doesn't exist historical change. An evolution in the way the Roman Empire was governed in the third century and the transformation to the supposedly 'Hellenistic' byzantine style was completed under Diocletian and Constantine. So the constitution of the Byzantine state is thoroughly roman! Diocletian and Constantine or for that matter Heraclius didn't adopt Hellenistic models of governance! They adopted Persian and Roman models!!! And finally a lot of features of the Byzantine way of rule of monarchy are universal to nearly all monarchies, so please don't mix them up with unique aspects of Hellenistic Kingdoms. And we should stop stating that the byzantine empire had a Greek culture, for what is Greek culture. Greek culture of the archaic period was different from that of the Hellenistic era, and the same goes for the roman and 'byzantine' era's. Next language:)! There was no official language for the roman or the byzantine empires; they merely adapted at the matter at hand. Since the multitude of places comprising the byzantine empire were area's where Greek was spoken and indeed most sources and decrees are written in Greek in those area's. But we must not forget that there were also area's in the Byzantine empire where the official language of government or culture wasn't Greek at al(for example Egypt, Africa, parts of Italy, Spain, Armenia, parts of Syria and Palestine)! The deciding point is that that the people of the 'Byzantine' empire saw themselves as Romans, that their government and state was roman(and for that matter Christian), that their ideology and mentality was roman(and Christian), that being an Roman Christian is to be Orthodox, that the great multitude of neighbors considered the Byzantines to be Romans, that the inhabitants of the empire shared a common background and history and had a common goal for the future as being gods chosen people(the orthodox Christian Romans) who awaited the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. And most important of all they were in possession of Roman citizenship though it had lost it's politically and juridically privileged meaning. What it meant to be Roman changed over the centuries; is the key sentence of my argument. There were no non- Roman conquerors till 1453 who took over the empire.
Posted: 14-Sep-2009 20:31
Report offensive material
|