Did Heraclius Change the Official Language of the Roman Empire to Greek?

[@marvelfannumber1]

Finally someone killed this myth. I have dedicated way too much time and energy trying to debunk it in arguments, and to purge it from Wikipedia. I don't even think most people get this claim from Ostrogorsky, since when it used to be cited on Wikipedia it was from an unrelated source that doesn't say what the Wiki editor says.

[@RomabooRamblings]

It's still probably a derivative source. Oatrogorsky is very influential

[@seronymus]

What's your username there? I'd like to follow you, also I feel your pain when I edit related articles even Byzantine saints

[@stelmosfire1202]

@@RomabooRamblings Pretty sure I got it from John Julius Norwich.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@seronymus yeah, wikipedia editors can be very stubborn to accept changes.

[@Sp-zj5hw]

I remember my grandma saying: "I do not care what they teach you at school, the Rhomaioi were using latin even after Heraclius."

[@jonathanwebster7091]

It's worth pointing out that, from the days of Augustus, 'Autokrator', 'Kaisar' and 'Sebastos/Augoustos' were being used to translate 'Imperator', 'Caesar' and 'Augustus', and that Latin continued to be used on coins well after Heraclius.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

Kaiser is literally just Caesar though. It isn't even a translation. The two are pronounced exactly the same. The English 'Caesar,' pronounced see-zer, is actually a translation of the Latin Caesar

[@jonathanwebster7091]

@@pyropulseIXXI exactly.

[@lukemitchell5337]

Just because Latin continues to appear in Byzantine coins, doesn't mean it was still widely spoken. There is some Latin in US currency, does that mean the Americans know Latin?

[@jonathanwebster7091]

@@lukemitchell5337 no, but that was (unlike the usage of Latin in coins in modern states today) a vestigial remnant of Latin as actually used in the Roman Empire. As was the use of (debased) Latin in court acclamations.

[@lukemitchell5337]

@@jonathanwebster7091 Still doesn't prove Latin was used in any official capacity from the 7th century onwards.

[@TetsuShima]

The conflicts between the Greeks and Romans (from the Pyrrhic Wars to the Battle of Corinth) are so fascinating that it's absurd that Hollywood just ignored them. At best, there's the 1961 movie "The Centurion" (starring Drew Barrymore's father), but it's not a very good one.

[@voxkoshkalivestreams]

I suspect they, at least, have a lot of metaphysical hate for greek and roman history, especially now. Its a place that runs on titulating subversion and shock factor.

[@chingizzhylkybayev8575]

Western culture rests on Graeco-Roman foundation. Even the fact that the word "Graeco-Roman" exists is a testament to this. Westerners have long viewed Greece and Rome as this fused together monolith which is fundamental to their culture. So it's no surprise that in art and literature, it is usually seen as ultimately united and uniform, often pitched against the dark forces of the Middle East.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@nicmagtaan1132]

I wanna see phyrus throwing waves after waves of his army

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@nicmagtaan1132 Fun Fact: Pyrros’ Pyrrhic Victories actually saw him Lose LESS MEN than the Romans in their Battles 😃

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Finally a video that shows the truth! It was annoying that people were saying "When Heraclius chose Greek as the official language, he gave up the imperial title. Now we'll call the empire byzantine". Such nonsense. Thanks a lot for this video.

[@compatriot852]

In the eyes of the West and the non Orthodox world, this was pretty much the case and only further soldified the notion.

[@rockstar450]

​@Compatriot that's not true. The west always viewed them as Romans ruling from Constantinople. The HRE would continually push Byzantine marriages and law reforms to integrate more Roman Legitimacy.

[@rockstar450]

​@Compatriot the "kingdom of the Greeks" really was just a slur and more emphasised the "kingdom" part to infer they were less than Emperors. People read too much into political slander. Look past it and see after 1204 how the same users of this slur argued who would be the new Roman Emperor...

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@Seditionist no that's a Byzantine Emperor from the 9th century, whose name I have chosen.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@compatriot852 Only around the 9th century. Heraclius and his dynasty were universally accepted as Roman emperors.

[@JuliusCheemsar]

Imagine if the video just ended with the first few seconds of this video.

[@rohansensei5708]

Should be a short

[@ericponce8740]

Maurice was a native Greek speaker from Cappadocia.

[@hiskakun2276]

It’s also important to note that the decline of Latin also happens when the eastern Roman Empire loses its latin speaking territories. As showed in a videos’s map, the north-west of the balkans was mainly latin speaking (Justinian was born in that area). The balkans are lost by the slavs by the 7th century, leaving only a few costal cities surviving like Ragusa, Splatum or Jadera (Zadar), which would be autonomous. Then the arabs conquered north Africa by the end of the same century. The lost of this two territories reduces the population of who speaks or understands latin. The exarchate of Ravenna will be independent by the iconoclasm controversy, leaving the empire territory practically all greek. Even they still had Sicilly and south Italy, these parts were bilingual or mainly greek speaking. So by the mid 8th century there was no reason to keep latin as a language of the empire, and the shift of language can be said it’s completed.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Latin was still spoken in southern Italy in the 9th century, which is reflected by the letters used in the imperial coinage. You also have to remember that Sardinia and Corsica was also held by empire for several centuries. These areas were certainly not Greek-speaking. In the case of Roman Moesia, the Moesians (Thraco-Romans) simply became the Vlachs and were not displaced by the Slavs before the 11th -12th century, when they crossed the Danube and settled in what was once Dacia, forming Romania. This also reveals that there were infact Latin or atleast Romance speakers within Basil's empire. The constant warfare between Bulgaria and Rome has destroyed much infrastructure in the lower danube, which has impoverished the Moesians, which explains their agricultural and later nomadic ways after the 7th century.

[@jonathanwebster7091]

Oh, another thing that crops up under the Comnenus dynasty is that the Emperors start using victory cognomina/titles like 'Gothicus' and 'Armenicus' again, as can be seen in the Emperor Manuel I's full titulature in the video.

[@ntonisa6636]

looool I honestly hadn't notice this until now... "Manuel in Christ God Faithful Purple-Born Basileus, Most-Pious Autocrator of the Romans, Ever-Sebastos Augustus, Isauricus, Kilikicus, Armenicus, Dalmaticus, Oungricus(Hungary), Bosthnicus(Bosnia), Khrobaticus(ok that's easy, Croatia), Lazicus, Ibericus, Bulgaricus, Serbicus, Zekkhicus(???Czech???), Khazaricus, Gotthicus(what??I thought Narses had taken care of these guys?), Divinely-Guided Inheritor of the Crown of Constantine the Great"!!! ....seriously what a humble guy!😒 I wonder if he would have been able to recite all of his titles in the correct order😏

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@ntonisa6636 there were still Goths in Crimea.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@ntonisa6636 I guess Manuel and Commodus would be good friends in high places. 😅😅😅😅

[@ntonisa6636]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard ah yes indeed I'd somehow forgotten about our good ole friends the Crimean Goths, I should probably apologize to Jordanes' ghost...

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@TheIronChancellor]

Basically everyone spoke greek from the beginning but heraclius made it official

[@hermonymusofsparta]

As a person raised in America, the more I learn about the history of Greece and study the language, the more I learn that Western scholarship has many unfounded and wrong views of Greece and its people. It has been a aptly said that, "Westerners love Greeks, but only the dead ones," in reference to the fascination with classical Greece and a ignorance and/or disdain of medieval and modern Greece.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

The West has distorted & Hi-jacked the Legacy of the Greeks! All because of the Great Schism & because the Greeks are THE LAST of the Hellenes & Romans…not these Germanic Imposters!!! 🤡🤣

[@zelkovas]

This is so true! It's even more ironic when the West always tried to pose the Ancient Greeks as "the Fathers of Western Civilisation" and, while it isn't completely wrong, as soon as we enter the Late Antiquity period (or even earlier, with Alexander), Greeks are classified as "Eastern" is a derogatory way, as to antagonise the "superior" Western civilisation with the "inferior" and "exotic" Easterners, a notion that is still prominent in the West, unfortunately. In reality, though, the Ancient Greeks didn't regard themselves as founders of any arbitrary division between Western and Eastern civilisation, but conversed with many different cultures and the Hellenisation of the East after Alexander was also mutual in a way the local beliefs and philosophy of these people also influenced Greek thought.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@zelkovas Exactly! My friend, the West is Hellenic, & the Near East was also Hellenic. This is something that the Germanics HATE so Much!!!! The Barbarians!

[@histguy101]

There's a word for it: "Orientalizing."

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

Im american with greek ancestry and i agree.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

A great little video, it just goes to show how a keen observation in the primary sources can be blown out of all proportion by scholars and other scholars using their colleagues work. Heraclius can quite rightly be said to have changed to using the Greek term for ruler, Basileus but you make a great point about changing the official language. We should also remember that not every in the empire spoke Greek either with Coptic, Armenian, Aramaic and Slavic being notable minor languages. In fact, in Fergus Miller's book about the empire of Theodosius II, he shows how extensively Greek was being used by the imperial court already in the fifth century. Also, unofficially, historians like Malchus and Priscus called the emperor Basileus, over a century before Heraclius.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

I assume you mean Priscus of Panium, who wrote about Attila's invasion.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard The very same.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

Eastern Roman History...I cannot remember from which source I obtained this little fact, but I recall reading from some source that Augustus Caesar was being addressed as "Basileus" by residents of the Greek-speaking East. Moreover, Emperor Nero who had visited Greece so that he could see the Olympic Games in person, was hailed as "Basileus" by the Olympian Greeks.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων It makes sense, since the Greek would for ruler/king/emperor is Basileus.

[@GojiBasileus1997]

Heraclius is one of my favorite Roman/Byzantine emperors😎. By the way, I have been opposed to this thesis from the very beginning, and it seems to me that Latin was used as the official language until the beginning of the eighth century. Even Heraclius did not create the theme system, but his grandson, Constans II. In 'The Byzantine Wars' John Haldon wrote that during the reign of Heraclius there were still field armies led by magister militum per Armeniam, per Orientem and per Thraciam. The only changes being the merger of both field armies in praesenti and no records of a field army commanded by magister militum per Illyricum

[@ericponce8740]

One of the things that Romans did best was adapt to situations that threatened the state of the empire.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@جوليفلنديز]

Heraclius was Armenian...

[@Mimmoson1234]

You should do a video on the Germanic Lombards of southern Italy and their interactions with the Byzantine empire. Like for example The Germanic Lombards of Southern Italy became heavily influenced by the Byzantine Empire due to a combination of factors. The Lombards had initially invaded and settled in the region, bringing with them their own language, customs, and beliefs. However, the Byzantine Empire had also established a presence in the region, and tensions between the two groups eventually led to conflict. Over time, the Byzantines sought to Romanize the Lombards by promoting the Greek language, adopting Byzantine customs and practices, and establishing a cultural and political influence over the region. As a result, the Lombards of Southern Italy became heavily influenced by Byzantine culture and society, and this influence continued to shape the region's history and identity for centuries to come. Just like their theme was named after them by the Byzantines called “Theme of Longobardia” or Λογγοβαρδία, θέμα Λογγοβαρδίας in Greek. I think you’ll find the topic of the southern Italian Lombards very interesting and even more interesting is their interactions with the Byzantines!

[@RomabooRamblings]

Interesting topic, thanks for the suggestion

[@jacklaurentius6130]

@@RomabooRamblings one more suggestion, maybe do a video on why some cultures survived domination by another empire (Greece, Persia/Iran) while others fell (Egypt, Assyria)

[@seronymus]

@@RomabooRamblings also life under the Lombards and how "romanized" they were. I remember reading once by c. 700s, the Lombards were so assimilated even Germanic drinking horns disappeared.

[@gerardvila4685]

@@jacklaurentius6130 I get it that Assyrian culture disappeared, as far as I know, but I'm not so sure about Egyptian. Cleopatra (her again) was descended from Ptolemy, one of the Macedonian generals who divided up Alexander the Great's empire - but before she met Caesar, she was married to her brother the Pharaoh...

[@codydanroth9423]

@@RomabooRamblings Also I think another good one would be the history of Latin throughout the eastern empire, focusing from Justinian until 1204. I've been pestering my professor about this all semester and researching a bit on my own, but largely the knowledge of Latin at all in the city seems to fall off in the Later Makedonian period. I find it curious that we have so many Latin and mixed Latin/Greek inscriptions on coins and seals, and that Tzetzes seems to know some phrases in Latin in the 12th century, yet we have little to any knowledge of who was teaching Latin in the city or how many could speak it(at a scholarly level). So if you find this topic as interesting as me, I'd love to see a video on it.

[@scorpionfiresome3834]

This brings up an equally interesting question, at what point did the Greeks start calling themselves Romans? When the Roman republic took over Greece the local inhabitants considered the Romans to be barbarians. It would be great to see a video about how this view shifted over time.

[@cliffbooth1620]

During the christinization of the empire the word Hellene(greek) became synonymous with the word pagan. Paganism got abolished in the empire, so the greeks adopted the name romans as they were part of the roman empire ,or Romania as it was called back then. Still some emperors and scholars genuinely admired and adored the legacy of the ancient greeks, thus referring to the greeks as hellenes with pride, but others were very hostile and unforgiving against the greek pagan past and the hellenes for them were the embodiment of paganism .

[@ntonisa6636]

I agree, that would be an interesting question to explore (and the reverse as well i.e. when did the Romaioi start calling themselves Hellenes, but I guess that's more for a Greek studies subject than for a Roman history channel to tackle). Certainly the Greeks were still very much Greeks and proud of it in Plutarch's day for example(after over two and a half centuries of Roman rule). My non-expert guess would be that it likely was a relatively slow process starting around the time of Caracalla extending Roman citizenship to everyone in the empire (212 CE) and probably being more or less complete by let's say 500AD when the identification of the word Hellene with paganism/"idolatry" had fully crystalized, and perhaps also importantly in my opinion, the Western Empire had been dissolved meaning the "senior" (Latin) Romans had effectively exited the historical stage thus greatly reducing the competition over the Roman identity (although of course this development was partly undone for a while by Justinian's reconquest)

[@Burgermeister1836]

It probably started after 212 with Caracalla granting all the Greeks civitas. Christianity then sped up the process with its demonization of the Hellen as being a pagan.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@ntonisa6636 I agree, but I sincerely doubt that Western Romans would have objected to the Greeks calling themselves Romans. Since they would have liked the Roman identity to expand outside of Italy or the Latin West.

[@achilleuspetreas3828]

I agree with pretty much all the replies, but would definitely stress the idea that Hellene became virtually synonymous with pagan. My guess would be to find the earliest use of the Greek language being called Roman Ρωμαϊκή and seeing what happened before that date...if there's something significant that happened in relation to the topic, then we can theorize that the process was sped up by said factor, but my two cents is that is was a pretty slow process that solidified with the Christianization of Greeks

[@apmoy70]

The beginning of the gradual Hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire can be traced in the early 5th c. when emperor Theodosius II (a Latin speaker) made as his empress a pagan Greek woman, Aelia Eudocia. The empress was personally involved in the founding of the Πανδιδακτήριον τῆς Μαγναύρας/Pandidacterium of Magnavra (regarded as the first Byzantine university) in 425 CE where the Greek language for the first time gained an edge on Latin (after her influence perhaps?) since sixteen out of the total thirty-one disciplines were taught in Greek

[@theholyschois7477]

Interesting...I always placed it with the ascent of Christianity. Most original scripture was written in Greek and studied in this form. Following Pulcheria and the like- the imperial court at Constantinople was entrenched with religious and spiritual affairs unlike before. And much of the theological debate around this time was done in Greek. Which language was used at the council of Chalcedon I wonder?

[@apmoy70]

@@theholyschois7477 Well the minutes have survived and are in Greek. Besides, the Pope did not attend, he stayed in Italy of the fear of Attila

[@pyropulseIXXI]

I thought Greek was always considered the high class language of the Roman elite?

[@apmoy70]

@@pyropulseIXXI Then why did Paul write his epistle to the Romans in Greek? Do you think that it was the Roman elite that had converted to Christianity in Rome?

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​​​@@apmoy70 That had more to do with the location. At that time, Paul was wandering around Greece and Asia Minor, which would explain his knowledge of Greek, despite him being an Aramaic Judean.

[@compatriot852]

The thing is Greek was pretty much a second language for the most part of the Roman empire. Officals only really spoke it in regards to their subjects, but still wrote in Latin to each other. By the time of Heraclius, Most of the Latin speaking provinces had been lost, so the need to use Latin slowly fell out of favor as the empire continued to shrink/consolidate in the East. Someone like Justinian I would probably be mortified seeing Rome decay like this. Dashing all hopes that unification with the West would ever happen again.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Greek wasn't only spoken to appeal to peoples of the Roman East. It was also the language of Roman high society and the sciences. Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek. Augustus was taught by Athenodorus of Tarsus. Famous medics like Galen (under Commodus) and Oribasius (under Julian) and philosophers like Aelius Aristides (under Antoninus), Epictetus (under Domitian) and Dio Chrysostom (under Trajan) had close relations to the emperors. You're only partially right there. Greek itself would have been accepted as civilized by Justinian (had he time-traveled), since it was his wife's tongue.

[@tylerellis9097]

Justinian Literally made writing Greek edicts the norm and called it the modern day language of the Romans. The provinces themselves had little bearing on the use of Latin in the imperial court.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@tylerellis9097Justinian was controlled by his Greek wife!

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

Greek and Latin were the two languages of the Roman Empire since Greek was the lingua franca in the East so Heraclius made it official in 620. The use of Latin was rather limited. The title Basileus/Βασιλεύς was adopted after the triumphant victory over the Persians in 628. Not only is he the Emperor, but also the King of the Romans. A title that he claimed from the defeated Persian King of Kings. just like Alexander III did, in order to outline that the Roman Empire is an Imperium with the identity and homogenous strength, of a Kingdom, so he used both, the same as most of the Emperors from then on. Ηρακλειος, πιστός έν Χριστώ τώ Θεώ, Βασιλεύς καί Αυτοκράτωρ, Ρωμαίων. Heraclius, faithful in Christ the God, King and Emperor of the Romans. A Roman King, for a strong Roman identity in the Roman Empire. Which is, Κάθε γή βατή, καί κάθε θάλασσα πλωτή. Every walkable land, and every navigable sea.

[@redquoter]

The New Testament was written in Greek. Saint Paul the Apostle wrote a letter to the Romans, in Greek.

[@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك]

Aramaic language: Am I a joke to you?

[@slimebeingslimey8266]

​@@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك new testament is in koine greek

[@jonesjohnson6301]

great vid, especially the answer at the start xD just commenting to help you out with the algorithm.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

".. *His pronunciation was such as you would expect of a Latin who had come to our country ["Byzantium"] as a young man and learnt Greek thoroughly but was not quite clear in his articulation, for he mutilated his syllables here and there.* This want of clearness in his utterance and his dropping the last letters did not escape even ordinary people and made rhetoricians call him 'rustic' in his speech. As a result, although his writings were crammed with dialectical commonplaces, drawn from all sources, they were decidedly not free from faults of composition and solecisms scattered broadcast .." *-Anna Komnene* *[Alexiad 5.8]* «.. *τὴν δὲ φωνὴν τοιοῦτος οἷος ἂν ἀπὸ τῶν Λατίνων ἐληλυθὼς νεανίας εἰς τὴν ἡμεδαπὴν γῆν τὰ Ἑλλήνων μὲν ἐκμάθοι, οὐ πάνυ δὲ καθαριεύοι τι τὴν φωνήν, ἀλλ' ἔστιν οὗ καὶ κολοβωτέρας ἐκφέροι τὰς συλλαβάς.* Ἀλλ' οὔτε τὸ τοῦ στόματος οὐκ εὐαγὲς οὔτε τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἄφωνον ἐλάνθανε τοὺς πολλούς, τοῖς δὲ ῥητορικωτέροις ἀγροικίζων κατελαμβάνετο. Ἔνθεν τοι καὶ τὰ συγγράμματα τούτου συνέσφιγκτο μὲν ἁπανταχόθεν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς τόποις, ἀσυνταξίας δὲ κακίαν καὶ σολοικισμὸν σποράδην διερριμμένον παντάπασιν οὐκ ἐξέφευγον ..» *-Ἄννα Κομνηνή* *[Ἀλεξιάς 5.8]*

[@NemanorTheAlmighty]

Most Laconic and grand intro/Answear I've ever beheld

[@joelpaddock5199]

Interestingly in that edict 'basileis' is part of a statement in relation to Christ, that in the other edicts go as "Heraclius, new Constantine, faithful in Christ, Augustus..." and "imperator Caesar Flavian Heraclius faithful-in-Christ our great worker of peace..." This might suggest that the preference for 'basilevs' developed out of Christianization rather than hellenizing tendencies. After all, Christ was not commonly called emperor, Cesar, or Augustus but he is always referred to as king ('basilevs') both in the New Testament and Church literature of the time period. The movement towards this title reflects the emperor's position in respect to both Church and Roman state, that he is emperor with respect to Romanity, and he is king in relation to Christ and the Church- in the shared sense of reigning with Christ (2 Timothy 2;12 "ei hypomenomen, kai sym*basilevs*omen") On the other hand, while Greek culture and language were never an impediment to being Roman, being a Germanic barbarian certainly was. The renewed emphasis on Latin in the West under Charlemagne was part of his efforts to become legitimate, since he natively spoke a Germanic Frankish dialect. So in a way, saying Heraclius replaced Latin with Greek is about as wrong as saying Charlemagne replaced Latin with German!

[@mickeymouse1697]

The Eastern part of the Empire was always Greek , Never Latin, The Hellenistic Empire Of Alexander the Great was always there .

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Except Moesia, which was Latin speaking.

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

The eastern part of the Roman Empire was heavily Latinized north of Macedonia. From the land where Serbia and Albania are today all the way up to Romania. The whole Balkan area aside frorm Greece, Macedonia and Thrace spoke Latin. There were also some regions in Asia Minor and even Greece wherein Latin colonists heavily dwelled.

[@skylinelover9276]

​@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖωνtry hard, in Italy school east roman empire doesn't consider as Italian latin claim

[@spaceracer6861]

Inconsequential spelling errors I want to point out, unless you found sources using them otherwise: 1. σεβαστ ό ς is stressed on the final syllable, unless it's on a compound word. 2. αύ γουστος is stressed on the first syllable. 3. nevermind the pronunciation, βασιλικ ή takes the feminine final -η

[@thejustifier5566]

I assumed Heraclius and his successors still used the Imperator Caesar Augustus title and Basileus interchangeably.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

They used Basileus & Autokrator!!! Those Beautiful Hellenic words! 😍🇬🇷

[@joeroganstrtshots881]

Yeah but they didn’t. By the 1000s they were fully Greek. Only Roman in name. By 1198 they were paying tribute to the actual Latin Empire in the West.

[@mantralibre1367]

@@TGeoMin 😂

[@mantralibre1367]

@@joeroganstrtshots881 they spoke Greek. They called themselves ROMANS.

[@lukemitchell5337]

If Heraclius didn't change the official language to Greek, then who did? The video fails to answer that question. The video mainly points out that Greek was a popular language in the East, (which no one is denying and this is widely known within the Byzantine field) but doesn't explicitly mention when Latin died out in the Eastern Roman Empire. Because from the 7th century onwards, Latin stopped being used as an official language for the Byzantines (ignoring the sparse examples of 'Augustus'). During the reign of Leo VI the Wise, the laws were translated from Latin to Greek. Would that be when they stopped using Latin? But that just shows most people in the governing class didn't know Latin at that point.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Nobody, there was no official decree. The remaining Latin officials were slowly replaced by Greek ones, which was facilitated by the losses of lands inhabited by Latin speakers (Moesia, parts of Italy, Africa, parts of Spain and Dalmatia). Noble families like the Anicii and Decii assimilated. Also the title of Augustus (Αύγουστος in Greek) wasn't sparse, it was part of the imperial title, otherwise it would not have survived until the 15th century. Even Wikipedia admits that some knowledge of Latin was preserved by diplomats/messengers to communicate with the Latin West and by scholars like Michael Psellos and Maximos Planudes. If nobody knew Latin past the 600s, how could they have upheld and later translated the code of Justinian into Greek. Additionally, the Thraco-Romans then known as the Vlachs (Proto-Romanians) still lived in the lower Danube regions, speaking a Romance language until they slowly started migrating north in the 11th century. "Would the translation of documents from Latin to Greek have stopped, if there had been no linguistic shift?" (I am paraphrasing). No, it was already done in the 5th century, when there were way more Latin speakers, since the majority population was Greek-speaking. Yes even back then.

[@lukemitchell5337]

​@@Michael_the_Drunkard Leo VI the Wise decision to translate Justinian's laws from Latin to Greek shows that practically nobody knew Latin except for an extreme minority. Hence why it had to be translated. Afterward, only dedicated translators to the West knew Latin. What I mean by "sparse" is that except on the coins of a few emperors, Basileus replaced Augustus as the mainly used title for the ruler. From Alexander in the 9th century onwards, the official title of the emperor was 'Basileus kai autokratōr Rhomaiōn' ("Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans"). Notice how the direct Greek translation of Augustus (Αύγουστος) as you have mentioned wasn't used. The main point is, even though there is no official decree by Heraclius, his adoption of the Greek equivalent of Augustus in the form of Basileus shows a shift or move from Latin to Greek as the preferred language of choice in government. For all intents and purposes, Latin was the "official" language before the 600s. Note the quotation marks, because there was never an official language of the Romans as stated in their records. But when defining an official language as being used in the government, laws, and army, it was still Latin. Remember, the Institutes and Novels were in Latin. Edicts were meant to be seen by the public, so Justinian made them Greek to make life easier. Even the video said that during Maurice's time, orders were given in Latin which shows that soldiers knew basic Latin at the minimum. But they were probably better speakers in Latin than that, as quite a lot of field army soldiers came from the Balkans (fun fact). In conclusion, most people in powerful positions were bilingual anyways, they knew Latin and Greek, this included Justinian. Bonus fact, the USA and UK don't have an "official" language either. But Russia and Germany do, look it up.

[@aokiaoki4238]

Latin was already dead by the 5th century

[@nazeem8680]

Fun Fact: Latin was more widely used as an official language in the umayyad caliphate than in the Eastern Roman empire, in coinage, administration and the army.

[@RedWolf75]

Spain and North Africa?

[@angelb.823]

It's worth noting that one of the names of the Byzantine Empire was "Bhasileia ton Romaion/Βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων", which in literal Greek translation means "Kingdom of the Romans". Contextually, the term is used to address the realm based in Constantinople as "Empire of the Romans", not "Kingdom of the Romans".

[@ntonisa6636]

I don't believe Basileia ever signified "Kingdom", rather it was probably only intended to translate the word Imperium(naturally followed by "tōn Rhomaíōn" as that's what "Romanum" means in the original Latin phrase) especially since Basileus was clearly meant to be the Greek translation of Imperator. Hence why almost nobody (the only exception I can think at the moment is Charlemagne and maybe Simeon of Bulgaria, but those were special cases) was ever called "Basileus of France" or "Basileus of the Hungarians/Magyars" by the Byzantines. When they wanted to refer to someone as "king" they always made sure to employ a different title, something like "ρηξ" (from Latin Rex) or "κράλης" (from Slavic "kral", ultimately from Charlemagne AKA Karl)

[@angelb.823]

@@ntonisa6636 I meant it as in the modern sense of the Greek translation, not the ancient/medieval one. Wasn't also the Serbian ruler Stefan Dusan titled as Basileus of Greeks/Romans and Serbians at some point?

[@ntonisa6636]

@@angelb.823 Well even though it isn't very relevant, Basileia in modern Greek means monarchy(the form of government) rather than "kingdom"(that would be basíleion), but again one shouldn't be confused by modern meanings of old words. After all a basileus in the Mycenaean world appears to have originally referred to something well bellow the dignity of king, perhaps a minor chieftain or even merely a guild boss, that's why we should be careful not to conflate the distinct meanings a certain word might have had during different periods. As for Stefan Dusan I think yes he did call himself that way, but I don't believe the Byzantines ever recognized such title of his.

[@DCCrisisclips]

@@ntonisa6636 In a docu movie I watch, the serbian ruler was referred to as κράλης during the civil war between Andronicos 2nd and 3rd.

[@baggelis_aikaterinis]

I would like to give you my admiration for my language pronunciation! Great job Sir and for your information in our tradition except calling ourselves Greeks 'Έλληνες' we also called as Romans'Ρωμιοι' especially we who have ancestry from Asia minor =old Greece =παλιά Ελλαδα

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@yiannimil1]

we never called ourselves Greek=Γραικοs. that was what the Romans called the Hellenes. the original old Greece population was Achaian displaced to Ionia from Achaia thru Attica. Being the remnants of Christian Romans in Asia Minor highly unlikely constitutes that population as Old Greek, a term that came into being in the later part of the 19th century in Asia Minor.

[@massimoe.nicolin6067]

0:01 Understandable, have a nice day

[@GrecoByzantine1821]

Officially or not it doesn't change the fact that Eastern Roman Empire was Hellenized in terms of culture, ethnicity, language etc. What it gradually left was Roman/Latin only by name but Hellenic/Greek in everything else.

[@seronymus]

I remember reading in a twitter thread (I know great source) that as late as around the 1100s, some Byzantine soldiers spoke in (likely some dialect closer to Italian) rough Latin. However, Michael Psellos (a monk-scholar, the best in his region, died 1096) allegedly -confused Caesar with Cicero-, such was the level of ignorance of the Old Roman past in the Empire by then.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

A spelling mistake by a Greek-speaking scholar (language of the Roman East) is lightyears away from "ignorance" and the Roman "past" hadn't passed, since it was still ongoing. I know, that these words are not yours but from some Western historian spewing useless conjecture. I too heard it before. Examples like this are a cautionary tale how secondary sources corrupt the interpretation of the past.

[@seronymus]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard ;~; I'm sorry, you're right, I didn't think about that.....

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard Those people were Greeks though! 😃

[@TheDAWinz]

Did brazil change the language of Portuguese to brazillian? I say yes! Jokes aside, fantastic video and something I've said for a while myself.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@ralambosontiavina7372]

Excellent work as always !

[@samuvogado8284]

El oriente romano, al tener ya un anterior proceso de helenización mucho más avanzado, lograría unificar el idioma griego, que fue evolucionando del koiné al medieval, y del medieval al moderno.

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

Excellent, outstanding, well researched video. I agree 100 %. The main reason Latin gradually completly vanished from the ( Eastern) Roman Empire is that the Latin speaking Italy ( most of it ), Balkans and North Africa were conquered by Longobards, Slavs and Arabs.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

@@TGeoMin δεν κατάλαβα καθόλου τι θέλεις να εκφράσει φίλε. δεν μίλησα πουθενά από την ιταλική γλώσσα. προσωπικά λατρεύω τα ελληνικά, την Ελλάδα και τους Έλληνες. αλλά διαφωνώ με τον βασιλευς των Ρωμαίων αφού νομίζω ότι όλες οι γλώσσες έχουν την ίδια τιμή. Καμία είναι ανώτερη η κατώτερη από τις άλλες.

[@robertfranklin422]

As usual, excellent video!

[@JustinCage56]

The main reason I've always heard for greek being more codified in the Roman world was because Egypt was lost from Rome by the Arabs and the egyptian population held the most latin speakers in the empire that weren't from Italy. Once it was lost for good, he more or less decided to lean more heavily into the Greek language since the only Latin speakers you could find was in Italy (which was slowly inching itself away from imperial rule day by day thanks to Lomb*rds) and Carthage which was about to be lost. Honestly forgot where I've read this from so forgive me if this stupid beyond belief.

[@Burgermeister1836]

Actually the biggest Latin-speaking population in the pre-Justinian East was in the Balkans, namely Romanized Illyrians (from whom most Emperors between 250 and 600 hailed) and Thracians. The area was increasingly depopulated starting with the Huns and eventually was taken over by Slavs by 650.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​​​@@Burgermeister1836 these Thraco-Romans didn't disappear. They are very alive today especially in Balkan keyboard wars in youtube comment sections Who and where are they? R O M A N I A

[@vericulum6810]

​@@Michael_the_DrunkardVlachs more generally. Not all Vlachs ar Romanians there are also Aromanians living mostly in Greece.

[@aokiaoki4238]

​@@Burgermeister1836 Illyrians were definitely in the Greek language influence. Most even have Greek names.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

13th century, that's some 600 years after Heraclius. After 1204, one can say with some certainty, that Eastern Romans gradually shifted to a more Hellenic identity with the empire gone and 3 feudal states remaining. After their reconquest of Constantinople, they were limited to Greece and some enclaves in Asia Minor, accelerating this change. Officially, they were still Romans though until 1453. But certainly not before.

[@TGeoMin]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard They are still Romans. The Roman title has nothing to do with Latins any more, it is a Greek matter.

[@jacklaurentius6130]

Greek culture/identity was too strong to wipe out entirely. I wonder why? From the empires of antiquity, few cultures remained after their collapse. It would make a good video 😉 I think Greeks are more greek than Egyptians are actually Egyptian.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

The Christian Egyptians aka Copts are genetically Egyptian but only use old Egyptian for liturgical purposes. Culturally, they have been Arabized.

[@branis96]

Egyptian is a modern nationality which was created few centuries ago, same thing with Greek nationality.. those nationalities are just the result of Western influence, which wrote and re-wrote most of ancient history Egypt is a foreign word to locals (both today and in history) and big percentage of history you read about Egypt and Middle East s just wrong and far from reality.

[@branis96]

​@@Michael_the_Drunkard there's no such thing as "Genetically Egyptian" ... Egypt is a modern nationality, and the word Egypt is a foreign word to locals, and the history of Egypt was always very diverse since ancient times And for Copts and Christians in Middle East and in the whole world in general, have mostly nothing to do with ancient people... This lie was created by Westerners (specially British) when they started colonizing those lands, they gave the name "native" to anyone who was ready to help them in their colonization Christianity (specially Trinitarianism, which is the religion of the vast majority of Christians today) is a Roman/European political religion, everyone (outside Europe)who follow it is just a follower of a Roman/European religion which was created to benefit only Roman/European Empires So you are wrong about Copts.

[@rudolfnechvile5023]

I dunno if you'll see this, but I'm kind of curious if you'd be interested in doing a video on homosexuality in the Roman Empire? I know it's a bit controversial, but most of pop discourse boils down to "lmao, the Romans were turbo gay until Christianity ruined it for everyone". I just sort of find it unconvincing that it was so utterly widespread and that their attitudes would magically shift from tolerant to super intolerant. Also an aspect that I never see discussed is that the "gay emperors" phenomenon might well just be slander. A prominent example being Octavian being Caesar's "boy toy", or all of Tiberius' "depravity". Everyone acknowledges the fact that politicians are the ones that wrote the histories and were often at odds with emperors, so were prone to mischaracter them. However, I feel our tolerant modern society fails to recognise (or willfully ignores) through our modern lense, that homosexuality might have just been slander. Especially since it's not done in an outright abrasive fashion (like calling someone a f@gg0t), like it is today. It would be interesting to see a truly unbiased and nuanced discussion, instead of just assertions (from either side), and based on your videos dispelling myths, I believe you could afford this topic the due diligence it deserves. The first decent video I've come across discussing this from another angle is from Leather Apron Club, called "the Lie Told to Us About Our History", but that focuses a bit more on Classical Greece. This topic is obviously a sensitive minefield, but I love your stuff, so a video would be amazing!

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@yiannimil1]

@@TGeoMin ελα!! ελεος, μας τα ζαλισες

[@seto_kaiba_]

I think that it was accepted to be a top because you are seen as still a manly man but taking it up the butt diminishes your manliness and brings shame upon you and your family.

[@iseeyou5061]

I intirigued by the thumbnail and i get my answer immidiately. I say that's a good bargain so Subscribe

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

I sense a hint of Orientalism in Ostrogorsky's argument. Septimus Severus and Diocletian were the rulers who turned the Roman emperor into a monarchical title in the 3rd century, when the Roman Empire was still located in Rome.

[@warning3951]

Great vid!

[@aggelosvatis]

I believe that Manuel the 1st had the longest name and titles of all Roman emperors. He put in there all of his victories.

[@alessandrogini5283]

You should make a video about the logistic of Roman army in mesopotamia,and what could had made differents to annex Persia..for example,i think that romans should copied nomadic tribes tactics, employ nomads tribes in big scale against the sassanids,and Copy the logistic of Alexander the great..also change the supply could had helped

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

They did something along those lines with the Ghassanid Arabs.

[@TheBullVenom]

I've personally never heard of this claim. If there is a point where it can be argued as Greek becoming official it would be when the emperors started using it in edicts, rather than making edicts in Latin and having them translated.

[@tylerellis9097]

Well then arguably the answer from that point of view is Theodosius II with Justinian later making it the norm.

[@Joanna-il2ur]

Only the novels of Justinian used Greek, but the codex and institutes are in Latin.

[@michaelmunsey5660]

In classical antiquity the post-Julio Claudian Roman emperors also used the term “basileus” in the eastern part of the empire

[@tagmata1872]

What’s that footage from?

[@cazwalt9013]

I think even before the east and west split both Greek and Latin were used in the same rate and I would argue that Greek was more prominent among civilians. Roman's we're already in love with Greek and the Greek way, for example emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his book meditations in Greek rather than Latin, so I'd say that the Roman Empire had two languages not just one. Plus a lot of what we know about byzantines comes from a western point of view which most of the time is biased against them and tries to paint them in a way that distances them from being Roman.

[@jasonmuniz-contreras6630]

Sigh

[@maiorianvs9308]

You have, once again, taught me more about Roman History than the American Public Education System ever has. Thank You

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

Admirable, no doubt, but well...no great standard to surpass...

[@Sp-zj5hw]

ok, but you should trust school more than KZbin....

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

@@Sp-zj5hw - Generally true, but not always; depends on the school - depends on the KZbin channel.

[@TGeoMin]

"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.

[@Aaricgaming359]

Request u to watch the most important and accurante arab series called "Omar series" Omar was the second calip of islam. Theres a series based on him which has 30 episodes>It has english subtitles too Omar the 2nd caliph was the one under whose leadership muslims captured entire middleeast,persia and north africa. The series has shown very well the conflicts and battles between muslims and romans very well Request u to watch it. If u want link with subtitles ,i will share it to u

[@RomabooRamblings]

Sure, man. I think a lot of people mentioned it. I just didn't manage to find time to check it out yet.

[@Aaricgaming359]

@@RomabooRamblings alright thank u

[@christiansidenden6220]

Since long there were colonies of the Greeks in southern Italy (Gr. Italos) and no need to separate radically between Roman Latin in the West and Roman Greek in the East. These two interchangeably if we talking Roman Empire until 1453.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

I don't get why people believe stuff like this. The default position should be to believe nothing until you personally confirm it. Yes, this means I don't believe in lots of things commonly held as true, but I also don't not believe in them. You can just hold in a state of superposition until you verify something. It isn't hard to do

[@apmoy70]

In the 13th c. Maximos Planoudes, a native Greek speaker, was the FIRST Greek intellectual who translated Cato, Ovid, Augustine, Cicero, and Boethius from Latin into Byzantine Greek...in the 13th c.! For comparison, the Indian Panchatantra had been already translated three centuries earlier, and the French La Geurre de Troie (Benoît de Sainte-Maure), in the 12th c CE. Does that mean that the Byzantines before Planoudes read these works in the original language, or that it took a few hundred years for the curriculum to offer Latin studies 🤔? Interestingly enough, on Mount Athos a Latin speaking Monastery was founded in the late 10th c. (985 or 990 CE) with Benedictine monks from Amalfi, Italy, known as Ἀμαλφηνῶν /ɐmɐlɸɛnɔ̂n/ (of the Amalfitans), between the monasteries of Karakallou and Great Lavra, that became the centre of Latin studies in the Eastern Roman Empire, but after the Great Schism of 1054 it immediately started degenerating until it became vacant a few decades later (its ruins still stand on the Athonite peninsula)

[@ntonisa6636]

Well maybe the thinking was that those interested in Cicero should just learn Latin and study it in the original... I mean it took even longer for ancient Greek authors to get translated in the vernacular. Even circulating vernacular Greek translations of the Bible was largely taboo until the early 20th century, because for some people to translate the scriptures was to "corrupt" them... Edit: By the way in what idiom were Planoudes' translations produced? My guess would be Attic?

[@apmoy70]

@@ntonisa6636 Yes, he used a learned version of Medieval Greek, closer to Attic. In his various epistles and Mathematical treatises, he uses the vernacular of his time. BTW, Planoudes is the first Byzantine who introduced the numerals we use today, in the Empire. He even wrote a thesis about the Indo-Arabic numeral zero 0, which he called τζίφρα /d͡z̠ifɾɐ/ (f.) from the Arabic صِفْر /ʂifr/

[@ntonisa6636]

@@apmoy70 pretty interesting stuff, thanks! And to imagine I scarcely even heard this guy's name before!

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

No, these and many other Latin documents have already been translated in Byzantium centuries before. These Greek translations were meant for the Catholics in Italy and the rest of western Europe, since they were also translated to Latin by Maximos Planoudes.

[@aokiaoki4238]

8:01 βασιλική 9:39 σεβαστός and αύγουστος

[@tsilaras_exposed3109]

Fascinating video!

[@KenDelloSandro7565]

I've read somewhere that the Eastern Title of BASILEIOS is the Equivalent of DOMINUS. The Western part of the Empire would never have looked at the Emperor as a Dominus or Lord. That comes from the eastern tradition of having 'Semi-divine, god kings. Like Persia, etc. The west would have at least waited for the Emperor to die before 'deifying' him. A different understanding of the order of ruling i suppose.

[@Joanna-il2ur]

It was the word for king in the world of the poleis. It had replaced the earlier anax or wanax as used for Agamemnon and co. So in Greek, the emperors admitted they were just kings.

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

Rome 756BC-1461 AD AUG.15 1461AD 09:45AM Last roman emperor was David megalocomnenos

[@MattieK09]

Concise right to the point

[@RexGalilae]

It never made sense to me why someone who, with his father, governed Africa, a heavily Latin province, would be so opposed to speaking or using it

[@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك]

And yet he did it 😂😂😂

[@morsecode980]

Heck, there’s some coins from the “Byzantines” still calling their nation the Roman Republic. Some things never change

[@Arbelot]

This argument kinda confuses me since Heraclius and his father served as governors of North Africa and the latter wasn't known for its Greek speakers...

[@ok-lq6tv]

Greek was more spoken in the empire than latin even before it began to be divided. in the city of rome you'd get along better knowing only greek and no latin rather than the other way round i bet

[@RomabooRamblings]

Probably true at the time of Augustus. Later in the 1st and 2nd centuries there was a population boom in Italy, which would've resulted in more native Latin speakers

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Rather in Naples than Rome

[@thx1168]

Latin, the language of Latium, and all the other Italic languages of the peninsula are just a figment of our imaginations.

[@Joanna-il2ur]

The west also spoke Punic, Berber, Gaulish, Brythonic, and other languages. Much of Italy spoke other languages. Outside the army, Latin was sometimes marginal. In the east Syriac, Egyptian and several others flourished.

[@unclesam5230]

Instant Click

[@ptolemy_1427]

the 7th century is crucial to the Hellenization of the empire, but it's not a black and white thing seeing as the entire process was organic.

[@mr.d8747]

*While Heraclius may not have changed the official language of the empire from latin to greek, his reign was still an important milestone in Roman history, since it was during Heraclius' reign that the centuries long conflict between the Roman and Persian Empires ended and the centuries long conflict with the Muslims started.*

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

According to us Muslims, we say that Heraclius changed the language

[@samuvogado8284]

La baja alfabetización del occidente romano tendría como consecuencia indirecta el surgimiento de las lenguas romances, como el castellano.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Greek has also changed significantly

[@mariusmitrea1309]

Until the entry of the Slavs into the Balkans south of the Danube around the year 600 and the establishment of the first Bulgarian state, the presence of a large number of Latin-speaking subjects/citizens was numerous north of the Haemus mountains/Balkans and north of the Danube, so the use of the Latin language was justified . After the occupation by the Slavs of the areas inhabited by these citizens who were called themselves "Romanus" and some of them became Romanians in time, the influence of Latin in Byzantium decreased along with the number of Latin-speaking citizens now separated from Constantinople by the first Bulgarian empire. When Bulgaria was reconquered around the year 900 (Macedonian dynasty), the empire was already Greekized. North of the Haemus mountains were the Slavs and the Latins/Romanians now reintegrated into the empire. Then, after two centuries, the revolt of the Romanians and Bulgarians against the empire took place and the Vlach-Bulgarian empire led by the Asan dynasty was created, composed of Romanians especially north of the Danube and Slavs south of the Danube up to the Haemus/Balkan mountains. After the Mongol invasion around 1250, the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire disappeared, leaving room for the Bulgarian principalities (majority Bulgarians) S. Danube and Romanian Country / Wallachia and N. Danube Moldova (majority Romanians). It should be noted that Greek speakers still considered themselves "Romanus" until 1700-1800 when the Hellenistic origins were rediscovered. The Romanians remained "Romanus".

[@kanyekubrick5391]

Man I fucking love Heraclius so much. That guy was so awesome

[@SharpStyleSavvy]

Where these shots takes from?

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

Thank you for finally dispelling this age-old misconception. Latin and Greek, both are the national languages of the Roman people.

[@makedonas_ellhnas]

Without any disrespect , can we call Byzantium a Greek empire? or was it a "foreign" empire that occupied Greece? In the schools in Greece we got taught the Heraclius story as fact I am quite confused now

[@luciusjuniustavianus7540]

It was a foreign empire but the greeks later embraced and preserved it

[@NickStrife]

People need to understand that the Romans where the biggest Grecophiles during antiquity. Mainly because of Alexander's accomplishments. This is why half the Roman Empire was still speaking Greek even during antiquity. Julius Ceasar was often talking in Greek as well. Romans respected Greek culture and often copied it. Yes they did that with other cultures as well, but we need to understand Greek culture had a special place in Roman society (especially among the most influential Romans). Therefore, it is of no surprise that Greeks were mostly fine with Roman rule. The two cultures slowly merged and were molded into what is called "Greco-Roman" culture. After centuries of cultural exchange there was virtually no difference between Greek and Roman culture, or between Greeks and Romans either. It was one and the same. Of course today we can call it "Greco-Roman" or "Byzantine" to make a chronological distinction. However, to these people, after the full Christianization of the Roman empire, there was no "Greek", they were calling themselves just Romans (or to be more precise "Romaioi") and their empire was called by them "Romania". Modern Greeks have more in common with the Christian medieval Greeks who identified as Romans, than their Classical pagan ancestors. Now someone might ask "why are they calling themselves Hellenes/Greeks today and not Romans, then?". Well, that's another story for another big comment.

[@angelb.823]

@@NickStrife There was a book called Hellenism in Late Antiquity by G. W. Bowersock that details the decline of Hellenism (as in the terms of Hellenic paganism in favor of Christianity) from 6th century onwards. However, the book also makes mention of Hellenism as a vital school of thought for early theologians (e.g. the Cappadocian Fathers), which they used to counter arising heresies at that time (Nestorianism, Monophysitsm, etc., most of whom were based on Neoplatonist ideals), with strong assertments and arguments that would cement the position of the Church's doctrine (e.g. the role of the Holy Trinity, the persons, the substance, etc). Moreover, the culture of Hellenism persisted on customs and traditions in places like Egypt and Syria, and in some occasions blended in with Christian traditions, until the Muslim Arabs conquered Egypt and the Middle-East. Then, it fainted in favor of the Arabic language. So, while Hellenism dropped out of the identity of the people, who identified as Greek-speaking Christian Romans (or Romaoi for that matter), the cultural concept of Hellenism (as in the school of thought) remained in the Byzantine Empire, up until the Greek Enlightenment and the Greek War of Independence, where Greek identity was brought back.

[@NickStrife]

@@angelb.823 I totaly agree. But to those people all the things you mentioned were just "Roman" to them. Of course the Greco-Roman culture I mentioned above will have tons of Hellenic elements in it. It's only natural. The "Hellene" term and the pagan religion dropped out gradually. Not the Hellenic culture. There are many reasons the "Greco-Romans" (I personally call them like that for accuracy) decided to use the "Hellene" term again during the 19th century. Cultural, ideological, diplomatic and political reasons.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​​@@NickStrife I partially agree. But it is not true to say that Eastern Romans were the same as Western Romans. The West was mostly Latin-speaking. Most of these Western Roman people, except Italians, were Romanized Celts (Gauls, Iberians, Britons) so somewhat distinct from the culturally Romanized Greeks in the East. They shared a Roman civic identity, though.

[@MBP1918]

Augustus Caesar Heraclius

[@starcapture3040]

Make video about the rise of Islam and the east romans reaction to their defeats and collapse of the sassined empire at the same time

[@ericponce8740]

Was Tiberius II a native Greek speaker?

[@ezzovonachalm9815]

The history of the Εast Roman Empire is so complicated and the most of the time obscure and or confusing, that I was elated to read in Ostrogorki's that Heraklios hat imposed greek as the official language in the whole empire. And now, 70 years later, You come and teach me that Ostrogorski had not wroten the truth !.

[@b43xoit]

Count of people, not "amount" of people. Unless you are summing up their masses.

[@Hrafnskald]

Fascinating exploration, thanks for shedding light on this often oversimplified shift. Quick side question: is there an f/ph sound in the first few syllables of the Greek pronunciation of autokratos? You take great care in pronouncing words, and I know there are some shifts in sounds over time. It would be interesting to know where this started or was removed.

[@gerardvila4685]

I'm not a professional, but from what I've observed it doesn't work like that. It's not so much that languages SHIFT their sounds, it's more that they BLUR the differences between, eg, a "V" and an "F", or a "U" (call it "OO" for native English speakers) and a "V". For instance, a French comic actor playing a German will pronounce all the "V" sounds as "F" to imitate a German accent; and Dicken's Cockney characters are always saying things like "Wittles" (for "victuals", ie food) - as do many East Europeans. It's under the cover of the blurring, which can go on for generations, that a shift will occur, that is the new pronounciation will become more popular than the old, until it becomes "official".

[@ntonisa6636]

Yes the upsilon of all "au" and "eu" diphthongs is pronounced like an "f" when followed by a "voiceless" consonant (like the "t" in autokrátōr or the s in basileus) or at the end of a word like _άνευ_ , and like a "v" when followed by a vowel or a "voiced" consonant (β, γ, δ, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ρ) ... As for when the trend started, please don't quote me on this, but from what I've read apparently there's inscriptions indicating it had already began in Boeotia(around Thebes) in the 3rd century BC, though it likely took many centuries for it to become completely dominant...probably well before the time of Heraclius though...

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

You can call us aelines or romans Rome moved to Constantinople remember?

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

".. Georgios Frantzis tells us that two days before the fall of Consantinople, the Emperor Constantine Paleologos calls the city (Constantinople) as: *"The joy and hope of all Greeks".* *-Konstantinos Palaiologos* *[Chronicle by Georgios Sfrantzis]* «.. ἐλπίδα καὶ χαρὰν πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ καύχημα πάσι τοῖς ὦσιν ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατολήν ..» *-Κωνσταντῖνος Παλαιολόγος* *[Γεώργιος Σφραντζής Χρονικόν]*

[@Joanna-il2ur]

As Steven Runciman points out, most Greeks fought on the Turkish side, the idea to reunite the people under Ottoman rule. Most of the defence of the city was by Venetians, who also forged the canon, The Prophet, which blew a hole in its walls.

[@filipefernandes870]

I dont like the Byzantine term either, BUT the term is normally used from Constantine the Great, not Heraklius

[@Joanna-il2ur]

I disagree completely. The term was never used in antiquity.

[@filipefernandes870]

@@Joanna-il2ur i meant by people today and many historians. On how they label the later Roman Empire which continued in the east.

[@Marble8King]

09:36 - wrong dictation of the word σεβαστός. The accent is on the last syllable, not like you write it. 10:13 - the same mistake for the word αύγουστος, not like you write it

[@marym7104]

Within 16 hours!

[@crustymcgee6580]

When did Greek become the language of the imperial court in the eastern Roman empire?

[@tylerellis9097]

Cant really pin point a specific date in regards to the end of its formal use as the everyday court language.

[@SDArgo_FoC]

It just started to take over completely in the 6th century probably after Justinian. But even then, a lot of people still spoke it in the court beforehand

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Process started in the 5th century under Theodosius II. Latin was presumably dead (in the court) by the late 7th or early 8th century, since the Latin provinces had been conquered, which meant that no Latin-speaking courtier or senator could come from there anymore (except Corsica and Sardinia, but they were only nominally part of the empire).

[@tylerellis9097]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard You forgot Ravenna and Rome until the mid 8th century. Funny you should mention Sardinia since Constantine VII later mentions his Sardinian soldiers singing a Latin Chant praising the Emperor in De Ceremonies.

[@nenenindonu]

Reality : An "official language" in the modern sense of the word didn't even exist back then

[@Sanchoniaton1]

Merci de remettre les pendules de la vérité historique à l'heure et de réhabiliter l'Empire Romain d'Orient, non comme "byzantin" mais comme Romain

[@zachary8491]

History cuts everything into small digestible piece for us to learn. But this is misleading. You have to unlearn this process as you move on. Really, everything is nuanced, all cultures are interconnected and counter-exemples always pop up. Hellenised romans ? Romanised greeks? Imperial melting pot?

[@marym7104]

Within 10,500 views!

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

Not Greeks Is Americans called arabs? Neither do we called Greeks

[@afridge8608]

Im pretty sure that my greek history book also talked about this but in greece because of nationalism they try to remove roman elements from our history. Stupidest example is making up that we called ourselves romioi before the revolution because it comes from some old greek word for prowess

[@vanmars5718]

Wtf are you talking about? Have you even opened a greek school book??? Nowhere it says that term Rhomaioi comes from the greek word romi (power). It explicitly mentions that means Romans. What nationalism and what erosion of roman elements you ignorant? I truly suggested you to open a greek school book of history and maybe you can learn the basics

[@vanmars5718]

Oh my god...really, like seriously...why are people like you existing and spreading such misinformation. I have read all history books from Greek schools because of my children and they are very well written and accurate (as much is possible for youngsters). Seriously dude, tell me why the heck you say such lies?

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

You actually did call yourself Romaioi but you were clearly influenced by Latin and the Roman Empire.

[@vanmars5718]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard That's a weird way to understand the 1000 old Eastern Roman state...as "influenced" by....

[@david11krdzavac]

Wow, 0 likes, impressive.

[@michaelm-bs2er]

The video only proves that it was under the reign of Heraklios that hellenisation of the Eastern Roman Empire was complete. Heraklios dropped the Latin titles and adopted the Greek title. He didn't suddenly change the language from Latin to Greek, nobody has ever claimed this. He didn't have to. The process was already underway due to the sheer strength of numbers of the Greek population in the eastern provinces. Even Justinian lamented the lack of Latin speakers in the Byzantine Empire. Greek and Latin were co-official languages in the eastern provinces. This was born out of convenience, most Roman aristocrats were educated in Greek as Greek was the language of the cutting edge of advanced culture of the day (as English is now) and many parts of the eastern Mediterranean had already been hellenised. So it was for convenience that Greek was made the co-official language in the eastern provinces. It was again for practical reasons that they (the court/administration under Heraklios) dropped Latin in the 6th century. There were too few native Latin speakers to mount any resistance. They didn't need an official edict to do so, they just did it. Ancient people didn't think like we do, an edict or proclamation isn't needed to initiate a change in language. It's a matter of practicality. This should prove to anyone with a sense of logic that the Byzantine Empire was not a true Roman Empire. How could it be truly Roman when there are so few native speakers of the Roman language that they couldn't even object to the government dropping the language of the Romans from official use? The truth is the Romans (native Latin speaking Romans) only had a tenuous hold on the East and as time went on they relied more and more on Greek administrators and generals and eventually those administrators and generals took the reigns of power and did away with Latin when it was no longer needed and the few Latins left in the East were unable to do anything about it. Furthermore there is some ignorance on the part of the video maker when he informs us that Claudius refers to Latin and Greek as "our languages". It is often said and misunderstood. This comes from Suetonius and this is a criticism of Claudius. Suetonius' point, if you read the passage properly, is that Claudius was too fond of the Greek culture and he earned the ire of many Roman senators because of it. Also bear in the mind, the same Claudius would revoke/deny the citizenship to people who could not speak Latin well enough. Speaking Greek was not a requisite or any factor to gaining Roman citizenship. The Romans of the 1st century were keenly aware of the growing influence of Greek culture on their own and many were not fond of it. It is from this point of view that Suetonius is writing. The Romans and Greeks were two distinct people and the Romans, although they admired the Greeks and emulated them in many ways, did not consider themselves Greeks. Therefore it ahistorical to consider the Byzantine Empire after the 6th century to be a true continuation of the Roman Empire. By that time it had become a Greek empire. Call a spade a spade

[@vanmars5718]

There's quite a huge mix matching in your comment. You sited comments from romans of the 1st century AD when Christianity was not yet the official religion and the Roman citizenship was not granted to all people. So of course in the 1st century AD by just speaking Greek would be the case of being a Roman citizen. By that time citizenship really guarded inside a quite small portion of the population. That means nothing. With the citizenship given to all people, they were all Romans...in a Roman Empire that used the two languages for its administration and education. Latin and Greek. With the adoption of Christianity, which its sacred scripts were originally written in Greek also, the meaning of the "Roman" was to be Christian. The relocation of the imperial capital to the east, the New Rome, the Christian capital of Constantine was a breaking point...not btw Greek and Latin (that's is a modern ideology) a breaking point from the past of its own identity as empire. The eastern provinces having this New Christian Roman Empire as their center survived the fall. It just happened to be placed inside the world of the second language of the Roman Empire, the Greek. It was not a continuation of the Roman Empire, it was just the Roman Empire who never fell. That's not something that is debated. So, the fact that western Europeans points to its Greek character and origin as something to prove that is not really Roman is very much a medieval creation and not how romans after Christianity would have see it. Site comments from Latin pagans feeling worry about the influence of the Greek culture and language its dishonest since they were quite more of them, either emperors or writers who absolutely were all about greek. So you can't base your argument on specific comments of some latin writers to speak about the medieval reality of the empire. It's absolutely nonsensical.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Wrong (Donald Trump voice)

[@michaelm-bs2er]

@Van Mars I think there's more "mix matching" on your part than mine. Firstly Latin and Greek are not modern ideologies, they are ancient languages and cultures that define two distinct people. I think you are mixing the idea of people or nationality with legal status/citizenship. All subjects of the Roman Empire eventually became Roman citizens, but that does not make them actual ethnic Romans. And it's a pretty week historian who can't distinguish between the two. It's foolish to think that people in the ancient world did not have a sense of being a people united by a common culture or language or ties of kinship, just because the terms "nationality" or "ethnicity" did not exist or because they were not yet formalised ideology. This doesn't evaporate just because of legal status. St Paul was a Roman citizen but hardly a Roman. The Germanic tribes (the Goths and Franks) when they founded their kingdoms in the territories of the Western Roman Empire had laws for Germanic people and laws for Roman people. The Byzantines themselves often referred to their culture and education as Hellenic. Look at the writings of Anna Komnenos and John Doukas III. Many people from Greece today have settled in Britain and the US. But they are still Greek, not ethnically British or American. You are correct in that there was a period where the term "Roman" once synonymous with "christian" (and this is why the word "romance" emerged to refer specifically to the Latin people), and even the Germans in a certain context would call themselves "Romans". But does that make it true? No. A fundamental part of history is tracking the events and changes to different groups of people over time and explaining why names, labels, and people's attitude changed from one era to another. A good historian does not just accept labels being misused or diluted and must keep track of different peoples through history despite whatever names they are using for themselves or others. Above all, the study of history is about discerning the truth, not just accepting blindly what one group/kingdom/administration says because they said so. It is extremely lazy and poor history to accept that just because the Byzantines call themselves "Romans", they actually are. The truth is the Greeks and Romans of the middle ages did not cease to be two distinct people. The distinction between the Roman and Greek people and culture did not fade away after the capital was moved to Constantinople or after both groups adopted Christianity, despite the change in names / labels for either. There's definitely ample evidence throughout the writings of both people that they saw eachother as different. And it would be pretty stupid and lazy to just accept that they see eachother as the same because they are now using the same name. The truth is the Byzantine Empire discarded all vestiges of Roman culture and there were few Romans living there, definitely barely any in the court. This cannot therefore be called a Roman Empire in reality. Furthermore it overlooks the motive for retaining the name "Roman". It was a legal technicality, not a part of the people's true nature or culture. They clearly felt they were Greeks. Just read what they themselves left in their writing.

[@michaelm-bs2er]

@Theophilus wrong on what? What do you know about it? Apart from the nonsense you've absorbed from lazy illogical videos like this. Have you read Suetonius and his work on the Caesars?

[@michaelm-bs2er]

@Van Mars also quite odd that you say I've mixed and matched because I referred to the opinions of Romans in the first century. The maker of the video did the same when he referred to the quote from Emperor Claudius regarding "our two languages". The truth is this opinion was not shared by the majority of Romans in the 1st century nor in the 7th century or later. The maker of the video has missused it to give a false impression of the common opinion of Romans on their own culture and it needs to be addressed. Suetonius was criticising Claudius when he wrote this, not confirming a fondness for Greek language or culture and according to Suetonius himself, Claudius revoked citizenship from people who could not speak Latin well enough. How can I not refer to authors of that time when addressing this part?

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

".. Well, my brothers, since [Mehmed II] started the siege and the blocade, every day he opens his fathomless mouth and is seeking an opportunity to devour us and this City *[Constantinople],* which thrice-blessed Constantine the Great founded and dedicated to the all holy, most chaste Mother of God, our Lady, Mary, the eternal virgin. She became the Queen of Cities, *the hope and joy of all Greeks* and the pride of all the Orient .." *-Konstantinos Palaiologos* *[Chronicle by Georgios Sfrantzis]* «.. Ἐλθὼν οὖν ἀδελφοί, ἡμᾶς ἀπέκλεισε, καὶ καθ᾿ ἑκάστην τὸ ἀχανὲς αὐτοῦ στόμα χάσκων, πῶς εὓρη καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον ἵνα καταπίῃ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν πόλιν ταύτην, ἣν ἀνήγειρεν ὁ τρισμακάριστος ἐκεῖνος καὶ τῇ πανάγνῳ δεσποίνῃ ἡμῶν θεοτόκῳ καὶ ἀειπαρθένω Μαρία ἀφιέρωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο τοῦ κυρίαν εἶναι καὶ βοηθὸν καὶ σκέπην τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πατρίδι καὶ καταφύγιον τῶν Χριστιανῶν, *ἐλπίδα καὶ χαρὰν πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων* τὸ καύχημα πάσι τοῖς ὦσιν ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατολήν ..» *-Κωνσταντῖνος Παλαιολόγος* *[Γεώργιος Σφραντζής Χρονικόν]*

[@TetsuShima]

Eastern Roman Empire while surviving 1000 years more than their Western counterpart: "HAHAHAHA lUCRATUS SUM... Eastern Roman Empire while replacing their ancient roman lifestyle for a greek one to prospere: "...Αλλά με ποιο κόστος?" 😢

[@vanmars5718]

To be honest Greek was always older and more ancient than the Latin...

[@gilpaubelid3780]

The eastern part always had a Greek lifestyle, not an ancient Roman one.

[@td2456]

Haha nope….

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

".. Present your shields, swords, arrows, and spears to them, imagining that you are a hunting party after wild boards, so that the impious may learn that they are dealing not with dumb animals but with their lords and masters, *the descendants of the Greeks and Romans* .." *-Konstantinos Palaiologos* *[Chronicle by Georgios Sfrantzis]* «.. Οἱ πέλται ὑμῶν καὶ ῥομφαῖοι καὶ τὰ τόξα καὶ ἀκόντια πρὸς αὐτοὺς πεμπέτωσαν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν. Καὶ οὕτως λογίσθητε ὡς ἐπὶ ἀγρίων χοίρων καὶ πληθὺν κυνήγιον, ἵνα γνώσωσιν οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ὅτι οὐ μετὰ ἀλόγων ζῴων ὡς αὐτοί, παράταξιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ κυρίων *καὶ αὐθεντῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπογόνων Ἑλλήνων καὶ Ῥωμαίων* ..» *-Κωνσταντῖνος Παλαιολόγος* *[Γεώργιος Σφραντζής Χρονικόν]*

[@joerogue231]

Heraclius Iranic origin.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Nice fantasy

[@joerogue231]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard He's of Iranic origin. Deal with it.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

"Emperor John Ill Ducas Vatatzes (1192-1254 AD), wrote in a letter to Pope Gregory IX about the wisdom that "rains upon the Hellenic nation" and states that Constantine's heritage was passed on to the Hellenes, so he argued, and they alone were its inheritors and successors. -John Vatatzes [Unpublished Letters of John Vatatzes]

[@ikengaspirit3063]

Did Rome really have an official language?.

[@vanmars5718]

Well, of course it had. Since all it's documents, edicts and education done in Latin and Greej and not in any other language...it had Latin and Greek

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

Italics OWNED AGAIN by Byzantine Hellenes ⬇️ The Byzantine Emperor Who Loved to Joust The Story of the 1159 AD Tournament at Antioch Jousting was never a popular sport in the Byzantine Empire. If a resident of Constantinople wished to attend a sporting event, they preferred attending the chariot races at the Hippodrome and cheering on either the Blues or the Greens as they raced around the track. In their eyes, jousting was a blunt and unsophisticated practice originating from the “barbarians” in the West, and therefore beneath them. There was one exception to this cultural stigma, however. Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143-1180 AD) was a talented Emperor whose reign represented the last time the Byzantine Empire stood as a Great Power in the Eastern Mediterranean, and he carried his family’s dream of restoring the Empire to glory. But this energetic Emperor had one characteristic separating him from his predecessors and successors- an open interest in the West and all of its peculiarities, including jousting. Manuel loved the sport and its emphasis on martial prowess and chivalry, and he would go on to introduce the first jousting tournaments in Constantinople. But perhaps the most famous anecdote from Manuel’s cosmopolitan reign was the Tournament of Antioch in 1159 AD, where the Byzantine Emperor himself would participate in the lists and remind all attendees that he represented a legacy dating back to the founding of Rome in 753 BC. This is the story of that tournament, a tournament that was not only a marital competition but a political competition as well. Before we can cover the Tournament at Antioch in detail, it is important to describe the events that culminated in Manuel’s arrival in Antioch in 1159 AD. Antioch in the mid-12th century was a Crusader-state nominally under the vassalage of the Byzantine Empire, though in practice the religious and cultural divides between East and West made this relationship tenuous even in the best of times. Its Prince was Raynald of Châtillon, an ambitious Crusader who desired to expand the territory of his Principality into a true Mediterranean power. Raynald would later play a pivotal role in the events leading to the Fall of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, but for now he was an unreliable vassal eagerly waiting for an opportunity to break free of his oaths. In 1156 AD, Raynald allied himself with the Cicilian Armenians and attacked the Byzantine Isle of Cyprus, claiming that Manuel had failed to pay some promised subsidies to him. For three weeks the island was subject to widespread looting and destruction at the hands of the Crusading army, with Raynald sending mutilated prisoners to Constantinople as a further insult to the emperor. Infuriated at Raynald’s betrayal, Manuel I decided to deal with the upstart-Prince in person, invading Cicilia in 1158 AD at the head of a massive Byzantine army. The Cicilian Armenians rapidly folded at the sight of Manuel’s retaliatory force, leaving Raynald alone and at the mercy of his former overlord. With too few troops to defend Antioch on his own, and no help arriving from his fellow Crusader-states, Raynald decided to throw himself at the emperor’s mercy in utter submission. Arriving in the Emperor’s camp wearing a sack cloth and with a rope around his neck, Raynald begged the emperor’s forgiveness for his transgressions. Manuel initially ignored Raynald as he remained prostrate on the floor, but he eventually forgave his rebellious vassal on the condition that he remain loyal and return to Byzantine overlordship. Although Raynald’s apology was likely not genuine, he readily accepted this offer of mercy and submitted himself to Byzantine rule. Manuel, however, decided to use this incident as an opportunity to remind Raynald, the citizens of Antioch, and the other Crusading states of the power and wealth of the Byzantine Empire while also celebrating the conquest of this ancient and holy city. On April 12, 1159 AD, the emperor arrived at Antioch on horseback at the head of a grand procession, clad in his most expensive imperial raiment while Raynald and the visiting King of Jerusalem rode behind him. The citizens of Antioch were not entirely happy at the idea of being vassals of the Byzantine Empire, but they nevertheless attended the procession and showered Manuel with gifts in an effort to demonstrate their submission. After completing this show of strength, Manuel chose to stay in Antioch a little longer in order to establish a Byzantine presence in the city and ensure that Raynald would not attempt any schemes in the future. It was during this period of imperial housekeeping that Manuel came across some Italian knights bragging about their skills and prowess with the lance. The arrogant boasts of the knights gave Manuel a new idea for projecting Byzantine power over Antioch and the other Crusading states- beating them at their own favorite game. Therefore, Manuel decreed that a jousting tournament would be held to celebrate his arrival in Antioch, ordering Raynald to select his best knights while he gathered some of his most-skilled Byzantine cavalrymen. Manuel did not intend to be a mere spectator in this match- the Byzantine Emperor himself would participate in this jousting tournament in a show of martial strength that would prove that his worthiness to the Imperial throne did not come from inheritance alone. There was also one other reason Manuel chose to participate in the tilts- the energetic Emperor always enjoyed a good competition, and the jousting tournament seemed like a perfect and fun way to show off his talents. On the appointed day for the jousting tournament, both Manuel and Raynald arrived with their chosen team at the flat plain chosen for the event. The tournament would take the form of a mock battle where the two teams would charge each other with their lances until only one side remained standing. The Byzantine team consisted of Manuel himself along with a hand-picked selection of the best lancers in the Byzantine cavalry, some of whom were Manuel’s relatives in the Komnenian family. The emperor rode onto the field atop a beautiful black courser wearing his gold headwear adorned with pearls, with a precious red stone glinting on his forehead. His armor was red and specked with gold and pearls, with golden griffins spreading their wings on the shoulders of his tunic. Manuel also wore a magnificent red cloak speckled with gold above his armor, with the gold specks being arranged into circles depicting religious imagery that emphasized the emperor’s piety. Even the shoes that Manuel wore to the field that day were meant to illustrate his power and wealth, for the emperor wore red footwear with white eagles made of pearls depicted on them. The other Byzantine participants in the match also arrived in the most splendid armor they had, leaving the citizens of Antioch bedazzled at the sight of the bejeweled riders sparkling in the sunlight. Not wishing to be outdone by his overlord, Raynald of Châtillon made sure that he and his team also arrived in a suitably glorious fashion. Unfortunately for Raynald, the Greek historians writing about this tournament did provide as many details of his adornments as they did with Manuel; the Prince of Antioch arrived on a snow-white courser wearing a cloak slit down the middle and a cap embroidered in gold. His team consisted of the tallest and strongest knights that could be found in Antioch, many of whom were Italian in origin. Manuel I Komnenos was in good spirits when both teams lined up and prepared for the tilt, grinning at the sight of his glamorous horsemen and encouraging them to ride courageously and teach the insolent Italian knights a lesson in humility. After rearing his horse up in one final act of showing off, the Byzantine Emperor readied his lance and allowed the tournament to begin. The Greek historians recording the 1159 AD Tournament at Antioch do not go into specific details of every action that occurred on the field that day, but it appears that both sides demonstrated their physical bravado as they charged each other with their lances. Several riders were knocked out in the first charge and thus eliminated from the tournament, but this only served to encourage the remaining riders to perform even harder. The citizens of Antioch were enthralled at this sight of splendor and martial prowess, with many witnesses comparing the joust to scenes from Greek mythology. As for Manuel himself, it appears that the glory-seeking emperor enjoyed his time on the field and made sure to dazzle the audience with his opulence and skill. Manuel roused his men and encouraged them to ride hard against the Italian knights, relishing the opportunity to beat the Westerners at their own game and reminding them why the Byzantines were the true inheritors of Rome. Manuel distinguished himself with his skill with the lance, at one point knocking two Italian knights off their horses at the same time. The other Byzantine horseman also proved their worth against the knights, knocking them out one by one until the Byzantines had won the day. Thus, the tournament of Antioch came to a close, with the Byzantines demonstrating their martial prowess and humbling their Western opponents. Manuel would earn himself the respect of admiration of both the Crusaders and the native Antiochians, and his achievements were soon spread via poem and song throughout Europe. Manuel also achieved the political aims of the tournament, as both Raynald of Châtillon the Principality of Antioch as a whole would remain loyal until the emperor’s death in 1180 AD. The Crusader-states also received a firm reminder of Byzantine military power, and they would all become nominal Byzantine vassals for the remainder of Manuel’s reign.