the roman debates

Oct 26, 2005 15:54

I can't believe i just posted in my journal like 2 minutes ago and i'm doing it again, but here we go!

as some of you know, i've been trying to convince some chick history major that the byzantine empire and the roman empire were the same thing. this girl doesn't seem to get it. she hasn't replied to my last message so i guess i crushed her argument like a kataphract.

anywho, this is what she tried to tell me last time. it's all under a cut this time, as they're getting long and probably boring for some people.

However you put it, neither half was the Roman Empire. As soon as it split, it was gone. If the United States were to be split right down the Mississippi, neither part would be the United States. Each would have at one point been the United States, but would now be something different. That's like saying Georgia and the other nations formerly of the USSR are Russia. I'd like to see you try that argument over there. A group of people may share common customs and beliefs, but that does not define a nation. If it did, Germany and Austria would be the same. A piece of land having been owned by one nation is not always then assigned to that nation, else the peices of the former USSR would still be united, as would Yugoslavia and the Czech Republic. A nation is defined by its governing body. Once that is turned over to another, the land and people are effectually of a new nation. Therefore, once Romulus Augustus fled, the Roman Empire as it was, was no more.

As to Romulus Augustus' emperorship: he was crowned. Practically speaking, that's all there is to it. His effectiveness and the extent to which he was really holding the power, are immaterial. If that is your manner of deciding who was and who wasn't a ruler, Rome is left with a paltry group of Caesers. Other European nations don't fare so well either. Louis the XIII for example was a shoddy ruler and an immature man. Does that mean he wasn't king? Unfortunately, no.

I doubt seriously that anyone believes that the Byzantine Empire was not at its core, Roman. Though it was a different nation, it had the same people. One would have to pretty stupid to believe that once a piece of land changed hands it lost all that came before. I sympathize with you on that point. The people of the Byzantine empire, and of the Western half, were Romans. Just as the peoples of Greece and Egypt, once under Roman rule, were still Greek and still Egyptian. When Rome conquered Gaul, the citizens of these newly adopted areas were still Gauls. When the English conquered Ireland, the people were still Irish.

History very much operates on two levels. The first, the dates, names and black and white facts. William the Conquerer conquered England in 1066. But there is another narrative less certain and more human. William brought French to England and made speakers of the Nordic languages, the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Picts, the Celts, the Danes, etc. second-class citizens in their own land. He wept when his first son, called Rufus, did not come to his bedside as he lay dying. Considering that second level, you are almost right. Rome did not fall when Romulus Augustus fled; in that sense, it never did.

Thank you for your further explanation, I believe I understand what you were trying to say. However, you said Medieval and Enlightenment history had a utopian view of Rome and a more condescending view of their own time. They definitely did, but you counter that the Byzantine a glorious nation, if I understand you properly. I disagree with both. Humanity has always been the same. There was just as much a dirty underbelly to Rome as to any nation, ancient or modern. There has been no gathering of man, whether primeval or present, insignificant or sprawling, that had no reason for shame. I hold no civilization above any other.

Also, I do not write history books. I am a writer, and I have an intense interest in history. I will have a Ph.D in it when I finish school, but I don't even write non-fiction. At least, I haven't yet, maybe someday. Sorry if you were confused on that point.

You were right Laura, she didn't mean to imply that she wrote history books, she worded it poorly. Initially I felt bad about jumping on her cause but when I came to this part in this last mail from her:

"History very much operates on two levels. The first, the dates, names and black and white facts. William the Conquerer conquered England in 1066. But there is another narrative less certain and more human. William brought French to England and made speakers of the Nordic languages, the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Picts, the Celts, the Danes, etc. second-class citizens in their own land. He wept when his first son, called Rufus, did not come to his bedside as he lay dying. Considering that second level, you are almost right. Rome did not fall when Romulus Augustus fled; in that sense, it never did."

ok now she's going to try to make me feel better by saying that I'm 'almost right?' The same girl who, when I mentioned that the last emperor was Constantine XI Dragaš Palailolgos she replied that I was thinking of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE is trying to patronize me? Fuck that, it's on now.

You don't get it. The Roman Empire never split. The Roman Empire was split on an administrative basis. When the western half fell the eastern half was still there and it was still the Roman Empire. Your US comparison is not valid because the Roman Empire did NOT split into separate countries. And no it's not like your USSR comparison either because Russia was only a soviet republic, on the same level as the rest. There is no reason Georgia would call itself Russia because during the existance of the USSR they were always separate republics. This is not true of the Roman Empire. And you seem to fail to grasp that the 'byzantines' called themselves Roman and Greeks still call themselves Roman today!***see bottom message***

>>Considering that second level, you are almost right.

Don't condescend, I've forgotten more about the Roman Empire than you've ever read in your entire life. I am not almost right, the 'byzantine' empire was known throughout its history as 'Romania' because of the fact that it was the same nation as the Roman Empire. As I've said already, the only reason people call it the Byzantine empire is because of revisionist historians. Have you read the Alexiad by Anna Comnena? It's a biography about her father, Alexius I Comnenus. She consistantly refers to her people or ways as Roman. In case you're not sure, Alexius was a Roman emperor, probaby most known for calling on the west for aid which later became the first crusade.

I hoped you would take what I read and look it up yourself since you're a history major and something you've believed in was being proven wrong, but instead you just stick to your story. Check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire

Make sure you read the section titled The term "Byzantine Empire"

Here's a clip from it:

"The name Byzantine Empire is a modern term and would have been alien to its contemporaries. The Empire's native Greek name was Ῥωμανία Romanía or Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων Basileía Romaíon, a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanorum. The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf..."

There really is nothing to argue about. You consider Romulus Augustus the last emperor of the west. I consider Julius Nepos the last emperor as he was the last emperor who was there legally. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But if you read that article and still refuse to admit that the byzantine was not byzantine at all but Roman then I hope you decide against majoring in history because the very fabric of western civilization was spun by the Roman Empire, eastern and western halves. If, on the other hand, you can't bring yourself to call it the roman empire but can say eastern roman empire, I'll settle for that.

Make sure you read "Legacy and importance" near the bottom too. The fact is no one is teaching anyone that the 'byzantines' were Roman, much less the profound impact they had on the world. I've taken history class after history class and it wasn't until I started doing research on my own time that I learned the truth about the Roman Empire and the 'byzantine' one. This is a fact that I hope to change and one day no one will have to defend the integrity of the 'byzantines' because everyone will know they were, in fact, romans.

***"The official dissolution of the Byzantine state in the 15th century did not immediately undo Byzantine society. During the Ottoman occupation Greeks continued to identify themselves as both Ρωμαίοι (Romans) and Έλληνες (Hellenes), a trait that survived into the early 20th century and still persists today in modern Greece, albeit the former has now retreated to a secondary folkish name rather than a national synonym as in the past."-from quoted website.

She has yet to reply and I don't expect her to, but this is a subject that i am more passionate than probably anything and it may seem stupid or pointless to some people but i will not stand by while people who study history try to deny the romans their full due. if you want to study history and at the same time deny historical fact, maybe you should start making shitty revisionist movies like Alexander. Yeah Oliver Stone I'm talking to you.
Previous post Next post
Up
[]