Why the BYZ love?

[Emperor of Europe]

The Byzantines?

Try Webster's.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Where did the Arabs get the texts from?

Anyway, ancient knowledge was mainained in Byzantium. Plato was the most famous of the ancient philosophers in the empire.

In spite of it, you should say. Byzantine officialdom was very destructive of Classical Greek culture in Greece. There is very little continuity. And what we do find had to be concealed away under multiple layers of inane Christian scaffolding.

As to answer the answer: where did the Arabs get the texts? In part from scholars hounded & exiled out of the Eastern domains, when the Byzzies shut down the lay academies for peddling 'enlightened paganism'.

So when crediting a handful of brave Byzantine scholars with "preserving" Classical scholarship, remember, they were preserving it from the ravages of the Byzantines themselves.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

To nitpick, the closing of the Athenian school and main campaign against pagan learnings (although, again, we are primarily talking philosophy here - the campaign was more against pagan hellenistic philosophy than ancient practical texts) in Byzantium occured before the arab invasion - the 6th century primarily (Justinian did more than overextend the empire). So, we have disobedient orthodox monks and sassanian pagan persians, followed by the muslims and the latin westerners, to thank for the survival of the texts. And early modern scholars, of course, who did not as much make them survive as worked to gather them together in one place.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Where did the Arabs get the texts from?

In part from Egypt and Syria, in part, as Abdul already said, from refugees/renegates of the ERE.

Anyway, ancient knowledge was mainained in Byzantium. Plato was the most famous of the ancient philosophers in the empire.

Not much different from the rest of Europe, then. Do you think it's just random chance that Catholic Europe came in contact with Aristotle and other ancient texts through Cordoba and Muslims scholars, rather than via Constantinople?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Aristoteles was widely available continually in "dark age" Europe - his writings were part of the trivium , for example. Plato, on the other hand...

 

[Ming]

Where did the Arabs get the texts from?

Wave 1: Mostly from the (Syriac Christian) students at the Medical Academy of Jundi-Shapur. Early Caliphs employed a number as personal physicians and viziers, they were the only group that remained in Conquered middle east with a scholarly tradition in continuity with the Greek World, and along with Syriac clergy had Syriac translations of Greek texts, concentrating on medicine.

Wave 2: Later Arabic scholars didn't like the sometimes imprecise translations of the earlier Syrians. They produced complimentary and supplementary translations from the original texts for a more precise scientific understanding. These were gathered from other places, as well as refugees and newly conquered groups. This is what most people in the thread have already mentioned, I believe.

 

[lordy80011]

"Officially put in question"? Eh, by whom? The UN?

For its contemporaries there was nothing Roman about the Byzantine Empire. It was known as the Greek Empire by anyone but the Byzantines themselves. For them it had the very obvious and welcome sideeffect that it justified their attempts to conquor the territories previously held by the Roman Empire.

The Byzantine Empire was made up of Greeks, who spoke Greek, wrote Greek and were rooted much more in a Hellenistic culture than in anything Roman.

rgds/EoE

If we are going to look at culture to determine who was "Roman" or not, then you can also hardly say that the western Romans of the 5th Century were Roman either. After all, they were far different than the Romans of Augustus' and Julius Caesar's time. For that matter, the Romans of Augustus' era were quite a bit different than those of the old Kingdom of Rome.

The political continuity continued until 1453 from what we call the "Roman Empire". To attempt to make the claim that the "Byzantine Empire" was not the "Roman Empire" is to split hairs. In which case, it is hypocritical to split hairs on this point, and not make similar distinctions (and name changes) to reflect the alterations of the western Romans over time as well.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

If we are going to look at culture to determine who was "Roman" or not, then you can also hardly say that the western Romans of the 5th Century were Roman either. After all, they were far different than the Romans of Augustus' and Julius Caesar's time. For that matter, the Romans of Augustus' era were quite a bit different than those of the old Kingdom of Rome.

If culture doesn't define a people, then what does? The Romans of the 5th century developed directly from the Romans of Augustus', Julius Caesar's and Tullus Hostilius' time. The Roman Empire in the east did not. They were a conquered people who after the decline of Roman power reverted to their native language and culture. The Byzantine Empire was a hellenized empire that had little to do with anything Roman.

The political continuity continued until 1453 from what we call the "Roman Empire". To attempt to make the claim that the "Byzantine Empire" was not the "Roman Empire" is to split hairs. In which case, it is hypocritical to split hairs on this point, and not make similar distinctions (and name changes) to reflect the alterations of the western Romans over time as well.

Hypocritical? Splitting hairs? Calm down, will you? There's a world of difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. And to claim a political continuity until 1453 is really a wide stretch.

Has anyone here ever seen the candid camera footage of a woman trying to wrap three balloons up in some gift wrapping that is just a little too small? After much huffing and puffing and lots of duct tape she actually did it. But the package sure wasn't a pretty sight. Neither is a Roman Empire that is shoehorned into a continued existence until 1453. It's a shaky construction at best, it belittles the Byzantine Empire and it doesn't do anyone any good except for Roman fanboys.

rgds/EoE

 

[Basileios I]

If culture doesn't define a people, then what does? The Romans of the 5th century developed directly from the Romans of Augustus', Julius Caesar's and Tullus Hostilius' time. The Roman Empire in the east did not. They were a conquered people who after the decline of Roman power reverted to their native language and culture. The Byzantine Empire was a hellenized empire that had little to do with anything Roman.

You should realise that they never "reverted" to their native language. The lingua franca of the East was always Greek.

And the whole structure of the ERE, its administration, laws and army were a continuation of the older Roman structures ... so "there was nothing Roman about it" is just wrong ...

I think you are mixing up ethnicity and state here ... many Roman emperors came from non "ethnic Roman" regions (Philippus Arabs for example). Was the empire still Roman then?

Hypocritical? Splitting hairs? Calm down, will you? There's a world of difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. And to claim a political continuity until 1453 is really a wide stretch.

Structures of the late antique state were still visible until 1204. If there was a true breaking point, then 1204. Before 1204 it was in parts still recognisable as the state Justinian once ruled, except for the (official) language.

So of course there was political continuity. The line of Eastern Emperors was only broken in 1204. Before, one emperor followed the other in Constantinople.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

You should realise that they never "reverted" to their native language. The lingua franca of the East was always Greek.

And the language of the Roman Empire was latin. In the administration, in the army and in the rest of societies institutions. In the Hellinized Byzantine Empire that all got tossed out and became greek. They tried to hold on to laws in latin for a while, but it was already a dead language.

And the whole structure of the ERE, its administration, laws and army were a continuation of the older Roman structures ...

It's administration changed, it's army wasn't based on heavy infantry, it wasn't based on the legion/cohort(centurie system and all in all had a lot more to do with Byzantines Empires enemies than with anything Roman. What is it you find so extremely Roman in the armies of the Komnian period? The "Roman" horsearchers? The "Roman" varangians?

I think you are mixing up ethnicity and state here ...

No.

many Roman emperors came from non "ethnic Roman" regions (Philippus Arabs for example). Was the empire still Roman then?

Of course. And even before Columbus people knew that the earth could be circumnavigated. So is the earth flat?

Structures of the late antique state were still visible until 1204. If there was a true breaking point, then 1204. Before 1204 it was in parts still recognisable as the state Justinian once ruled, except for the (official) language.

So if a Roman physical, political or cultural structure is still visible somewhere in a nation, that nations has got to be Roman. Well, case closed then. The Roman Empire still exists to this day. Do you call the newspapers, or do you want me to do it?

So of course there was political continuity. The line of Eastern Emperors was only broken in 1204. Before, one emperor followed the other in Constantinople.

That would be a case of broken continuity then? Very Orwell. Political continuity isn't about having a continuous line of emperors. Then you might as well argue that Francis II's empire actually was Roman. Time to call the newspapers again.

/EoE

 

[Basileios I]

And the language of the Roman Empire was latin. In the administration, in the army and in the rest of societies institutions. In the Hellinized Byzantine Empire that all got tossed out and became greek. They tried to hold on to laws in latin for a while, but it was already a dead language.

In the East, Greek was the language of daily use, commerce and even in eastern army units and the local administration it was more common than Latin.

It's administration changed, it's army wasn't based on heavy infantry, it wasn't based on the legion/cohort(centurie system and all in all had a lot more to do with Byzantines Empires enemies than with anything Roman. What is it you find so extremely Roman in the armies of the Komnian period? The "Roman" horsearchers? The "Roman" varangians?

Wow. What an argument to back your thesis. The United States military of 1900 was very different from the present-day military. So according to your logic the United States are not the real United States anymore? :wacko:

And you should know that also the western army was very different and based on cavalry in 400 rather than infantry. And that the "Byzantine Army", maintained a similar level of discipline and was recognisable as a late Roman army until about 800 (after which Nikephoros and other emperors reorganised the army to become more offensive, reacting to the changing political situation).

And what great administrative changes happened before 1071? The Theme system is the only significant one and it was necessary as a reaction to the new threat by the Arabs and vital to the ability of the state to raise large armies and thus ensure its survival. It was very defencive.

Of course. And even before Columbus people knew that the earth could be circumnavigated. So is the earth flat?

So if a Roman physical, political or cultural structure is still visible somewhere in a nation, that nations has got to be Roman. Well, case closed then. The Roman Empire still exists to this day. Do you call the newspapers, or do you want me to do it?

Well, if it is a direct, unbroken continuation of the earlier Roman state? If it's armies were marching for the Roman Empire and his emperor was Roman and could look back on a tradition streching to Diocletian or even Augustus?

And if most of its contemporaries (except Catholic Europeans after (!) 900) called it Roman?

That would be a case of broken continuity then? Very Orwell. Political continuity isn't about having a continuous line of emperors. Then you might as well argue that Francis II's empire actually was Roman.

Where is the continuation?



Anyway, I accept "Byzantine" as a modern term to distinguish that chapter of Roman history from ancient history. But claiming that it was not the Roman Empire is just utterly wrong.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

*g*
are you two still at it?

 

[Keyser Pacha]

It's administration changed, it's army wasn't based on heavy infantry, it wasn't based on the legion/cohort(centurie system and all in all had a lot more to do with Byzantines Empires enemies than with anything Roman. What is it you find so extremely Roman in the armies of the Komnian period? The "Roman" horsearchers? The "Roman" varangians?

And what about the "roman horsearchers" of the west, the "roman cataphracts", the "roman foederati", the "roman lanciarii" etc.
By the way are you aware that the legion and cohort system was almost unrecognisable in the late army ?

 

[Emperor of Europe]

In the East, Greek was the language of daily use, commerce and even in eastern army units and the local administration it was more common than Latin.

But in the Eastern Roman Empire the language of the rulers and of the administration was latin. That changed in the thoroughly Hellenized Byzantine Empire that the rest of the world called the Empire of the Greeks. The Greeks. Not the Romans.

Wow. What an argument to back your thesis. The United States military of 1900 was very different from the present-day military. So according to your logic the United States are not the real United States anymore? :wacko:

And you should know that also the western army was very different and based on cavalry in 400 rather than infantry. And that the "Byzantine Army", maintained a similar level of discipline and was recognisable as a late Roman army until about 800 (after which Nikephoros and other emperors reorganised the army to become more offensive, reacting to the changing political situation).

You want me to repeat my question? Okay, what exactly is Roman about the Byzantine Army? You mention discipline, how exactly do you measure that and call it Roman? You mention 'recognisable'. What is that supposed to mean?

And what great administrative changes happened before 1071? The Theme system is the only significant one and it was necessary as a reaction to the new threat by the Arabs and vital to the ability of the state to raise large armies and thus ensure its survival. It was very defencive.

I don't care about the reasons. I care about the fact that it wasn't Roman.

Exactly how I felt, when you presented your straw-man argument about Roman emperors with another ethnicity than Roman.

Well, if it is a direct, unbroken continuation of the earlier Roman state? If it's armies were marching for the Roman Empire and his emperor was Roman and could look back on a tradition streching to Diocletian or even Augustus?

And if most of its contemporaries (except Catholic Europeans after (!) 900) called it Roman?

As I already mentioned: It's not about the emperors, it's about society. What you refer to as an unbroken string of emperor's is nothing but the very typical way in which kingdoms and empires shifted hands in those days: One killing the other and usurping the throne. There is nothing uniquely Roman about that.

And as for the contemporaries? The ONLY ONES who called the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire were the Byzantines themselves. To the rest of the world it was the Empire of the Greeks? Why? Because they had a Greek, Hellenistic culture, spoke Greek, were ruled by Greeks, had a Greek army and had their base of power in Greece.

/EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

And what about the "roman horsearchers" of the west, the "roman cataphracts", the "roman foederati", the "roman lanciarii" etc.

I had no idea the Romans got horsearchers in the west. Got a source for that? Anyway, what is your question? The Romans copied elements of their enemies, and put them to use either as auxilia or new units. So? What I'm asking about is simply what it is that supposedly made the Byzantine army a Roman army. Because when I look at it, I see nothing uniquely Roman about it.

By the way are you aware that the legion and cohort system was almost unrecognisable in the late army ?

Yes.

rgds/EoE

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Aristoteles was widely available continually in "dark age" Europe - his writings were part of the trivium , for example. Plato, on the other hand...

AFAIK, Aristotle's works weren't widely read in Western Europe until Aquinas (who in turn based his interpretation to a significant part on Ibn Rushd's commentaries) made them popular again.

 

[Basileios I]

But in the Eastern Roman Empire the language of the rulers and of the administration was latin.

You know that by then (Late Antiquity), the idea of "Roman" and "Roman Empire" had long departed from its roots in Latin Italy? The change of the administrative language by Herakleios merely recognised the situation in the eastern part of the Empire (as it had been for centuries). Keeping Latin as administrative language wasn't necessary, because only a few people used it anyway.

You want me to repeat my question? Okay, what exactly is Roman about the Byzantine Army? You mention discipline, how exactly do you measure that and call it Roman? You mention 'recognisable'. What is that supposed to mean?

That the structures of the Diocletian army survived well into the Byzantine period.

And now you tell me what is Roman about the late Western Roman army, which was completely different from the late Republican/early Imperial army?

I don't care about the reasons. I care about the fact that it wasn't Roman.

So it's not Roman because you don't call it that way anymore? So it's basically your personal opinion. Not a fact.

Exactly how I felt, when you presented your straw-man argument about Roman emperors with another ethnicity than Roman.

How is that a straw-man argument? You claimed that the Greek "Byzantine" emperors couldn't be Roman emperors because they were Greek. But Arabs or Germans could? :wacko:

As I already mentioned: It's not about the emperors, it's about society. What you refer to as an unbroken string of emperor's is nothing but the very typical way in which kingdoms and empires shifted hands in those days: One killing the other and usurping the throne. There is nothing uniquely Roman about that.

Go read about late Roman history then. Western Empire.

And as for the contemporaries? The ONLY ONES who called the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire were the Byzantines themselves. To the rest of the world it was the Empire of the Greeks? Why? Because they had a Greek, Hellenistic culture, spoke Greek, were ruled by Greeks, had a Greek army and had their base of power in Greece.

Huh? You should really read some more on the subject. You are wrong. The Arabs called them "Romans" and the emperor "Roman Emperor". The Turks called them Romans. The Slavs called them Romans. It was only the Catholic West after the coronation of Charlemagne which began to call the Empire "Greek Empire" or "Constantinopolitan Empire". So it was basically everyone except the West, who had its own Roman Empire in the form of the Frankish and later Ottonian state (conflicting with the "Byzantine" claim).

And the centre of the Empire was not Greece. Greece was of only marginal importance. In fact it was, except for some coastal regions, controled by the Slavs for some time (600 - 800). Asia Minor was the most important region.

 

[Basileios I]

I had no idea the Romans got horsearchers in the west. Got a source for that? Anyway, what is your question? The Romans copied elements of their enemies, and put them to use either as auxilia or new units. So? What I'm asking about is simply what it is that supposedly made the Byzantine army a Roman army. Because when I look at it, I see nothing uniquely Roman about it.

Did you know that the Romans copied almost everything (good) from their enemies? Same goes for the "Byzantines". Armies change and adapt to new circumstances over time.

 

[Keyser Pacha]

And as for the contemporaries? The ONLY ONES who called the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire were the Byzantines themselves. To the rest of the world it was the Empire of the Greeks? Why? Because they had a Greek, Hellenistic culture, spoke Greek, were ruled by Greeks, had a Greek army and had their base of power in Greece.

/EoE

And the slavs, russ, persians, arabs, turks, tatars etc

I had no idea the Romans got horsearchers in the west. Got a source for that? Anyway, what is your question? The Romans copied elements of their enemies, and put them to use either as auxilia or new units. So? What I'm asking about is simply what it is that supposedly made the Byzantine army a Roman army. Because when I look at it, I see nothing uniquely Roman about it.

Yes, various Notitia...
The most well known and easily accessible on the net being the Notitia Dignitatum wich list several units of equites Sagitarii.
Then you also have the hunnic allies and auxiliary.

But anyway, what is your point ?
The byzantine copied elements of their ennemies or of their predecessors armies and used mercenaries, auxilia or new units ?
So ?
Is it that different from the roman way ?

Just take a look at roman armies from the 4th and 5th century, then to byzantine armies from the 6th, if you don't see any similarity i think that's because you're blind.
Then it's easy to see how it evolved into the komenian system quite straightforwardly.

Yes.

rgds/EoE

So it evolved and evolved even more after that.
So what ?
What is your point ?

Of course they look very different from augustean legions, but they look pretty "roman" nonetheless to me (if you dare to take in account the late roman period, that is...).
I don't see what might be specifically "greek" about them.

Then you also have some troops type like the skutatoi (latin scutatii) who are basically what was left from the heavy infantry after the moves toward a cavalry army.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

You know that by then (Late Antiquity), the idea of "Roman" and "Roman Empire" had long departed from its roots in Latin Italy? The change of the administrative language by Herakleios merely recognised the situation in the eastern part of the Empire (as it had been for centuries). Keeping Latin as administrative language wasn't necessary, because only a few people used it anyway.

Herakleios was a Byzantine emperor, so it's hardly surprising he decided to change the language to Byzantine greek instead of Roman latin.

That the structures of the Diocletian army survived well into the Byzantine period.

"Well into" is quite a stretch, isn't it? Wasn't the army and the way it was recruited in fact thoroughly reorganized under Heraclius and Constans II?

And now you tell me what is Roman about the late Western Roman army, which was completely different from the late Republican/early Imperial army?

The the structures of the Diocletian army survived well into the fall of Rome.

So it's not Roman because you don't call it that way anymore? So it's basically your personal opinion. Not a fact.

No, it is not Roman because it was changed from its Roman basis. A fact you point out.

How is that a straw-man argument? You claimed that the Greek "Byzantine" emperors couldn't be Roman emperors because they were Greek. But Arabs or Germans could? :wacko:

Did I claim that? Feel free to find the quote in question and post it here. You can't. Hence it is a straw-man argument.

Go read about late Roman history then. Western Empire.

Go read about Byzantine history then. Greek Empire.

Huh? You should really read some more on the subject. You are wrong. The Arabs called them "Romans" and the emperor "Roman Emperor". The Turks called them Romans. The Slavs called them Romans. It was only the Catholic West after the coronation of Charlemagne which began to call the Empire "Greek Empire" or "Constantinopolitan Empire". So it was basically everyone except the West, who had its own Roman Empire in the form of the Frankish and later Ottonian state (conflicting with the "Byzantine" claim).

No ... really? Did the peoples ruled by the selfproclaimed Roman Byzantines decide to live another day and call their masters Roman? That really is surprising.

And the centre of the Empire was not Greece. Greece was of only marginal importance. In fact it was, except for some coastal regions, controled by the Slavs for some time (600 - 800). Asia Minor was the most important region.

Greece was of only marginal importance?! The Byzantine Empire was rooted in Hellenistic culture and its language was greek. What is so unimportant about that?

/EoE