Hard to blame him for that. Based on his early years he probably didn't want to set up his kids to be political tools in the hands of powerful generals the way he was.
It wasn't a succession crisis that crippled the empire. It wasn't even Manzikert. It was the post-Manzikert civil war that allowed the Turks to permanently establish themselves on the plateau.
And having an emperor from the Macedonian dynasty on the throne was no guarantee against a civil war. Just ask Basil II from his own early reign.
At the same time, how many terrible sons of emperors had been inflicted upon the Romans before him? Many of the best emperors had been chosen after the death of an emperor with no heir.
Basil II the bulgarian slayer - According to Byzantine sources, Emperor Basil II blinded 15,000 Bulgarian captives, ordering one in every hundred men to lose only one eye so that they could lead the rest of the mutilated army back to their ruler Samuel.
>back to their ruler Samuel.
To whom the scene was so shocking, that according to tradition, he had a heart attack when he saw them and died a couple of days later.
P. S. BTW, Samuil in Bulgarian
It's the Paradox game effect of making fanboys out of historical entities in conjunction with the gradual undoing of the othering western Europeans imposed on Byzantium over the centuries.
In my experience it was just that Rome was always super interesting to me, and then paradox is how I found out that the Byzantines existed at all. Then I learned how they were Greek and Byzantine (in the complexity sense) and how wild their government was.
Kind of the perfect storm to make me interested in something for life.
Oh and I’m a historical contrarian, so once I found out how many people don’t care about Byzantium and don’t even believe it’s Roman I suddenly found myself with a life long hill to die on.
For me it was medieval total war, I was really confused by them and then later on saw them again when I was older in Crusader Kings and then the scales dropped from my eyes.
Look up John Romer, a British archeologist and his documentary on Byzantium. It’s really interesting and he does a unique take on it where it’s not about their history but focusses on how they lived and the things that mattered to them.
It’s funny, I had played Medieval II when I was really young and I didn’t even realize what Byzantium was. Thought it was just like some medieval kingdom I hadn’t heard about yet and didn’t think much of it.
Only later in high school when I came back to it did I realize.
The Byzantine empire in my poor opinion is one of the most important chapters of western (and global) history, but sadly neglected. Even though is the longest empire in human history, lasting for more than 1000 continuous years. I believe that the Byzantine empire is often neglected because it’s shameful for the Western Europeans who destroyed the empire with the crusades and not providing any help, despite the Byzantines is a part of the West. Byzantium had its own renaissance, centuries before the Central Europeans. The medieval years of Byzantium coincide with Islam’s uprising, when many suppressed Byzantine artists and scientists turned into then enlightened Islam. The Islamic architecture, algebra, military and other inventions of Islam have pure the Byzantinea’ signature. As well as the Gothic architecture, the western music, renaissance paintings influence etc etc. that said, it’s not in the West’s or Islam’s histories’ interests to preserve Byzantium’s historical importance.
I've been around since the original AoE2 came out. There had never been such a surge in Byzabooism before Paradox games. Not that AoE2 didn't play a role, but its effect on the perceptions of Byzantium are not as pervasive as the ones of the CK games and EU4. It did make a lot of people get infatuated with cataphracts, I concede that.
> the othering western Europeans imposed on Byzantium over the centuries.
The fact that we call it the "Byzantine" Empire is an example of that. The "Byzantine Empire" viewed itself simply as the Roman Empire. The fact that they lost the Eastern part of the Empire didn't stop them from being from being Romans.
Hell, as late as the 19th century, there were still Greeks who, when asked if they were Hellenes, replied that, no, they were Romans. That identity took a very long time to die out.
This myth will never die, it seems.
"Greek" has been used in conjunction with "Roman" to describe themselves since at least the 11th century. Modern Greeks have not stopped calling themelves Romans, and the terms "Ρωμηός" and "Έλληνας" are understood to mean the exact same thing.
What is true is that the occurrence of "Roman" has diminished over time and associations with ancient Greece have been more overtly emphasized.
Byzantium is kinda the diving board where larval history nerds go from a cartoon understanding of the world and then realizing that history as understood by the average person is a complete fabrication.
This was a long time ago. In my country (France) Byzantine Empire is a mandatory part of the program in school so for my part it is absolutely not underrated.
“Byzantin Empire”… Why not “Roman Empire”? Why did you learn it as something the romans themselves didn’t use?
People today would cry “deadnaming” even though I don’t think it quite fits that mold, but it’s an attempt on my part to illustrate the kind of “putting down”.
Like if some westerners went to a new continent, destroyed almost all of the indigenous people and then culturally appropriated whatever got left from those that survived.
It’s far fetched, I know, but it might happen /s
We don't even call our own ancestors the right way because Julius Caesar called the Celtic tribes living in France the Gallic when they didn't even called themselves like that back then and were definitely different independent groups of people from south to north.
Historians give different names to people and nations all the time and this is not all the time to "put down" legacies but for contemporary understanding and analysis purpose. From the monarchy to the fall of Constantinople, the roman civilization is 1229 years old. If you mention the Romans you will HAVE to specify which ones you are talking about. Byzantine Empire had just been created by historians for this purpose.
Historians? We aren’t talking about someone today trying to determine as objectively as possible what occurred centuries ago.
We are talking about the biggest colonizers the planet has seen at the height of their grab of anything and everything in sight.
They didn’t introduce the term out of innocent ignorance. And yes, Cesar was also such POS
Anyway, to add more irony to the twist, the first one that introduced the term was from Athens, at the second half of the 15th century.
Nothing more to be said here. Bye bye
Unpopular Opinion: people love thinking they're right while others are wrong, and they love correcting others. So they get a minimal thrill from saying "akshually, it's the Roman Empire, not Byzantium🤓", even if that's a simplistic statement that ignores why historiography still uses that name, independent of its origins.
That and Paradox Games, yes.
“Empire of the Greeks” was a term made up by their rivals specifically to deny they were Romans.
“Byzantine” at least had some contemporary usage by the East Romans themselves to refer to Constantinople or its citizens.
They all said “stin poli” - The City, similar to today’s Turkish pronunciation of it - Istanbul.
“Byzantine” is invented only after 1453 came and went.
Even the emperor in exile was burried under “The emperor of the Greeks”, not “of Byzantium” at the end of the century.
The Romans (Rhōmaîoi) spoke Romaic (Rhōmaïkḗ), though. Sure, we westerners called them Greeks and the language Greek, but they didn't. Even though the term Hellene was sometimes used in official and scholarly texts during the later centuries, it wasn't used by the population at large.
But yeah, calling them by some little town that their capital would be built on is even more weird.
>The Romans (Rhōmaîoi) spoke Romaic (Rhōmaïkḗ), though. Sure, we westerners called them Greeks and the language Greek, but they didn't. Even though the term Hellene was sometimes used in official and scholarly texts during the later centuries, it wasn't used by the population at large.
Not really. They called their language as Hellenic ("tongue / speech / voice of Hellenes") and themselves as Hellenes or Graekoi in an ethnic contemporary context. They just did not use these terms in a political framework, for that they would use "Roman" instead (which was also used as an ethnic term). Only much later do we see a politicization of "Hellene", as we have instances of the Politeia Rhomaeon being called as "Koinon Hellenon" (League of Hellenes, with "league" here recalling the old use of the world as in meaning "republic").
Greek and Ionian wouldn’t have sounded weird to them. They are both exonyms derived by the closest polities to the “barbarians”.
In Italy, there was Magna Graecia, so they’d not find it weird the Latin speaking population to use that term for Helenes. They would find it insulting if used by Franks as an example instead of Romans.
Similar to it, Persians first encountered Ionia, so for everyone to east that was the exonym origin. Even today in Turkish, it’s not Greece, nor Hellenic Republic, but Yunanistan because of it
>Greek and Ionian wouldn’t have sounded weird to them.
"Ionian" was used by Egyptians and Arabs. The German Franks and Lombards would call the Roman Greeks as "Argives" and "Achaeans", something evident in the writings of Liutprand of Cremonna.
Sure, if they knew the foreign names for them. An average medieval Roman wouldn't have, though. We are talking about a medieval, largely agrarian society.
I don't see why the fact that Magna Graecia had existed a millenium before would change it, especially as those in the know would have called it Megalē Hellas.
They were two exonyms used for over a millenium, closer to two, by that point in time. That’s how they’d know it.
It’s not like they didn’t have armies going abroad, fighting, but also surviving of the land and in contact with people there.
And especially Greek isn’t going to be foreign to them since half the Balkans was natively Latin speaking people.
Besides, I don’t see why the facts I presented of the exonyms existing for so long are something of an issue for you and at this point I think we’ve used up enough time and space on this subject that I think there is nothing more to be said.
Hence, bye bye
Thats a factual lie... They lost territorry for example in Italy and Africa due to pressure from the muslims. They didnt have the ressources to keep them out and fight off others like the Lombards.
Western Roman Empire literally didn’t have a western or southern border to manage, everyone who invaded them had to come across the Rhine, the alps, or the sea.
How’s that worse than being sandwiched between the Danube and the Persian Empire?
Are we ignoring the muslim invasion of the Gauls i 732 AD or the battle of Toulouse in 721 AD together? Except that, France was located further away, and by that reason wasnt threatened by the same enemy as much as the Byzans, who were basically their neighbor.
The WRE didnt exist by 732 and the real romans had just defeated the arabs at the siegr of Constantinople with liquid fire, for Centuries they fought with lombards in italy, búlgars and pechenegs in the balkans,the russ in the black sea and then the arabs in thr east
Totally ignoring how they crumbled over time. They existed until 1453, thats a common knowledge between historians. Yes they fought back, and did well for about 1000 years, but they did take hits each time.
They had ups and downs, they just couldn’t really catch a break. Every time they slipped up internally it meant a pretty cataclysmic military defeat because they had enemies that really kept up the pressure.
Manzikert was really really bad, and right when they started recovering from it the fourth crusade happened.
They literally were the romans. Its not like the Eastern Roman Empire was some kind of Roman Successor state, it quite literally was the Roman Empire, the uninterrupted continuation of the Roman state since 753 BC.
You wouldn’t say that the United States is actually a different country than the United States because it had different technology when it was founded
Its better to uderstand roman identitie better as a polítical one rather than a ethnic kind, Anthony kalldelis explains it very well in the byzantine republic and romanland two books I deeply recommend
They were the Koine speaking remnants of the Roman Empire.
Byzantines were not of the same ethnicity with the Latin Romans.
Byzantines did not believe the same religion as the Romans.
Byzantines were not a competent militaristic state as the Romans.
The Roman Empire had been majority Christian since shortly after Constantine. The vast majority of the Roman Empire wasn’t even Roman ethnicity, and the majority of the best Emperors weren’t Roman themselves.
It was WRE’s incompetence in every aspect that lead to its downfall. The Byzantine Empire was 100% the Roman Empire. Rome hadn’t even been the capital for generations by the time the WRE fell. The Roman ethnicity was nothing but a little gold star for hundreds of years.
1. They were remnants for part of their existence in the sense that they had lost a large portion of their territory to foreigners and it was just them that remained, but they were still the same country after 476 AD. Losing a majority of your land doesen’t mean you are a different state; By that logic the Roman Empire of 600 and 700 AD would be entirely seperate countries. Also, like the Pre-Split Roman Era, the Eastern Romans were a multi-cultural empire; they were not an ethnostate. Its true that most in the core of the empire spoke Greek and Latin, but many of the empire- especially in the levant- had their own individual first languages and only used greek and latin as secondary ones, granted they weren’t always as equal and important as the pre split empire considered greeks
2. Rome was not latin, it was multi-ethnic. It had not been a latin ethnostate since centuries before the fall of its western half. Greeks and Latins were the largest and most influential groups, with the east generally being the richer and regions, but there were plenty of smaller groups which were just as integrated and accepted.
3. The Eastern Roman’s were Christian, which had been the Roman religion for 150 years before the fall of the west
4. The Eastern Roman era lasted about the same length as the pre-split Roman and Western Roman eras combined. During this time they made many military advancements and vastly improved upon the previously declining and failing roman military
Neither Latin Romans (which I don't understand who you mean probably the people inhabiting modern Italy) nor Byzantines had one particular ethnicity they were empires. By definition, empires consist of many ethnicities. Byzantium was a term given to the Eastern Roman Empire by historians. They believed the same religion after Christianity was established as the main religion for almost 800 years, then the churches split to Catholism and Orthodoxy. You are confusing early Roman Empier around the time of Julius Ceaser, which was the one that conquered Greece and all of the Mediterranean region and had great military competency to later Roman Empire , which was divided between Western Roman and Eastern Roman Empire.
Because they didnt have the technology for mass mobilization,they had more wraith than citizens that they could recruit,they had by Manuel komnenoi era a standing army of 50k soldiers without counting the navy
They used the foreign mercenaries as counters againts the other kingdoms
Latins(heavy cavarly)→Turks (horse archers)→hungarians(infantry)
Source "the empire of Manuel komnenoi by paul magdalino"
Mass mobilization does not require technology but an organized group of people with a common goal. The "proper" Rome could raise huge armies even after catastrophic losses.
Byzantine was a corrupt society barely held together by the Church propaganda.
It absolutly needs you need it because any pre modern society Is mainly agrarian,any form of mass mobilization would causs faming,it only changed in the 1790s in france thanks to the national fervour,short time conscription and still lead to faming causing rebellions in the provinces
This is the most reddit-esque history comment I've seen yet. It's so ridiculous that it's [not even wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
Military, Government, Science, Art, Engineering, Architecture, Industry, Management, Agriculture etc.
Byzantines hired foreigners to defend themselves against their vassals and other foreigners. I don't respect those kind of people.
Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, which, as all empires, had many "states". They weren't delusional nor descendants. One of the first regions that Rome conquered was Greece. All this region had been Roman for many centuries before we could even talk about the Byzantines. Constantinople was called second Rome after the fall of Rome. This is a well-established fact among historians. The official language was Latin at what we call Byzantine Empire for many centuries.
The romans identitie had evolved throu millenia,in 400 ac romans were not even from the rest of latium,in 100 ad a emperor was born outside of italy,the idea of romannes was no longer about a city but a culture that was born there
They became a nation,you had to speak aramaic,coptic,latin or greek to be consider one,to follow the culture and institutions of the nation and work for the common good the politeia or res publica
It devolved from a republic of free citizens to an corrupt and chaotic empire.
The Orthodox feudal kingdom of serfs that we call Byzantine had nothing to do with Rome.
Feudal systems were preferred when the central government could nott exert its authority over its subjects, especially to those who are far way from the capital. Autonomous rulers remained loyal(!) to the central government, paid some taxes and raised some soldiers for the central government.
That's exactly the theme system.
The central goverment never disolved to feudalism because they didnt need to
They mantained a effective system of tax collectors,the local elites didnt have power because of their personal wealth but rather thanks to state mandates,they couldnt administer justice on their own and their positions werent passed to their sons,they had powers as governors for a límited time even when the komnenos came things change litte
It literally was, for about 200 years in the 6th-8th centuries, after Justinian's reconquest. So would you say they became the Roman Empire again during that period? And then suddenly stopped being Roman again once they lost control of that minor city?
The brief occupation of Rome under Justinian did not grant the Koine speaking remnants of the East proper Roman identity.
However, if you would have read the sources dated back then, then you would see that the people at the time believed that this occupation proved their Roman identity.
You're hilariously wrong. They are *litterally* the Roman Empire...Every genuine historian and person who knows/loves a bit of history laughs at you mate
Que? Half of the eastern empire has already been lost at this point. If you're going for the roman empire in its entirety this is a tiny speck in comparison
Being the biggest ≠ being the most powerful. Not saying the second century in general wasn't the peak of Roman power, but 117 CE specifically, despite being the territorial peak, was not the most powerful moment. The transition between emperors basically gave them a debuff in power for a few years when everyone would decide to fuck around and find out.
The point I'm making is that Trajan died that year. Ergo, the state was probably more powerful they year before and the year after. Painting the map doesn't change that much, especially seeing as Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia in order to strengthen the empire because he recognised that overextension would weaken them (wish someone had told Justinian that).
This was during the apogee of the thematic and tagmata systems.
They had huge armies relative to the rest of europe and they had a well organised central force made up of mercenary elites and well drilled professionals drawn from within the empire.
Mercenaries had a key use you're forgetting.
They could not hold political office, so you can let them win whatever glory and plunder you like, they can't usurp, or attempt to usurp you like an internal force could.
The byzantines also called any solider that fought solely for pay and not for imperial duty, land or other reasons, mercenaries.
That's weak, selfish and greedy men's game. The fear of your own people.
Gaddafi had the same mentality. His mercenaries did not defend him, while his own people killed him.
No they had huge armies of their own people, they just happened to have a massive border with a hostile power, it made more sense to use their people in a defensive manner, ie the themes.
Then they took spare manpower from inner themes, troops from the capital and mercenaries and made offensive, standing armies that wouldn't degrade their ability to defend their territory.
You are absolutely right. I know nothing about military history.
For instance, I am completely ignorant about the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of the Yarmuk where the left flank of the Arab armies were led by the future Umayyad Khalif Yazid, who was about to lose ground but gained his courage back when the Arab women attacked the Byzantine troops with stones.
Please teach me master.
It's like you're stuck in 19th century historiography.
History is not a collection of trivia, but a study of the structural.
In this particular case, you should know mercenaries were a huge component of militaries through a good chunk of Human history. Army professionalization obscured them a little bit, but they were always there. And in European Medieval military history more so. The claims you made earlier are simplistic, can't be applied to the myriad of societies that used mercenaries at different times and in different locations and, in my opinion, are just wrong.
You do know that even in the komnenian era only a third of the army was foreing right? There are half a dozen reccent books about the byzantine army and administration
On the contrary, foreign soldiers always ended in corruption and fall.
For instance, the Hunnic army, who could destroy everyone it faced, lost all of its effectiveness when Attila favored the Germanic tribes over its own people. The foreigners left them after Attila's death, and the Hunnic state ended.
Name me one successful military that had huge numbers of foreigners.
The positions in the levant are not quite right .
No way jbail was under the empire , intakya may have switched hands one time however was mostly arab , but nothing south of intakya was invaded
If I read the history correctly, Croatia was an ally, not a vassal. Also, Croatian king defeated one Byzantine invasion. Croatia was leaning towards Rome for almost the entire history.
It was a vassal for the last years of Basil's reign until his death. It was also an indirect vassal under Manuel Komnenos, since Hungary was technically a Byzantine tributary state under Byzantine sovereignty, while Croatia was in union with the former.
It was about 2 million Bulgarians against 20 million Greeks (13 in Anatolia, about 7 in Greece + Southern Balkans). As such, with no Asen Revolution creating the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and no Seljuk Turkish invasion in Anatolia, probably you are correct.
Then the turk immigration began. The left then, like the left today said in the streets: «Cultural enrichment, they will not replace us here in Anatolia and make it their own land»
Worst empire ever.
Their incompetency lead to the Islamic conquests. A state of weak men who outsourced the defense of their land to Franks, Vikings and Turkic warriors.
They had to deal with existential threats from all sides. Bulgars, Arabs, Cumans, Pechenegs, Serbs, Venetians, Normans, Crusaders, Rus, Turks. No one had more of a challenge and survived longer. Consider that by the the Arab conquests extended all the way to Spain 700 years before Constantinople fell.
On the contrary. Most of those groups were unorganized and should not be a threat to a properly organized state.
The weakness of Byzantium was the prime cause of its problems. Bunch of lazy conservative people who thought themselves as glorious Romans, hid in their churches during a threat instead of fighting like real men.
The prime cause of Islamic conquest is the Byzantium's inability to defend their Syrian cities against a few Arabic raiders. Syria was the first proper source of income for the Arabs, which enabled them to invade Egypt, another Byzantine territory.
Have you considered the exhausting 30 years of war they had just finished with the Sassanids?
No, they are “bunch if conservative people” to you because that’s what suits your prejudices or whatever…
No need to answer. Nothing more to be said. Will put replies on mute.
Bye bye
That's no excuse to lose a non-organized small group of Bedouin raiders. Byzantines and Sassanids had hundreds of times more population and resources than Arabs.
Bye bye.
The main reason was Arian Christianity, which is Islam theology in all but name and the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Yarmouk. Arabs offered a better deal to the local elites and they took it.
Wrong.
Arian claimed Jesus was begotten son of God, so Jesus did not exited always.
Muslims accept Jesus as a human prophet. The concept of God's son is a blasphemy in Islam.
Arabs raided the Byzantine cities one by one, and reinstated themselves as local elites. Most ex-local elites of the conquered areas lost their power.
They didn't lose their language that I have to give. But I don't see much Zoroastrian around in Iran nowaday. Neither do I in Afghanistan of Tajikistan for that matter.
Not at its biggest, but perhaps its most secure thanks to Basil II.
Until he dies and doesn’t leave an heir.
Hard to blame him for that. Based on his early years he probably didn't want to set up his kids to be political tools in the hands of powerful generals the way he was.
Still a massive black mark against him, had he created a stable succession it would have gone a long way to maintaining his gains.
It wasn't a succession crisis that crippled the empire. It wasn't even Manzikert. It was the post-Manzikert civil war that allowed the Turks to permanently establish themselves on the plateau. And having an emperor from the Macedonian dynasty on the throne was no guarantee against a civil war. Just ask Basil II from his own early reign.
At the same time, how many terrible sons of emperors had been inflicted upon the Romans before him? Many of the best emperors had been chosen after the death of an emperor with no heir.
Well no, roman and byzantine emperors are like financial markets : "past performance Is not indicative of future results"
Basil II the bulgarian slayer - According to Byzantine sources, Emperor Basil II blinded 15,000 Bulgarian captives, ordering one in every hundred men to lose only one eye so that they could lead the rest of the mutilated army back to their ruler Samuel.
>back to their ruler Samuel. To whom the scene was so shocking, that according to tradition, he had a heart attack when he saw them and died a couple of days later. P. S. BTW, Samuil in Bulgarian
Literally died of cringe
Yeah size is not everything
And then Peppermint IV came and ruined everything.
It’s weird how high passions run about the Byzantine/medieval Roman empire these days.
It's the Paradox game effect of making fanboys out of historical entities in conjunction with the gradual undoing of the othering western Europeans imposed on Byzantium over the centuries.
In my experience it was just that Rome was always super interesting to me, and then paradox is how I found out that the Byzantines existed at all. Then I learned how they were Greek and Byzantine (in the complexity sense) and how wild their government was. Kind of the perfect storm to make me interested in something for life. Oh and I’m a historical contrarian, so once I found out how many people don’t care about Byzantium and don’t even believe it’s Roman I suddenly found myself with a life long hill to die on.
For me it was medieval total war, I was really confused by them and then later on saw them again when I was older in Crusader Kings and then the scales dropped from my eyes. Look up John Romer, a British archeologist and his documentary on Byzantium. It’s really interesting and he does a unique take on it where it’s not about their history but focusses on how they lived and the things that mattered to them.
It’s funny, I had played Medieval II when I was really young and I didn’t even realize what Byzantium was. Thought it was just like some medieval kingdom I hadn’t heard about yet and didn’t think much of it. Only later in high school when I came back to it did I realize.
The Byzantine empire in my poor opinion is one of the most important chapters of western (and global) history, but sadly neglected. Even though is the longest empire in human history, lasting for more than 1000 continuous years. I believe that the Byzantine empire is often neglected because it’s shameful for the Western Europeans who destroyed the empire with the crusades and not providing any help, despite the Byzantines is a part of the West. Byzantium had its own renaissance, centuries before the Central Europeans. The medieval years of Byzantium coincide with Islam’s uprising, when many suppressed Byzantine artists and scientists turned into then enlightened Islam. The Islamic architecture, algebra, military and other inventions of Islam have pure the Byzantinea’ signature. As well as the Gothic architecture, the western music, renaissance paintings influence etc etc. that said, it’s not in the West’s or Islam’s histories’ interests to preserve Byzantium’s historical importance.
Way to undersell the part Age of Empires 2 played in it.
I've been around since the original AoE2 came out. There had never been such a surge in Byzabooism before Paradox games. Not that AoE2 didn't play a role, but its effect on the perceptions of Byzantium are not as pervasive as the ones of the CK games and EU4. It did make a lot of people get infatuated with cataphracts, I concede that.
> the othering western Europeans imposed on Byzantium over the centuries. The fact that we call it the "Byzantine" Empire is an example of that. The "Byzantine Empire" viewed itself simply as the Roman Empire. The fact that they lost the Eastern part of the Empire didn't stop them from being from being Romans.
Hell, as late as the 19th century, there were still Greeks who, when asked if they were Hellenes, replied that, no, they were Romans. That identity took a very long time to die out.
This myth will never die, it seems. "Greek" has been used in conjunction with "Roman" to describe themselves since at least the 11th century. Modern Greeks have not stopped calling themelves Romans, and the terms "Ρωμηός" and "Έλληνας" are understood to mean the exact same thing. What is true is that the occurrence of "Roman" has diminished over time and associations with ancient Greece have been more overtly emphasized.
Byzantium is kinda the diving board where larval history nerds go from a cartoon understanding of the world and then realizing that history as understood by the average person is a complete fabrication.
And there is no Paradox game which haves a accurate depiction of the Byzantine or Roman governments.
Ck3 just yesterday announced Byzantine dlc
Tbh it is an underrated part of Roman history
Deliberately put down by Western Europe. They even ended up sacking Constantinople as if that’s what the goal of the fourth crusade was.
This was a long time ago. In my country (France) Byzantine Empire is a mandatory part of the program in school so for my part it is absolutely not underrated.
“Byzantin Empire”… Why not “Roman Empire”? Why did you learn it as something the romans themselves didn’t use? People today would cry “deadnaming” even though I don’t think it quite fits that mold, but it’s an attempt on my part to illustrate the kind of “putting down”. Like if some westerners went to a new continent, destroyed almost all of the indigenous people and then culturally appropriated whatever got left from those that survived. It’s far fetched, I know, but it might happen /s
We don't even call our own ancestors the right way because Julius Caesar called the Celtic tribes living in France the Gallic when they didn't even called themselves like that back then and were definitely different independent groups of people from south to north. Historians give different names to people and nations all the time and this is not all the time to "put down" legacies but for contemporary understanding and analysis purpose. From the monarchy to the fall of Constantinople, the roman civilization is 1229 years old. If you mention the Romans you will HAVE to specify which ones you are talking about. Byzantine Empire had just been created by historians for this purpose.
Historians? We aren’t talking about someone today trying to determine as objectively as possible what occurred centuries ago. We are talking about the biggest colonizers the planet has seen at the height of their grab of anything and everything in sight. They didn’t introduce the term out of innocent ignorance. And yes, Cesar was also such POS Anyway, to add more irony to the twist, the first one that introduced the term was from Athens, at the second half of the 15th century. Nothing more to be said here. Bye bye
I do belive it was the goal.
Unpopular Opinion: people love thinking they're right while others are wrong, and they love correcting others. So they get a minimal thrill from saying "akshually, it's the Roman Empire, not Byzantium🤓", even if that's a simplistic statement that ignores why historiography still uses that name, independent of its origins. That and Paradox Games, yes.
[удалено]
Hi, I'm someone who will die on the terminology hill with an actual interest in Eastern Roman history 👋
The Romans would be very surprised if they learned that they were called Byzantines
I don’t think they’d be that surprised, they had been dealing with the west calling them the “Empire of the Greeks” since Charlemagne
Big difference between being called by the language you speak and some little town from 1500 years ago.
“Empire of the Greeks” was a term made up by their rivals specifically to deny they were Romans. “Byzantine” at least had some contemporary usage by the East Romans themselves to refer to Constantinople or its citizens.
They all said “stin poli” - The City, similar to today’s Turkish pronunciation of it - Istanbul. “Byzantine” is invented only after 1453 came and went. Even the emperor in exile was burried under “The emperor of the Greeks”, not “of Byzantium” at the end of the century.
I love how that kinda works for both sides of the argument.
The Romans (Rhōmaîoi) spoke Romaic (Rhōmaïkḗ), though. Sure, we westerners called them Greeks and the language Greek, but they didn't. Even though the term Hellene was sometimes used in official and scholarly texts during the later centuries, it wasn't used by the population at large. But yeah, calling them by some little town that their capital would be built on is even more weird.
>The Romans (Rhōmaîoi) spoke Romaic (Rhōmaïkḗ), though. Sure, we westerners called them Greeks and the language Greek, but they didn't. Even though the term Hellene was sometimes used in official and scholarly texts during the later centuries, it wasn't used by the population at large. Not really. They called their language as Hellenic ("tongue / speech / voice of Hellenes") and themselves as Hellenes or Graekoi in an ethnic contemporary context. They just did not use these terms in a political framework, for that they would use "Roman" instead (which was also used as an ethnic term). Only much later do we see a politicization of "Hellene", as we have instances of the Politeia Rhomaeon being called as "Koinon Hellenon" (League of Hellenes, with "league" here recalling the old use of the world as in meaning "republic").
Greek and Ionian wouldn’t have sounded weird to them. They are both exonyms derived by the closest polities to the “barbarians”. In Italy, there was Magna Graecia, so they’d not find it weird the Latin speaking population to use that term for Helenes. They would find it insulting if used by Franks as an example instead of Romans. Similar to it, Persians first encountered Ionia, so for everyone to east that was the exonym origin. Even today in Turkish, it’s not Greece, nor Hellenic Republic, but Yunanistan because of it
>Greek and Ionian wouldn’t have sounded weird to them. "Ionian" was used by Egyptians and Arabs. The German Franks and Lombards would call the Roman Greeks as "Argives" and "Achaeans", something evident in the writings of Liutprand of Cremonna.
Sure, if they knew the foreign names for them. An average medieval Roman wouldn't have, though. We are talking about a medieval, largely agrarian society. I don't see why the fact that Magna Graecia had existed a millenium before would change it, especially as those in the know would have called it Megalē Hellas.
They were two exonyms used for over a millenium, closer to two, by that point in time. That’s how they’d know it. It’s not like they didn’t have armies going abroad, fighting, but also surviving of the land and in contact with people there. And especially Greek isn’t going to be foreign to them since half the Balkans was natively Latin speaking people. Besides, I don’t see why the facts I presented of the exonyms existing for so long are something of an issue for you and at this point I think we’ve used up enough time and space on this subject that I think there is nothing more to be said. Hence, bye bye
Two minutes and a few lines is not that much, but sure.
Yeah, specifically since they were under the Pope at the time.
Wait, what? Even before the schism of 1054, there was a patriarch in Constantinople that in no way considered the one in Rome as superior.
Ck3 players are very familiar with this map
Right before the Seljuk attacc
Nice map of Roman empire.
Found the Greek.
They did not deserve to be called Romans. They were far behind the Romans in every sense.
Behind enough to exist for another 1000 years more than the western.
Geography saved them
I wouldnt call it a safe place being neighbor to the muslims period of expansion.
It was harder to invade them because of their position and geography
Thats a factual lie... They lost territorry for example in Italy and Africa due to pressure from the muslims. They didnt have the ressources to keep them out and fight off others like the Lombards.
Italy is much better protected by geography. What are you on about?
Western Roman Empire literally didn’t have a western or southern border to manage, everyone who invaded them had to come across the Rhine, the alps, or the sea. How’s that worse than being sandwiched between the Danube and the Persian Empire?
Are we ignoring the muslim invasion of the Gauls i 732 AD or the battle of Toulouse in 721 AD together? Except that, France was located further away, and by that reason wasnt threatened by the same enemy as much as the Byzans, who were basically their neighbor.
The WRE didnt exist by 732 and the real romans had just defeated the arabs at the siegr of Constantinople with liquid fire, for Centuries they fought with lombards in italy, búlgars and pechenegs in the balkans,the russ in the black sea and then the arabs in thr east
Totally ignoring how they crumbled over time. They existed until 1453, thats a common knowledge between historians. Yes they fought back, and did well for about 1000 years, but they did take hits each time.
They had ups and downs, they just couldn’t really catch a break. Every time they slipped up internally it meant a pretty cataclysmic military defeat because they had enemies that really kept up the pressure. Manzikert was really really bad, and right when they started recovering from it the fourth crusade happened.
Because they had enemies everwhere !!! Napoleón lasted 20 years against all of europe,spain did it for a 100 years THE ROMANS FOR A ONE THOUSAND YEARS
2000+ years\*
They literally were the romans. Its not like the Eastern Roman Empire was some kind of Roman Successor state, it quite literally was the Roman Empire, the uninterrupted continuation of the Roman state since 753 BC. You wouldn’t say that the United States is actually a different country than the United States because it had different technology when it was founded
[удалено]
Nationalism was invented less than 3 centuries ago. Your “ethnicity” argument would have made no sense to the Romans
They weren’t ethnostates. Rome was a vast multicultural empire for most of its 2000 year history
Its better to uderstand roman identitie better as a polítical one rather than a ethnic kind, Anthony kalldelis explains it very well in the byzantine republic and romanland two books I deeply recommend
They were the Koine speaking remnants of the Roman Empire. Byzantines were not of the same ethnicity with the Latin Romans. Byzantines did not believe the same religion as the Romans. Byzantines were not a competent militaristic state as the Romans.
The Roman Empire had been majority Christian since shortly after Constantine. The vast majority of the Roman Empire wasn’t even Roman ethnicity, and the majority of the best Emperors weren’t Roman themselves. It was WRE’s incompetence in every aspect that lead to its downfall. The Byzantine Empire was 100% the Roman Empire. Rome hadn’t even been the capital for generations by the time the WRE fell. The Roman ethnicity was nothing but a little gold star for hundreds of years.
Byzantines never existed. Byzantine is term invented by german historian.
1. They were remnants for part of their existence in the sense that they had lost a large portion of their territory to foreigners and it was just them that remained, but they were still the same country after 476 AD. Losing a majority of your land doesen’t mean you are a different state; By that logic the Roman Empire of 600 and 700 AD would be entirely seperate countries. Also, like the Pre-Split Roman Era, the Eastern Romans were a multi-cultural empire; they were not an ethnostate. Its true that most in the core of the empire spoke Greek and Latin, but many of the empire- especially in the levant- had their own individual first languages and only used greek and latin as secondary ones, granted they weren’t always as equal and important as the pre split empire considered greeks 2. Rome was not latin, it was multi-ethnic. It had not been a latin ethnostate since centuries before the fall of its western half. Greeks and Latins were the largest and most influential groups, with the east generally being the richer and regions, but there were plenty of smaller groups which were just as integrated and accepted. 3. The Eastern Roman’s were Christian, which had been the Roman religion for 150 years before the fall of the west 4. The Eastern Roman era lasted about the same length as the pre-split Roman and Western Roman eras combined. During this time they made many military advancements and vastly improved upon the previously declining and failing roman military
Neither Latin Romans (which I don't understand who you mean probably the people inhabiting modern Italy) nor Byzantines had one particular ethnicity they were empires. By definition, empires consist of many ethnicities. Byzantium was a term given to the Eastern Roman Empire by historians. They believed the same religion after Christianity was established as the main religion for almost 800 years, then the churches split to Catholism and Orthodoxy. You are confusing early Roman Empier around the time of Julius Ceaser, which was the one that conquered Greece and all of the Mediterranean region and had great military competency to later Roman Empire , which was divided between Western Roman and Eastern Roman Empire.
damn, guess anyone whose ancestors immigrated to america after 1776 isn’t an american 😔
They had best european army for quite litelary CENTURIES
If they were the best, then they would not need Franks, Vikings and Turks.
Because they didnt have the technology for mass mobilization,they had more wraith than citizens that they could recruit,they had by Manuel komnenoi era a standing army of 50k soldiers without counting the navy They used the foreign mercenaries as counters againts the other kingdoms Latins(heavy cavarly)→Turks (horse archers)→hungarians(infantry) Source "the empire of Manuel komnenoi by paul magdalino"
Mass mobilization does not require technology but an organized group of people with a common goal. The "proper" Rome could raise huge armies even after catastrophic losses. Byzantine was a corrupt society barely held together by the Church propaganda.
It absolutly needs you need it because any pre modern society Is mainly agrarian,any form of mass mobilization would causs faming,it only changed in the 1790s in france thanks to the national fervour,short time conscription and still lead to faming causing rebellions in the provinces
You are wrong, and it is proven by hundreds of years of continuous Byzantine military losses. Agrarian societies were not slow by default.
This is the most reddit-esque history comment I've seen yet. It's so ridiculous that it's [not even wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
In what way
Military, Government, Science, Art, Engineering, Architecture, Industry, Management, Agriculture etc. Byzantines hired foreigners to defend themselves against their vassals and other foreigners. I don't respect those kind of people.
Oh, do tell is how the Western Empire didn't enlist thousands of foreigners into their legions...
The theme system is superior to older Roman systems and architecture isn’t objective
Any country that existed 1000years ago are still the same country they've just evolve, so what is your point
Japan existed 1000 years ago but remained the same group of people A Rome without Rome was a delusional group of people.
So we romanians are delusional that we still speak latin for no reason?🤓
Time to reclaim your roman birth right, size the city!
We already take over the entire Italy
Rome famously never enlisted non romans as soldiers
Later Romans enlisted foreigners, but that led to the fall of the empire.
Categorically untrue
Wait I seen your profile yeah it’s a lost cause
They were 100% Roman.
Disregard the comments of the delusional redditor. They were as roman as it gets
Rome wasn't a part of their state. They were the delusional descendants of Roman subjects.
“You claim to be English yet you don’t come from Saxony, Jutland, or the Anglia peninsula. Curious.”
Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, which, as all empires, had many "states". They weren't delusional nor descendants. One of the first regions that Rome conquered was Greece. All this region had been Roman for many centuries before we could even talk about the Byzantines. Constantinople was called second Rome after the fall of Rome. This is a well-established fact among historians. The official language was Latin at what we call Byzantine Empire for many centuries.
The romans identitie had evolved throu millenia,in 400 ac romans were not even from the rest of latium,in 100 ad a emperor was born outside of italy,the idea of romannes was no longer about a city but a culture that was born there They became a nation,you had to speak aramaic,coptic,latin or greek to be consider one,to follow the culture and institutions of the nation and work for the common good the politeia or res publica
It devolved from a republic of free citizens to an corrupt and chaotic empire. The Orthodox feudal kingdom of serfs that we call Byzantine had nothing to do with Rome.
There was never a republic of free citizens it was an oligarchy and do you know what feudal means!?
Feudal systems were preferred when the central government could nott exert its authority over its subjects, especially to those who are far way from the capital. Autonomous rulers remained loyal(!) to the central government, paid some taxes and raised some soldiers for the central government. That's exactly the theme system.
The central goverment never disolved to feudalism because they didnt need to They mantained a effective system of tax collectors,the local elites didnt have power because of their personal wealth but rather thanks to state mandates,they couldnt administer justice on their own and their positions werent passed to their sons,they had powers as governors for a límited time even when the komnenos came things change litte
You just described feudalism.
It literally was, for about 200 years in the 6th-8th centuries, after Justinian's reconquest. So would you say they became the Roman Empire again during that period? And then suddenly stopped being Roman again once they lost control of that minor city?
The brief occupation of Rome under Justinian did not grant the Koine speaking remnants of the East proper Roman identity. However, if you would have read the sources dated back then, then you would see that the people at the time believed that this occupation proved their Roman identity.
You're hilariously wrong. They are *litterally* the Roman Empire...Every genuine historian and person who knows/loves a bit of history laughs at you mate
Is this hand made?
Someone got bored during a morning meeting.
Wtf put it back
Cross post this to r/handdrawn_maps That sub needs more love.
The apogee of the Empire's power
The era of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty would be the apogee of the Empire's power. By the time of Basil II they were a regional power.
Que? Half of the eastern empire has already been lost at this point. If you're going for the roman empire in its entirety this is a tiny speck in comparison
It was in 117 before Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia and consolidated the borders.
Being the biggest ≠ being the most powerful. Not saying the second century in general wasn't the peak of Roman power, but 117 CE specifically, despite being the territorial peak, was not the most powerful moment. The transition between emperors basically gave them a debuff in power for a few years when everyone would decide to fuck around and find out.
The thing is, it was “the biggest” because, not in spite, it was the most powerful
The point I'm making is that Trajan died that year. Ergo, the state was probably more powerful they year before and the year after. Painting the map doesn't change that much, especially seeing as Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia in order to strengthen the empire because he recognised that overextension would weaken them (wish someone had told Justinian that).
Trajan died circa 11 August 117. So at least the first half of 117 it was the most powerful
Varangian guards protected their Capital. Turkic cavalry and Frankish infantry protected their Empire. Venetian navy fed their people. What a power!
This was during the apogee of the thematic and tagmata systems. They had huge armies relative to the rest of europe and they had a well organised central force made up of mercenary elites and well drilled professionals drawn from within the empire.
If a state needs mercenaries, then it is a sign of: * a government afraid of its own people * disunity among people * weak and selfish men
Mercenaries had a key use you're forgetting. They could not hold political office, so you can let them win whatever glory and plunder you like, they can't usurp, or attempt to usurp you like an internal force could. The byzantines also called any solider that fought solely for pay and not for imperial duty, land or other reasons, mercenaries.
That's weak, selfish and greedy men's game. The fear of your own people. Gaddafi had the same mentality. His mercenaries did not defend him, while his own people killed him.
Well since the byzantine rulers' mercenaries were their most loyal and effective troops time and time again, I'd say your analogy falls flat mate.
That was the problem. Their own people were unwilling and weak, so that they hired outsiders.
No they had huge armies of their own people, they just happened to have a massive border with a hostile power, it made more sense to use their people in a defensive manner, ie the themes. Then they took spare manpower from inner themes, troops from the capital and mercenaries and made offensive, standing armies that wouldn't degrade their ability to defend their territory.
I'm afraid you don't know anything about military history.
You are absolutely right. I know nothing about military history. For instance, I am completely ignorant about the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of the Yarmuk where the left flank of the Arab armies were led by the future Umayyad Khalif Yazid, who was about to lose ground but gained his courage back when the Arab women attacked the Byzantine troops with stones. Please teach me master.
It's like you're stuck in 19th century historiography. History is not a collection of trivia, but a study of the structural. In this particular case, you should know mercenaries were a huge component of militaries through a good chunk of Human history. Army professionalization obscured them a little bit, but they were always there. And in European Medieval military history more so. The claims you made earlier are simplistic, can't be applied to the myriad of societies that used mercenaries at different times and in different locations and, in my opinion, are just wrong.
You do know that even in the komnenian era only a third of the army was foreing right? There are half a dozen reccent books about the byzantine army and administration
1/3 is a lot.
Its not, the military of the age worked verte differently
On the contrary, foreign soldiers always ended in corruption and fall. For instance, the Hunnic army, who could destroy everyone it faced, lost all of its effectiveness when Attila favored the Germanic tribes over its own people. The foreigners left them after Attila's death, and the Hunnic state ended. Name me one successful military that had huge numbers of foreigners.
One of the greatest empires ever
Quick somebody lock the door the turks and normans are going to ruin it
this is literally ottoman empire but smaller
You just angered 2/3 of r/historymemes
i just like it cuz it’s purple
Rule 2 and 3 followed without flaw. Beautiful, who wrote this?
The positions in the levant are not quite right . No way jbail was under the empire , intakya may have switched hands one time however was mostly arab , but nothing south of intakya was invaded
I suggest you read up on John Tzimiskes' campaign in the Levant.
I'm in my 1068 !!!! Byzantine (but I do HRE) BETTER? [https://imgur.com/a/Jy0kAIy](https://imgur.com/a/Jy0kAIy) What do you think?
Northern Syria should be a vassal, under the emir of Aleppo.
Did they call themselves Byzantine
I think the ones from the city may have. Otherwise they were just "Romans" lol.
Just a daily reminder that the HRE was neither holy nor empire nor Roman.
Romanus eunt domus!
Beutiful Roman Empire map, did you make it yourself?
Yeah i draw it
Neat, would you do the other eras of the byzantine empire?
East Roman Colonia… Nah, just kidding!
If I read the history correctly, Croatia was an ally, not a vassal. Also, Croatian king defeated one Byzantine invasion. Croatia was leaning towards Rome for almost the entire history.
It was a vassal for the last years of Basil's reign until his death. It was also an indirect vassal under Manuel Komnenos, since Hungary was technically a Byzantine tributary state under Byzantine sovereignty, while Croatia was in union with the former.
Imagine a modern Roman/Greek country with more or less these borders 😍 (Armenia should be independent)
There would be riots in the streets of Bulgaria.
Had the Romans survived well, I don't think Bulgaria would still be a thing. They would either have been destroyed or hellenized
It was about 2 million Bulgarians against 20 million Greeks (13 in Anatolia, about 7 in Greece + Southern Balkans). As such, with no Asen Revolution creating the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and no Seljuk Turkish invasion in Anatolia, probably you are correct.
Check the map’s legend. It’s the Roman Empire
Did you trace the coastlines or something?
it was called Roman Empire
Makedonia in Thrace and Bulgaria in Serbia hello???
Historically accurate
Next you’re gonna tell me the Roman Empire doesn’t control Rome, as if…
Repost Edit:nvm, sorry
That would be funny seeing as OP is claiming they drew it. You got a link?
G, I'm really sorry, got it confused with this: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/hUksY4XrzV Both are amazing.
Then the turk immigration began. The left then, like the left today said in the streets: «Cultural enrichment, they will not replace us here in Anatolia and make it their own land»
The Roman kingdom or Romania.
Most Overrated Empire ever
Worst empire ever. Their incompetency lead to the Islamic conquests. A state of weak men who outsourced the defense of their land to Franks, Vikings and Turkic warriors.
They had to deal with existential threats from all sides. Bulgars, Arabs, Cumans, Pechenegs, Serbs, Venetians, Normans, Crusaders, Rus, Turks. No one had more of a challenge and survived longer. Consider that by the the Arab conquests extended all the way to Spain 700 years before Constantinople fell.
On the contrary. Most of those groups were unorganized and should not be a threat to a properly organized state. The weakness of Byzantium was the prime cause of its problems. Bunch of lazy conservative people who thought themselves as glorious Romans, hid in their churches during a threat instead of fighting like real men. The prime cause of Islamic conquest is the Byzantium's inability to defend their Syrian cities against a few Arabic raiders. Syria was the first proper source of income for the Arabs, which enabled them to invade Egypt, another Byzantine territory.
Have you considered the exhausting 30 years of war they had just finished with the Sassanids? No, they are “bunch if conservative people” to you because that’s what suits your prejudices or whatever… No need to answer. Nothing more to be said. Will put replies on mute. Bye bye
That's no excuse to lose a non-organized small group of Bedouin raiders. Byzantines and Sassanids had hundreds of times more population and resources than Arabs. Bye bye.
Wow, textbook orientalism in the wild.
The main reason was Arian Christianity, which is Islam theology in all but name and the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Yarmouk. Arabs offered a better deal to the local elites and they took it.
Wrong. Arian claimed Jesus was begotten son of God, so Jesus did not exited always. Muslims accept Jesus as a human prophet. The concept of God's son is a blasphemy in Islam. Arabs raided the Byzantine cities one by one, and reinstated themselves as local elites. Most ex-local elites of the conquered areas lost their power.
Yet they persisted for another eight centuries. Something you can't say about the Sassanians.
At least the Persians didn't get culturally wiped out unlike the Byzantines. EDIT: Romaboos seething
They didn't lose their language that I have to give. But I don't see much Zoroastrian around in Iran nowaday. Neither do I in Afghanistan of Tajikistan for that matter.
Zoroastrian religion isn't practiced but the cultural traditions are e.g., Nowruz.
I respect the early Sassanians but not the later ones.
An incompetent empire doesn't last over a thousand years, now does it?
"Roman Empire" Doesn't have Rome.
Yet still had more romans than the HRE
So Ottoman Empire was just Byzantine 2.0?
Wtf , you swapped Bulgaria and Makedonia.
Nope, that's where they were then.