well KB, you're missing out. one of the more interesting parties i had in DC was when a very drunk politician started to tick off his 100 most favorite presidents....and going into the history behind it, with exaggerated hand gestures.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Byzantine and Rome
Collapse
X
-
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
-
Existing(1000yrs) during one fifth of written history(5000yrs) and inpiring Ottomans and Modern Turkey with his organisation scheme and his establisments is a lot to me.
Eastern Rome was a great Empire...Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
Comment
-
Originally posted by philipjd View PostIn my view - the Byzantinie Empire IS the Roman empire, there is no difference between the two. The fact that the capital moved to Constantinople is irrelevent. The confusion arises due to the existance of a state with it's capital in Rome also calling itself the Roman Empire.
To me, the Byzantine Empire is (except for the very early years) a quite separate offshoot of the Roman Empire, and in fact a rival for resources.
It was always Greek culturally, and by the seventh century, the pretence of Latin as an official language was ditched altogether.
You could even argue that Charlemagne and his Frankish descendants were closer than the Byzantines to Rome. They were Roman Catholics who spoke Romance languages, for starters.
Comment
-
Originally posted by clackers View PostHi Phil,
To me, the Byzantine Empire is (except for the very early years) a quite separate offshoot of the Roman Empire, and in fact a rival for resources.
It was always Greek culturally, and by the seventh century, the pretence of Latin as an official language was ditched altogether.
You could even argue that Charlemagne and his Frankish descendants were closer than the Byzantines to Rome. They were Roman Catholics who spoke Romance languages, for starters.
As for Charlemagne he was still more a germanic king than the successor of the roman emperors. He was crowned Emperor but he never specified of what, and well, for the right of the Pope to name the true successor of Augustus I'm pretty certain it caused some chuckles in Constantinople.
After all, the schism of 1054, beyond the theological jargon, is a quarrel between the supporters of the "roman" tradition (the Emperor is the head and sole protector of the church) and the bishop of Rome, who proclaimed himself independent vis a vis the emperor since the latter couldn't defend the old imperial capital anymore.
Comment
-
I am more than a little surprised at the Byzantinephobia here, in the grand olf tradition of Gibbons.
Byzantium was never used by Eastern Roman Empire.........ever. It was invented by a german historian sometime after 1453 and his name escapes me. Rome and Italy generally had ceased to be the center of the empire politically from at least Dicoletians times, and maybe even before, when the Western Empire fell its capital was at Ravenna (north of the Rubicon BTW) rather than Rome. So It was the Roman empire through lineage.
Culturally its a different question. There is no doubt that the East even in the united empire was heavily hellenized, but there is no doubt that at different times it held a lot of the united empires territory. I would say that the best answer is that a metamorphisis took place which transformed it from a world empire to one which was basically a Greek near abroad empire. Rather like Rome went from a city state to an empire, but in reverse. I would say it began post Justinian, accelerated in Herculius era and was exacerbated by the Arab calamity, and was more or less complete by the time Basil II came around."Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralisramileus,
while it is true that the byzantines called themselves roman, this was just name only. even the prestige language of the byzantines (greek) was different.
so the question here is, what is the "very identification of the roman empire"? a time traveler from augustus's rome or even from the early eastern roman empire days would have found constantinople in its heyday of the late 700s-800s a very strange place.
Comment
-
The people of the United States purposely made sure to change their government and culture to spite that of the British. While the Goverment and Culture of the Roman Empire (and many pretenders) tried so hard to maintain it (or pretend to inherit it)
That being said, I think the Rome/Constantinople anolgy does hold SOME water but they are not perfectly parallel. I personally think that if the Crown had allowed the colonies to have their own parliment that we in the States today would be a Commonwealth of Great Britan. Isn't that a scary thought....Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersNot really revelant to Ramileus's post and sorry to Ramileus, that's really ignorance speaking. There was a big difference between a citizen of Rome and a citizen of Constantinople of the same time period. They may share the same heritage but they were two different Empires.
Language, currency, customs, religion, government, laws, weapons and tactics always in flux never static.
Comment
-
For Centuries the Catholic Church (Pope) and leaders of the German Nations hungered to inherit the authority of the Roman Emperors. The Pope literally took on the role of tradional Roman Emperor to dictate affairs of religion and of Kings.
The Emperors in Constantinople, as long as they were there and called themselves the Romans, defied and challenged the Pope and German Princes for this authority. This is a documented feud between the two factions, both claimed the authority of Roman Emperor.
The victor always dictates history , sadly the victor scews the truth to fit its own perspective or agenda.
In this case the Romans in Constantinople were defeated, in the east most people, especially of Orthodox and Muslim religion still considered Consantinople the fallen capital of the Roman Empire. While in the west the church and Holy Roman Empire breathed a sigh of relief, their rival to the title of Roman Emperor was dead.
The remnants of this feud and respect for the power of the Roman Emperors survives today in many real ways both in Catholic Rome and Orthodox East, not to mention in laws, language, art and a host of other facets of modern day cultures.
The West did a fabulous job of burying the Roman Empire under the gravestone of Byzantine to bolster its claim. Even today so many are confused about what happened to the Roman Empire, when it really died and where it moved after Rome.
Today, we should be able to get past the feud and its status quo false name and right the wrongs of history.
(I am happy to see this topic even discussed and value all the different points of view)
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostLanguage, currency, customs, religion, government, laws, weapons and tactics always in flux never static.
Originally posted by Ramileus View PostFor Centuries the Catholic Church (Pope) and leaders of the German Nations hungered to inherit the authority of the Roman Emperors. The Pope literally took on the role of tradional Roman Emperor to dictate affairs of religion and of Kings.
The Emperors in Constantinople, as long as they were there and called themselves the Romans, defied and challenged the Pope and German Princes for this authority. This is a documented feud between the two factions, both claimed the authority of Roman Emperor.
Good luck with that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Equilibrium View PostSo powerful was the symbolism of the Roman Empire, that when Mehmet II conquered Constantinople in 1453, he claimed he was the inheritor of the legacy of the Roman Empire and proclaimed himself Caesar to legitimize his European ambitions.
Mehmet the Conqueror was of course no Roman but i wonder that if he had that right because of the conquest or no? I mean titles in those days could be captured, is that wrong?.Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
Comment
-
Many Russians feel so strongly over there claim over the "Roaman Empire" that many consider Russia the "Third Rome."
Mehmet went so far as to call himself, "Kayser-i Rūm."
As far as my own personal views go, Rome was the, "Mother of the World" as many historians have quoted. Rome is dead. Wether she died in 453 or 1453, she is dead, but she formed the foundation of the Western World as we know it. That is the important thing to remember here.Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd Z, there lies the point. Who determines who is Roman? The only obvious answer is that those who live in Rome. The culture, power, prestige may change but to argue the Byzantium Empire is a Roman Empire ignores the evolution of Rome.
So you are saying that the Greek Orthodox in Ankara, Turkey ... or in Moscow, has the right to tell the Roman Catholics in Rome that they're not Romans.
Good luck with that.
Comment
Comment