3 ms·

The Byzantines didn’t last all that long as anything recognizably Roman. By 641 they had lost 75% of their prior tax base. They pushed out now and again but we

by graeme 2y ago

The Byzantines didn’t last all that long as anything recognizably Roman. By 641 they had lost 75% of their prior tax base. They pushed out now and again but were largely Greece and Anatolia for much of their history after that.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Recognizably roman to whom? They recognized themselves as roman, as did their peer polities in the region. That's not the only useful answer to this question but it's not a small thing either.
- graeme 2y ago
  I should have been more precise. I meant in terms of being like the old Roman Empire. More in terms of vastness than anything. The army for example had dropped about 75% in size by the timeframe I mentioned. And this is only the eastern half of the former empire. So the empire was a shell of itself in terms of extent. Would be as if California, Nevada and Oregon lived on as “Western America” in 2400 with continuity of govt. Impressive in some way but also nothing a contemporary from our time would recognize as being “The United States”.
  - cm2187 2y ago
    Even the western roman empire wasn't really roman anymore. The emperor was not Italian, not based in Rome, and often with a disdain toward Rome, the vast majority of the army wasn't Italian either. But the eastern roman empire was probably even less of an empire than it was roman. The definition of an "empire" is to rule over many kingdoms. When you are reduced to your own territory, you really aren't an empire anymore.
- paganel 2y ago
  > They recognized themselves as roman They didn't speak a Romance language, for example, under that respect they were certainly not Roman.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    Western Romans, esp the elite, had already spoken Greek for hundreds of years at that point, and huge parts of the population of the west spoke Gaulish, Germanic, Celtic etc etc languages for hundreds of years too. So that's kind of a non argument.
    - paganel 2y ago
      Those Gaulish, Germanic and Celtic elements were becoming Romans as a result of them starting speaking Latin/the Vulgata, the same goes for all the peoples living at the periphery of the Empire. If you were still speaking Celt/German or whatever you were not a Roman, you were a barbarian. In the Italian peninsula the only part where Greek might have still been a thing is of course Magna Grecia, but that’s a special case. Curious of how many Greek graffitis have been discovered in Pompeii.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    This seems like an incredibly retrospective view of romanicity tbh. That part of the empire had always spoken greek, and had never afaik been considered less roman for it.
    - paganel 2y ago
      > and had never afaik been considered less roman for it. That's quite debatable, as those parts (Western Anatolia, present-day Syria, the old Orient as a whole) had always been more advanced from a "civilisational" point of view (compared to Rome, that is), and hence them viewing themselves as Romans first and foremost would have been a "spiritual" demotion.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        I didn't say they viewed themselves "first and foremost" as romans, where are you getting that? I'm pointing out that their using greek didn't count against what they & others considered to be their "romanness" before the western empire fell, so why are you looking at it that way now? To be honest I'm not really certain what you're trying to claim though so maybe the distinction is useful for your point. But anyway "to what extent & by whose measure were the eastern romans, and later the byzantines, roman" is one of the most active & scrutinized questions of one of the most visible and prestigious branches of historical scholarship. And the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that they were roman by any standard that applied in their time and most that we can come up with as well. "They spoke greek and weren't roman because of that" hasn't been a serious reputable stance on the subject for a few generations now.

by graeme 2y ago

giraffe_lady 2y ago

Recognizably roman to whom? They recognized themselves as roman, as did their peer polities in the region. That's not the only useful answer to this question but it's not a small thing either.

graeme 2y ago
I should have been more precise. I meant in terms of being like the old Roman Empire. More in terms of vastness than anything. The army for example had dropped about 75% in size by the timeframe I mentioned. And this is only the eastern half of the former empire. So the empire was a shell of itself in terms of extent. Would be as if California, Nevada and Oregon lived on as “Western America” in 2400 with continuity of govt. Impressive in some way but also nothing a contemporary from our time would recognize as being “The United States”.
- cm2187 2y ago
  Even the western roman empire wasn't really roman anymore. The emperor was not Italian, not based in Rome, and often with a disdain toward Rome, the vast majority of the army wasn't Italian either. But the eastern roman empire was probably even less of an empire than it was roman. The definition of an "empire" is to rule over many kingdoms. When you are reduced to your own territory, you really aren't an empire anymore.
paganel 2y ago
> They recognized themselves as roman They didn't speak a Romance language, for example, under that respect they were certainly not Roman.
- bedobi 2y ago
  Western Romans, esp the elite, had already spoken Greek for hundreds of years at that point, and huge parts of the population of the west spoke Gaulish, Germanic, Celtic etc etc languages for hundreds of years too. So that's kind of a non argument.
  - paganel 2y ago
    Those Gaulish, Germanic and Celtic elements were becoming Romans as a result of them starting speaking Latin/the Vulgata, the same goes for all the peoples living at the periphery of the Empire. If you were still speaking Celt/German or whatever you were not a Roman, you were a barbarian. In the Italian peninsula the only part where Greek might have still been a thing is of course Magna Grecia, but that’s a special case. Curious of how many Greek graffitis have been discovered in Pompeii.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  This seems like an incredibly retrospective view of romanicity tbh. That part of the empire had always spoken greek, and had never afaik been considered less roman for it.
  - paganel 2y ago
    > and had never afaik been considered less roman for it. That's quite debatable, as those parts (Western Anatolia, present-day Syria, the old Orient as a whole) had always been more advanced from a "civilisational" point of view (compared to Rome, that is), and hence them viewing themselves as Romans first and foremost would have been a "spiritual" demotion.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      I didn't say they viewed themselves "first and foremost" as romans, where are you getting that? I'm pointing out that their using greek didn't count against what they & others considered to be their "romanness" before the western empire fell, so why are you looking at it that way now? To be honest I'm not really certain what you're trying to claim though so maybe the distinction is useful for your point. But anyway "to what extent & by whose measure were the eastern romans, and later the byzantines, roman" is one of the most active & scrutinized questions of one of the most visible and prestigious branches of historical scholarship. And the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that they were roman by any standard that applied in their time and most that we can come up with as well. "They spoke greek and weren't roman because of that" hasn't been a serious reputable stance on the subject for a few generations now.