4 ms·

I don't understand why it's called 'elusive' since we have a lot of its history well written and generally it's not trying to hide itself. There was a certain a

by seydor 2y ago

I don't understand why it's called 'elusive' since we have a lot of its history well written and generally it's not trying to hide itself. There was a certain animosity in early historians (hence why it was called Byzantine, even though it s basically the christian period of the Roman empire), but that was centuries ago. It's elusive only because people ignored it

nemo 2y ago
>To begin at the beginning is tricky. Did the empire begin when the emperor Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in 324? When the city was consecrated by both pagan and Christian priests in May 330? Or did it begin in 395 when the two halves of the vast Roman empire were officially divided into East and West, or even later in the late 5th century when Rome was sacked, conquered and governed by the Goths, leaving Constantinople and the East as the sole heir of the empire? The article explained this here. It is elusive, when the Romans stop being Roman and start being Byzantine is a line drawn in the sand.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  Romans never called themselves Byzantine. What nonsense. There was the Roman Empire founded by Augustus and that entity survived continuously. The people who lived in these areas called themselves Romans for 1000+ years. The term 'roman' was still very much in use during the Greek Revolution. The capital had not been in Rome for a while, the capital going to Constantinople doesn't change anything. Neither does becoming Christian.
  - nemo 2y ago
    Yes, the Romans never called themselves Byzantine and personally I prefer sticking with the term "later Roman," "Eastern Roman", etc. but if you're speaking English with other English speaking people in the US then the term "Byzantine" is all they're going to understand. I collect Roman coins from the Republic, through the Imperial period, Dominate, later Roman, and into the late Eastern Roman stuff, my favorite that I'm working on is the Macedonian dynasty. I just got back from a trip to Istanbul and I was thrilled at seeing the Roman stuff, the Hagia Sophia is incredible, but even there in Istanbul the later Roman stuff was sometimes labelled "Byzantine" in write ups with English text. When I go looking for later Roman coins, I hit the "Byzantine" section. When I want to read more about the history of the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantine, the books I read usually have "Byzantine" or "Byzantium" in the title. While I personally avoid the term, one should be realistic about the world you live in and choose to communicate clearly rather than ideologically. With me, "Roman" is better, but in general parlance, it's not necessarily cut and dry. I said that the term "Byzantine" is a line drawn in the sand to emphasize that it's an arbitrary term that's not grounded in anything specific, for what it's worth.
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      The way you phrased it indicated that the Romans drew this line. Hence my response.
- asdasdsddd 2y ago
  The "Byzantines" considered themselves roman until the very end. The name Byzantine was post humous
  - xeromal 2y ago
    The ottomans also considered themselves Roman but doesn't mean they should be historically
    - whobre 2y ago
      Ottomans never considered themselves Roman. They did consider themselves the rulers of the Romans, i.e the Greek speaking Christians.
    - DonnieP 2y ago
      One is not like the other. Constantinople was formally established as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. It never stopped being that until it fell to the Crusaders in the 13th century. Its citizens called themselves Roman simply because that's what they were. After the Western Empire fell, they were the only "Romans" left (i.e., of the empire). On the other hand, the Ottomans considered themselves Roman simply because they _conquered_ "Rum" (Constantinople) in the 15th century - the Ottomans recognized which empire Constantinople actually was. And, the Romanovs in Russia considered themselves Roman because they married into the family. The concept of "Byzantine" as something distinct that Constantinople "changed" into is an invention of Roman Catholic and Holy Roman Empire scholars after Constantinople had fallen and finally after all those years no longer stood in the way of the Vatican's claim to a temporal empire which they felt inherited the "Roman Empire" glory.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
farnerup 2y ago
From reading Alf Henriksson's "Byzantinsk Historia", I gather that one problem with writing a history of Eastern Rome is that they wrote about war and politics and lots and lots about christian doctrine but precious little on other subjects, so we know all we care to know about various christian sects and which emperor assassinated which, but not much about art, science or daily life. Being emperor wasn't something you did for your health, by the way. The book ends by saying that only 34 out of 107 emperors died of natural causes.
- seydor 2y ago
  typical by roman standards
bnralt 2y ago
I wouldn’t say it’s ignored. Among the general population, the best known polities in the world from 500-1000 (which is a huge stretch of time) are probably the Byzantine Empire, the Tang Dynasty, the Carolingian Empire and the Caliphates.
iisan7 2y ago
I would argue it continues to be elusive, because it's hidden from plain view. For example byzantine ruins are often not restored, and not in demand by tourists. They are often removed to get to the classical bones beneath, or restored to a pre-byzantine state because that's where the interest lies. Western European funds and institutions have played a large role in archaeological activities in the eastern Mediterranean, and the byzantine period has little resonance with the philhellenes.

by seydor 2y ago

nemo 2y ago

>To begin at the beginning is tricky. Did the empire begin when the emperor Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in 324? When the city was consecrated by both pagan and Christian priests in May 330? Or did it begin in 395 when the two halves of the vast Roman empire were officially divided into East and West, or even later in the late 5th century when Rome was sacked, conquered and governed by the Goths, leaving Constantinople and the East as the sole heir of the empire? The article explained this here. It is elusive, when the Romans stop being Roman and start being Byzantine is a line drawn in the sand.

panick21_ 2y ago
Romans never called themselves Byzantine. What nonsense. There was the Roman Empire founded by Augustus and that entity survived continuously. The people who lived in these areas called themselves Romans for 1000+ years. The term 'roman' was still very much in use during the Greek Revolution. The capital had not been in Rome for a while, the capital going to Constantinople doesn't change anything. Neither does becoming Christian.
- nemo 2y ago
  Yes, the Romans never called themselves Byzantine and personally I prefer sticking with the term "later Roman," "Eastern Roman", etc. but if you're speaking English with other English speaking people in the US then the term "Byzantine" is all they're going to understand. I collect Roman coins from the Republic, through the Imperial period, Dominate, later Roman, and into the late Eastern Roman stuff, my favorite that I'm working on is the Macedonian dynasty. I just got back from a trip to Istanbul and I was thrilled at seeing the Roman stuff, the Hagia Sophia is incredible, but even there in Istanbul the later Roman stuff was sometimes labelled "Byzantine" in write ups with English text. When I go looking for later Roman coins, I hit the "Byzantine" section. When I want to read more about the history of the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantine, the books I read usually have "Byzantine" or "Byzantium" in the title. While I personally avoid the term, one should be realistic about the world you live in and choose to communicate clearly rather than ideologically. With me, "Roman" is better, but in general parlance, it's not necessarily cut and dry. I said that the term "Byzantine" is a line drawn in the sand to emphasize that it's an arbitrary term that's not grounded in anything specific, for what it's worth.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    The way you phrased it indicated that the Romans drew this line. Hence my response.
asdasdsddd 2y ago
The "Byzantines" considered themselves roman until the very end. The name Byzantine was post humous
- xeromal 2y ago
  The ottomans also considered themselves Roman but doesn't mean they should be historically
  - whobre 2y ago
    Ottomans never considered themselves Roman. They did consider themselves the rulers of the Romans, i.e the Greek speaking Christians.
  - DonnieP 2y ago
    One is not like the other. Constantinople was formally established as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. It never stopped being that until it fell to the Crusaders in the 13th century. Its citizens called themselves Roman simply because that's what they were. After the Western Empire fell, they were the only "Romans" left (i.e., of the empire). On the other hand, the Ottomans considered themselves Roman simply because they _conquered_ "Rum" (Constantinople) in the 15th century - the Ottomans recognized which empire Constantinople actually was. And, the Romanovs in Russia considered themselves Roman because they married into the family. The concept of "Byzantine" as something distinct that Constantinople "changed" into is an invention of Roman Catholic and Holy Roman Empire scholars after Constantinople had fallen and finally after all those years no longer stood in the way of the Vatican's claim to a temporal empire which they felt inherited the "Roman Empire" glory.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

farnerup 2y ago

From reading Alf Henriksson's "Byzantinsk Historia", I gather that one problem with writing a history of Eastern Rome is that they wrote about war and politics and lots and lots about christian doctrine but precious little on other subjects, so we know all we care to know about various christian sects and which emperor assassinated which, but not much about art, science or daily life. Being emperor wasn't something you did for your health, by the way. The book ends by saying that only 34 out of 107 emperors died of natural causes.

seydor 2y ago
typical by roman standards

bnralt 2y ago

I wouldn’t say it’s ignored. Among the general population, the best known polities in the world from 500-1000 (which is a huge stretch of time) are probably the Byzantine Empire, the Tang Dynasty, the Carolingian Empire and the Caliphates.

iisan7 2y ago

I would argue it continues to be elusive, because it's hidden from plain view. For example byzantine ruins are often not restored, and not in demand by tourists. They are often removed to get to the classical bones beneath, or restored to a pre-byzantine state because that's where the interest lies. Western European funds and institutions have played a large role in archaeological activities in the eastern Mediterranean, and the byzantine period has little resonance with the philhellenes.