The study of ethnic identities in Byzantium and Beyond, with Brian Swain

[@vangelisskia214]

"The present paper presents my ongoing research on this subject based on detailed examination of the concept of Greek self-identification through the evidence provided by Greek books of various texts published until 1821, and other primary sources. More than 700 books have been examined. Approximately half of these provide us with useful information about the way individual and collective identity was defined. The research examines the use of the terms Έλλην (Hellene), Γραικός (Greek), and Ρωμαίος (Roman), Ελλάς (Hellas) and πατρίς (homeland), which under certain circumstances may or may not have a slightly different connotation throughout these four hundred years. For obvious reasons this paper presents only the quantative results without entering into an extensive theoretical discussion. The sources show that the word Ελλάς is used both as a narrow and wider geographical term, but mostly in the much broader sense, as a synonym of πατρίς, the homeland of all Greeks, regardless of whether they were resident in Greece, in other places of the Ottoman empire, in the Venetian state, or wherever else in Europe. Πατρίς is also used in the same way. It signifies either the geographical region where persons were born and raised, or their homeland (that is Ελλάς) in general. The details presented in the paper show that "Έλλην" (Hellene) may have been the most frequently used term of self-identification during the second half of the 18th and early 19th century, but that equally applies to all periods from the mid 15th century onwards, with the references of Έλλην encountered in the sources BEING DOUBLE OR TRIPLE that of Γραικός or Ρωμαίος More specifically in the period examined, that is from the mid of the 15th century to the end of the 16th, in 63 texts we have 96 references to Έλληνες (in the sense of modern Greeks) and the derivatives of the word (as Έλληνικóv), 34 to Γραικοί and only 9 to Ρωμαίοι. In the 17th century, we encounter 102 references to Έλληνες , 43 to Γραικοί and 56 to Ρωμαίοι, which is a substantial increase in the use of the term. Finally, in the 18th century and the first 20 years of the 19th, in 175 texts there were 617 references to Έλληνες, 204 to Γραικοί , and 133 to Ρωμαίοι. It is also clear in the examined texts that, despite personal preferences, both clerics and laymen had no problem in using the term Έλλην. In fact, we often see the three terms used by the same person within the same text, or, alternatively, in different texts, AS SYNONYMS. Even when there was a noticeable unwillingness of someone to call the modern Greeks ΄Ελληνες, there was a clear understanding that they were descendants of the ancient Greeks, even though they did not share the same religion. The sense of national identity, therefore, long pre-existed the period of the modern Greek Enlightenment and was not established through its influence." Eleni Aggelomati Tsougkaraki, pp 264-265, (2018) [Hellene, Romios, Greek: Collective Identifications and Identities]” Eurasia Publications.

[@mydogsbutler]

Many Greeks dont' realize the use of the term "Byzantines' to describe our ancestors and recognition of Skopians as "Macedonians" are both a subtle form of ethnic harassment towards Greeks. The antigreek bigots are trying to rob us of our history and thus identity based on their crackpot racial theories and ad-hoc analogies not too unlike the Nazis tried. They just hide their racism by trying to frame it as "human rights' and objective scholarly debate. I realized it was bigotry when our critics can never be bothered to notice they have less in common with their claimed roots than we do. And of course, nearly all of them dishonestly played stupid as the former Yugoslavians turned into ancient Macedonians right before their eyes.

[@vangelisskia214]

"The Names Roman, Hellen, and Graikos in the Middle Byzantine Period" "This paper examines the collective identity of the Byzantines through the scholarly literature of the Middle Period on the basis of the collective nouns nation (ethnos), natio (genos), race (fylon-fyli) and the comprehensive main names Roman, He!len, Graecos. For the former, it is noted that they refer to population groups whose members have common features or a common reference point , eg. common descent from a place or an ancestor. The term "nation" is of particular interest, because in modern times it has political connotations, as it is used to denote peoples who haνe political consciousness. The word, while long standing in the sources, as it is mentioned already in the Homeric poetry, lacks political connotations in the Byzantine sources, These are traced mainly in the name Roman, while the name Hellen bears, primarily cultural load. The name Graecos serves as a synonym of the Hellen, as it refers to the Greek language and the Greek culture. After the schism of 1054, it denotes the Greek and Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian, in particular. These three terms, these three names, however by the end of the Middle Byzantine period represent a single set of distinct but inseparable components, which after a long process END UP BEING MUTUALLY DETERMINED." Theodora Papadopolou, pp.101, [Hellene, Romios, Greek: Collective Identifications and Identities]” Eurasia Publications, 2018

[@highevan]

In Theodori studitae epistulae (9th century) the byzantine empire is called "Greece" when he describes how much in turmoil the empire was due to the iconoclasm (From epistle 145, Ναυκρατίω τέκνω: «ὑπὲρ οὗ δονεῖται ἡ ταπεινὴ Γραικία μάλα») and Byzantines are called "Greeks" (From epistle 419, Στεφάνω ἀσικρήτη: «Ἀκούσατε ταῦτα πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐνωτίσασθε πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν οἰκουμένην τί γέγονεν ἐν Γραικοῖς »)..

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

Yes, Eastern Romania was speaking Greek by that time. The West was speaking Latin.

[@georgec3931]

Great video!!!

[@highevan]

".. whether someone calls us Hellenes or Romans, that is what we are and we safeguard the succession of Alexander and that of those after him .." Manuel Chrysoloras [Exhortation on behalf of the Genus] «.. Ἕλληνας βούλοιτό τις λέγειν εἴτε Ῥωμαίους, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν ἐκεῖνοι καὶ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου δὲ καὶ τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνων ἡμεῖς σώζομεν διαδοχήν ..» Μανουήλ Χρυσολωράς [Παρακίνησις ὑπὲρ τοῦ Γένους]

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

Alexander was a foreign conqueror who extinguished all of the Hellenic cultures & replaced them with the Athenian culture which had been imported to Macedon by Archelaus.

[@vangelisskia214]

"The Greek ideal that was revived in Byzantium surpassed the Roman ideal, which was left to the "Latins", a term that included without distinction the various peoples of western Europe who were treated as a compact set in opposition to the Greeks" "The Byzantine empire was CLEARLY, despite its multinational dimension, A GREEK EMPIRE while its neighbors considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp..72, 73

[@ntonisa6636]

This one doesn't seem very convincing to me but thanks for referencing the Tsougaraki paper about the widespread usage of "Hellene" in ottoman period texts I'll definitely be checking that one out! It very much contradicts the Romio-centric narrative I've been hearing my entire life including in this discussion!

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ntonisa6636 Sylvain Gouguenheim is a French scholar and one of the most established and celebrated medieval historians worldwide. This passage is from his book "The Glory of Greeks" which was published only 5 years back. And believe you me, there are many other (and not only Greek) scholars who view the "Romaioi" of the Byzantine empire, especially from the middle Byzantine period onwards, as ethnically Greeks. Kaldellis' revisionist approach is simply more popular and fashionable the last decade or so, because that often happens when something is new... Revisionist theories are always more exciting for the public... He bases his theory of Roman ethnicity on a particular sociological theory on ethnicity that suits him and I have even read reviews of his work by other Byzantinists where they claim that he in fact misinterprets and misuses it. Needless to say that there are many different opposing theories on ethnicity and Nationalism. There is also a theory that places only language as the essential component in order to define an ethnic group. Or if you adopt another theory (Smith's) the same ethnic group can be seen as nothing other than Greeks. Kaldellis bases his theory only on the self-identification of the educated elites, disregarding other important aspects such as Greek language and traditions which also baptizes "Roman" to fit his theory. You know, a few years back I was almost convinced that the so-called Byzantines were more Roman than Greek, because i hadn't personally researched the subject enough. But after reading many books and articles on Byzantine identity I realized that it's not really like that. Kaldelis is right to say that the Byzantines from the 7th century onwards had an identity which was no longer only political/legal. It's obvious from the sources that only those linguistically and culturally Greek were considered "Romaioi" from the 7th century onwards. But those Romaioi were called Greeks since antiquity by all others (even by the Vikings and the Slavs) except the Arabs and at times also by themselves. And they didn't use the Latin "Romanoi" but the Greek "Romaioi", in order to differentiate themselves. The educated elites that left us with their writings, of course had obvious...geopolitical reasons to prefer the designation "Romaioi" rather than "Greeks". "Greek" was the semantic equivalent of "Hellene" since ancient Roman times which never ceased to be used, but Kaldelis tells us that "Greek" only meant Greek speaking Roman! What a bunch of.... Even in the lexica of the middle Byzantine period like the Souda Lexicon or the Zonaras Lexicon Greek is the semantic equivalent of Hellene!

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ntonisa6636 Kaldellis tries to be politically correct and not to be seen as raising Greek nationalist sentiments, so he tries to dissociate our ancestors from us modern Greeks. But of course he is correct to say that there was a dominant ethnic group and it wasn't a multiethnic empire as many other ideologically biased Byzantinists wrongly try to present. But he denies the fact that the terms Graikos and Hellene were semantic equivalents since antiquity and he also denies the fact that from the middle Byzantine period Graikos and Romaios also came to refer to the exact same ethnic group. I also took him seriously in the beginning (he is a very qualified writer) but the more I research on the subject the more I realize that his theory is heavily flawed. He has also been accused for many contradictions in his work by a large number of Byzantinists. He says that the "German" kings were calling the Byzantines "Greeks" and not "Romans" for political purposes, while at the same time he refers to them as... "Germans" a term those people never used for identifying themselves and probably didn't even know what actually meant! Both the "schools" that support 1) a Roman identity for the Byzantines and 2) consider them multiethnic, are simply closing their eyes to reality. Usually what is written chronologically nearer to a historical event is more probable to be the truth than what is written 100 or 200 years later. Well, until 150 years back EVERYBODY worldwide considered the Byzantines simply as the medieval Greeks. But then Greece became a nation-state which wanted to expand wherever Greeks resided, so the narrative changed for... obvious reasons. For the same reasons that nowadays Kaldellis tries to disassociate Modern and medieval Greeks. If you ask me, the Byzantines had in fact a hybrid Greco-Roman identity, more Greek culturally and linguistically and more Roman politically and legally. But it's simply ridiculous to consider the "Byzantines" as ethnic Romans while for a thousand years they were educated with Homer and considered whoever didn't speak Greek and especially the Latins (even those of the city of Rome itself!) as nothing more than brutish Barbarians...

[@ntonisa6636]

@@vangelisskia214 first thanks for the long reply. I have quite a few objections and counter-arguments to what you wrote but its very late here so I won't go into too much detail only a couple quick thoughts. Regarding the "ethnically Greeks" characterization afaik in modern english the term "ethnically" or "ethnicity" mainly refers to and is synonymous to "descent from" aka ancestry or even simply "race". As such calling the "Byzantines" "ethnically greek" all that it's saying is that they had (ancient)Greek ancestry which may well be the case(to some degree at least) and I don't think it's something Kaldellis is concerned with or has ever tried to refute(as far as I've read or listened to him at least) but is not all that relevant to the question of Roman identity and self-perception and whether they took it seriously or "pretended" while "in truth" being "not really Roman" but rather "just Greek" pretending for reasons of legitimacy or prestige or whatever. I never claimed the "Byzantines" were "multi-ethic" nor did Kaldellis so you shouldn't bother bringing that up. Most of the things you mention are already well known to me and no doubt to Kaldellis and I've heard/read him make convincing counter-arguments to at least some of these. I'd be grateful and very interested to read those byzantinists that you mentioned who have criticized Kaldellis if you could point me to any of their articles, reviews etc... Furthermore if you could produce anything like that Tsougkaraki paper you cited in your other comment which similarly proves that the name Hellen or at least Graikos was comparably popular or as you said "semantically identical" to Rhomaios then I would very probably be forced to revise my position and concede the argument to you, joining the chorus of Kaldellis' critics. Until then my current view remains that Kaldellis is mostly right regarding the seriousness of Byzantine Romaness(and thus accompanying rejection of Greekness) while remaining a lot more sceptical of his position on the timeline of the modern Greek "ethnogenesis" and the predominance of "Romaness" over "Hellenism" in the post-byzantine (aka ottoman) era because in addition to my own modest research on the topic that Tsougaraki paper you cited strongly suggests otherwise. With regards to the term "Byzantium"/"Byzantine" replacing the more traditional Greece/Greeks in western discourse less than 200 years ago in order to screw Greece over the Eastern Question I've literally heard Kaldellis say the exact same thing on his podcast so regardless what I think on the matter you and him seem to be in agreement on that (even if personally I find it a rather weak point and almost completely irrelevant to what we're discussing) Sidenote regarding your objection to his referring to "German Kings", even though I don't see how it's relevant, in any case this is not something Kaldellis invented it was a real title that many in the middle ages including the Byzantines used. For instance I remember Anna Komnena in the Alexiad refers to Enerichos(i.e hellenized version of Heinrich) as the "ρηξ(Rex) Αλαμανίας" (I'm sure you're aware that the Allemani/Allemagne alongside Teutons and other related terms are all synonymous references to the ethnic group we today call Germans). I do not claim to fully understand the super convoluted structure of the "Holly Roman Empire" and the historical evolution of its nomenclature or how attached tbey really were to their own version of "romanitas" but there's a fairly comprehensive article on the "Kingdom of Germany" on wikipedia if it interests you.

[@ntonisa6636]

With regards to your accusation that Kaldellis focuses too much on the educated elites my impression is the exact opposite. It is the people who stress too much the greekness of the Byzantines or even the "philhellenism" or fondness of Greek culture of the old Romans who tend to focus a bit too much on the well versed in classical Greek culture Roman elites at the expense of the much less steeped in Greek culture Roman plebs.

[@janoycresva2279]

dude the medieval greeks were roman longer than they were greek

[@TheChiconspiracy]

@@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037 Most "Romans" were only from the city state and immediate countryside of Rome. People stupidly equate Italy with "Romans", yet The vast majority of Italy was full of people who had cultures just as alien to the original Roman city state as the Greek cultures, and spoke many different languages... the main difference is that educated Romans ALL spoke Greek, and often preferred speaking it to other educated Romans. They did NOT mandate the learning of fellow Italian languages like Oscan, Etruscuan, Ligurian, or whatever Celtic dialects were spoken in Northern Italy.

[@mydogsbutler]

You misunderstand the context of Roman in the middle ages. It was a symbol of imperial authority not ethnicity. People from different backgrounds claimed to be the "real" Roman empire. In fact from 800CE onwards the Holy Roman empire claimed to be the real Roman empire and insisted the other one was Greek for the next 900 years. The western Holy Roman empire only ceased calling it Greek in the 17th when they renamed it into "Byzantine". Even then they didnt' call it Roman because the Holy Roman empire still considered themselves the "real" Roman empire.

[@highevan]

In the Patriarch of Constantinople Μethodius I's "Enkomion of St Nicholas of Myra " (9th century) Byzantium is called "land of the Greeks" (Επει δε της Γραίκων επεβη γης ο ανηρ) and "Greece" (Πετρε" λεγων, "ο από Γραικίας εληλυθως )

[@highevan]

In the "Souda" Lexicon (10th century) Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios [Graikoi (plural) =Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί : Οι Έλληνες. Εκ του Γραίξ, Γραικός.) and Raikos=Rhomaios (Ῥαικός : Ρωμαίος)]

[@highevan]

In the "Zonaras" Lexicon (12th century) Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. [Graikoi (plural) = Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί. οἱ Ελληνες. ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. παρὰ τὸ ῥαῖσαι ῥαικὸς καὶ γραικός. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀνδρείαν οἱ Ελληνες ουτως ἐκαλοῦντο.) and Raikos=Rhomaios=Graikos (Ραικός. ὁ ̔Ρωμαῖος. ̓Επίχαρμος· φιλεῖ ειναι γραικὸς, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ˉγ ῥαικός.)]

[@mydogsbutler]

Name alone does not make an ethnicity. This sort of leftist word salad insantity is what lead to former Yugoslavians ridiculously being recognized as "ethnic" Macedonians.

[@highevan]

Here is what the byzantine translators wrote as a clarification note when they were translating the Syriac text of Pseudo-Methodius into Greek (8th century) : "The empire of the Romans meaning that of the Hellenes" ( Εστί δε νυν η βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων ήγουν Ελλήνων)

[@paprskomet]

To the contrary.Text in question actually proves the opposite. We are dealing with text written in Syriac in 7th century Mesopotamia which was translated to Greek at some point prior 800 AD."Byzantine"translator has replaced the words "of the Greeks" by "of the Romans" or has added the later expression to make it absolutely clear that Pseudo-Methodio's prophesies refered to the Roman("Byzantine")empire.In short Byzantine translor believed that "Greek" in Syriac means "Roman" in Greek.He added the glosses quoted at the top of this note to explain that "Hellene" really means "Roman". Not to mention that Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius was (of course)written in classical Christian tradition that saw the Roman empire as the last from 4 great kingdoms prior end-times.I would also not used Pseudo-Methodios as argument to prove anything from that reason that he for example claims both Roman and Greeks being by origin of Ethiopian bloodline,clearly totally fictive origin.

[@blogbalkanstories4805]

The case of the Romanians is certainly interesting. In what was the Western Roman Empire, Romance languages are predominant to the day - with the exception of modern day Croatia, which was settled by Slavs later on, as well as modern day Hungary and Serbia, both of which were also settled later, and some Germanic language speaking regions on the periphery: Austria as well as Germany west of the Rhine, parts of Belgium and the Netherlands, and parts of Switzerland. By comparison, with the exception of Greece and Romania, none of the countries in the former Eastern Roman Empire still speaks either Latin or Greek. (OK, there's Cyprus, but that's a case sui generis.) Just a little detail: In Bosnia, there is a region called Romanija (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanija), and in Vojvodina in Northern Serbia you'll find a town called Ruma: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruma Just two of many toponyms that hint at the past as a part of the Roman Empire. (Although in modern BHS, Rome is called Rim, and Romania Rumunija, but one can still see the connection.)

[@musicomp4949]

Wonderful talk!! Thank you so much- I find ethnogenesis to be a very definitive and somewhat too strong term. A full discussion should have covered counterarguments. Why did some emperors like Vatages or scholars like Metochitis insisted on the Byzantines being the continuation of the Greeks? And also the arguments from the Ausones presents only one side of the story; Where are the counterarguments? If this held any water then many emperors and scholars would have insisted on their Romaness in an ethnic sense. Perhaps this was a political/religious term? and not so much an ethnic term? In my non expert view there was no ethnogenesis - we can call it religio-genesis or politico-genesis but not an ethnogenesis- Why not speak Latin? The most important aspect of an ethnos is language before anything else. The discussion did not cover the blending of the Greek world with Christ- a complex metaphysical discussion. Rather it presented a superficial fragment: Hellene meant Pagan which helped further with the ethnogenesis argument. As if the Greeks disappeared as one of the most populous nations in the Mediterranean and wanted to become Roman. Christianity (and it is important to note the complex Greek metaphysical understanding of Christianity compared to the Latin one) was a necessary and sufficient condition for being Roman and it is at the centre of Romaness. In this way Romaness translates to Greekness something which the Emperors and many scholars emphasised in the late years of the empire. The Greeks who changed their religion. By the same token we don’t call the English , the French , the Germans a different ethnos before they became Christians but we call them we relevant names (the Germani, Angles, Saxons, Franks etc.) But the Greeks ? No they don’t exist -there was an ethnogenesis! I insist that language is the determining factor here. If Latin took over then I would happily accept an ethnogenesis. But no Greek prevailed.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

On the language: Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor, and parts of the Roman Empire, including Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Greek wasn't spoken because all these peoples were of Hellenic ethnicity, it's because the semi-barbarian Kingdom which conquered the Greek city-states & erased most of Greek culture had imported Attic Greek as it's administrative language & culture in the 4th century BC under Archelaus. Alexander then used this Athenian Greek as the administrative language for all 10 years of his empire and the language persisted in those territories after it collapsed, his people eventually went extinct & the Greeks were largely dispersed from their lands after being defeated by Rome. Although Latin was the official language of the Roman army and administration & Latin was the dominant language in Rome and Italy, Koine Greek was more widely spoken and understood in the eastern provinces. Koine Greek was used in administrative and commercial contexts, especially in the eastern provinces after the 7th century A.D. "By the same token we don’t call the English , the French , the Germans a different ethnos before they became Christians" - actually, we do! The ethnogenesis which formed the "English", "French" people etc didn't happen until after Christianity allowed the formation of large complex social structures & stable country-wide Kingdoms & nation-states. When you talk about "Greek understanding of Christianity" you sound like an atheist which, respectfully, would disqualify you from having an opinion. The first ~1400 years of Christian theology is based on explaining in great detail the mistakes of Greek philosophy & using that as a frame to articulate the nuances of Christian Truth in a way that was understandable to the people of the time - the saints & theologians of the Church identified as Christian first, then Roman second, then by their ancestral ethnic blood-relations a distant 3rd. Christianity is "foolishness to the Greeks" as St Paul says in his epistle. "....which the Emperors and many scholars emphasised in the late years of the empire." - yes, Greek Nationalism was one of the main reasons behind the final fall of Eastern Rome - this caused them to ally with the Latins, pagans, Jews, muslims & atheist Neoplatonists against the Orthodox Christian Byzantines.

[@musicomp4949]

@@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM Dear Friend-Thank you for the long answer you made some very interesting points-- The semi Barbarian Kingdom which you are referring to was part of the Greek World(hence they used the term 'panhellinium' which means 'All Greek' campaign for the invasion of the Persian Empire-- the only differece was that they maintained Mycenaean traditions in their politics and not that of a city state. Their mother language was Greek and they participated in the Olympic games. The Greeks had been the majority population in Greece Proper, Asia Minor and the Pontus areas of the Black Sea.Of course there were other populations there but they became Greek Speakers(a necessary condition for 'Romaness') Ethogenesis as the modern idea of nations in the sense that you are referring to, did not happen for anyone until the 17th-18th centuries--However, Iam referring to the broad idea of an ethnos as a historical continuation---e.g. we say that the Germanic Tribes are part of German History--equally that Byzantium is within the spectrum of Greek History etc.--I accept your point here since I should have made this clarification. When I say the 'Greek Understanding of Christianity' I am referring to the first Fathers of the Church like Gregory of Nyssa, Socrates (not the philosopher), Athanasius, Eusebius who spoke Greek as their mother language--In contrast Augustine who only spoke latin and despised Greek had a very different theology who is fundamental to Catholocism to this day and very different to Orthodox Christianity. So when I say 'Greek Understanding' I am referring to Orthodox Christianity. The fathers said that we are Roman because Greek in the early years represented paganism--however, Roman accounted for a Greek speaker and an Orthodox Christian at that. The fathers located many good things in Greek philosophy and maintained them---they discarded the things that were harmful to the faith, like polytheism or hedonism. While your points were very clear, your last point was somewhat extravagant---you are saying that Greeks went against Orthodox Byzantines and destroyed the empire--you must then be referring to the late stages of the Empire--However, during the late stages of the Empire the population was predominantly Greek--so I cannot understand your last point, it is a bit irrational. Civil Wars between Theme Generals for power, feudalism which came with the Latins and bad Emperors destroyed the Empire along with having to fight the Slavs, Turks, and the Germano Latin West. All of these things destroyed the Empire. Last Week a famous youtube history channell called 'Kings and Generals' published a new video on 'whether the Byzantine Empire is heir to the Ancient Greeks--The video is short and does not go to much detail but it more or less expressed my own beliefs about the Empire--if you have some time please check it. Best Wishes to you and thank you again for your message.

[@MarkCMG]

Thanks for the video! "Race" was a literary conceit which was more about tribes and groups of tribes than nations or what we think of as race today.

[@mydogsbutler]

A Latin Roman would never have made Greek the primary language of the Roman empire. Even the picture in the video shows Greek language.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

I wonder how a person in 900AD Constantinople would feel if a time traveler tried to tell them that they aren't actually Roman but "Byzantine"... because a bunch of jealous Western Europeans decided it was so after the empire fell.

[@mydogsbutler]

In 900 AD if you had asked people in the Holy Roman empire they would have said they were the real Roman empire and the eastern one was Greek.

[@TheChiconspiracy]

@@mydogsbutler Yeah, the opinions of a bunch of Franks and Germans who mostly never held roman citizen ship would be real important.

[@mydogsbutler]

@@TheChiconspiracy The mostly German-speaking Holy Roman Empire insisted they were the "real" Roman Empire for nearly 1000 years. They said the other one was Greek. Now suddenly some in the west claim the western Holy Roman empire was not really Roman and that the eastern one was not Greek. Sounds totally legit.

[@mydogsbutler]

@@TheChiconspiracy "eah, the opinions of a bunch of Franks and Germans" Some Franks became modern Germans. some became French, some became other nationalities. Like all ethnic groups,. modern German identity is multiethnic in origin (slav, celt, along with many others) albeit common national identity. Unfortunately some of the modern Germans like to patronizingly harass Greeks on Greek identity most notably Nazis. The Nazis claimed to be racially pure whereas they claimed Greeks were just deluded mongrels that fanasized they were "real" Greeks. There are two main academic world views when it comes to identity... modernist and primordialism historiography. Modernists argue since everyone is at least partially mixed all ethnic identity are just "imagined communities". In other words, someone is xyz purely because they imagine it. That its purely a social construct. Priomordialists on the other hand argue. albeit there is no such thing as pure races, see language, territorial association, education, and other key cultural elements as the real nature of ethnic groups. What some do is claim primordialism for their own heritages which they claim as "real".. then flip-flip to modernism to those that they are hostile towards. (as Nazis did to Jews, Greeks, and others)

[@mydogsbutler]

@@TheChiconspiracy When telling history primary sources are critical. During the Middle Ages the Holy Roman Empire claimed to be the real Roman Empire and the other one Greek. Can't take it back now. History is written. The only out for the modern Germans to claim they are real Germans is it to take a primordialism view of history. If they do that, logically then Greeks of today are also real Greeks. They can't have their ideological cake and eat it too.

[@stanbatakarata6081]

East Roman Byzantine and Bulgaria big enemies but i good frends in history .

[@mydogsbutler]

THere was no such thing as a Byzantine.

[@stanbatakarata6081]

@mydogsbutler yes yes haves East Roman Empire Byzantine

[@mydogsbutler]

@@stanbatakarata6081 The term Roman in the east was a reference to imperial authortary not an ethnicity. In the eastern Roman empire a Roman could be of different ethnic backgrounds (with Greek being predominate) albeit they called themselves Romans . The Holy Roman empire insisted they were the real Roman empire. The term "Byzantine " arose to describe the eastern one because some of the Holy Roman Empire wanted to both continue to claim to be the "real" Roman empire... and to harass Greeks. Its for the same reason some claimed former Yugoslavians "Macedonians" when they well knew they were not.

[@mydogsbutler]

This video uses unprincipled standards;. Before the adoption of the term "Byzantine" the Western Holy Roman empire. for nearly 1000 years, insisted they were the "Real" Roman empire and that the other one was Greeks. Now you revise history to claim the west was not Roman and the eastern one was not Greek? Racist bullsh-t posing as scholarly debate.

[@ΜεσαιωνικήΣπαθασκία]

“Where did the Greeks go?” you ask. For that you must study Roman history. Especially the Roman conquest of Greece. There was a terrible genocide, most of the cities where destroyed, Athens included, many Greeks where shipped to Italy as slaves and they are replaced by Roman ex-soldiers colonies. Yes they speak to us about “Greco Roman civilisation” but they forget that the Greek side of that was composed by few enslaved intellectuals and artists. After the collapse of the Western Empire the Greek identity started not to reemerge but to reconstruct itself. So we have a slow current for the Byzantines to become Greeks, and this took centuries. But very few of them are real descendants of Plato… The Romans took care of this matter…

[@theopapoulis4239]

You didn’t watch the video did you lol?

[@ΜεσαιωνικήΣπαθασκία]

Tell us your opignion and stop the provocations. I Know very well your kind.

[@wardafournello]

@user-hv1hd8qz4i Are you serious?Do you realy believe that the Romans committed genocide in more than 1200 Greek cities in Greece and Asia Minor and colonies in the Mediterranean and Black Sea? Or instead of killing them were they conscripted as mercenaries and named Romans and they were given Roman citizenship? Because that's exactly what the Roman Empire is.A constant conquest and plunder to pay the mercenaries and recruit new ones. A militaristic empire, created by a few thousand unpolished Latins who took advantage of the Greek disunity,and learned from them what science, art and sports are.

[@mydogsbutler]

Racist gibberish that has been disproven by modern DNA testing directly connect modern Greeks to ancient. I would take you just a few minutes of googling for DNA studies by antigreek trolls like you can never be bothered.

[@mydogsbutler]

Racist gibberish that has been disproven by modern DNA testing directly connecting modern Greeks to ancient. I would take you just a few minutes of googling for DNA studies by antigreek trolls like you can never be bothered.