After the fall of costantinople

[Kosmo]

When the political byzantine institutions ended it was not the end for all things byzantine. "Byzantium after Byzantium" how it was called played a major part in the history of Balkans.

First, the fall of the city brought an end to the attempt of christian unity. The anti western faction was supported by Mehmet Fatih and the authority of the patriarh extended over other orthodox people (like serbs and bulgarians that previously created their own patriarchs) under ottoman authority. The patriarh was the head of the christian "millet" and had huge authority. As the ottoman empire extended his authority became strong in the Holy Land and Sinai, but Athos retained his important status.

Greeks held all high positions in the church and they got that even in areas where they had no previous authority like the romanian states.

They also were used as ambassadors and foreign ministers.

Greeks also played, much more then armenians and jews, the role of an ottoman third class as traders and money lenders. Money lending was extremly important because most officials brought their jobs from the sultan and they needed to get money to acces power. Once they got their jobs they had to get enough money to pay back loans and the high interest rates, to send tribute and giftd to the sultan and many other important people. This brought social problems like rebellions and corruption.

Between 1600 and 1820's the romanian states, Moldova and Valachia, were in a large extent ruled and expoloated by greeks, the so called "fanariots" from the Fanar area of Istanbul. They filled most church high positions, archbishops, bishops, abbots and gave properties and monatries to monastries in Greece and Holy Land.

They lend money to rulers that brought their authority from the sultan and got in exchenge money, large land properties and political power filling the majority of high positions.

In the end they became rulers from early 1700's until 1821.

They also benefited from the monopolies that the ottomans got over trade, selling timber to british and grains on Istanbul market.

There are 3 periods in ottoman history. In the first the ottomans themselves were mostly renegate christians, slaves of the sultan (himself the son of a slave) in the "devsirme" system and so greeks could by converting acces positions of power. After 1650, this system was abolished and power was reserved to those born muslims and to the children of the ottoman elite. This still alowed christians to became powerfull thru the millet system and by the functions they had.

Finally, after napoleonian wars, nationalism was spread to greeks and later to other people including turks bringing the collapse of the millet system and of the ottoman empire.

So, after the fall of Byzantium and the moping up, the impact was gradual and romaioi were integreted in new systems.

[Gaius Octavius]

Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, still can't have a Cross on any of his churches.

Now, for some more help:

What was the effect and meaning of: Moscow being the 'Third Rome'? The Austrian Emperor being the Holy Roman Emperor? The Papacy having that title after the Austrians gave it up? Somewhere in Gibbon's work, I believe that he indicates that Trebizond lasted in some 'Roman' capacity until the 1750's AD. Doesn't the word 'Istanbul' have some Roman connection?

 

FVC, what do Yunan and those other terms refer to?

 

I think that there is some group that is in the process of 're-establishing' the 'Roman Empire' somewhere in Texas (U.S.A.).

Edited December 27, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Kosmo]

The patriarch of Constantinopole it is not superior in any way to the others. All orthodox countries have their own patriarchs. Like that of Russia (that also it's patriarch for other former soviet countries) Serbia etc.

Moscow was the Third Rome for propaganda reasons. They had no connnection with the first and very little with the second as the Old Rus followed bulgarian orthodoxy not byzantine. The tzar was more a succesor of the Golden Horde Khan that of an roman/byzantine emperor.

[Gaius Octavius]

The patriarch of Constantinopole it is not superior in any way to the others.

 

"Primus Inter Pares"?

[Horatius]

The patriarch of Constantinopole it is not superior in any way to the others.

 

"Primus Inter Pares"?

Well actually "For us Orthodox, the Pope of Elder Rome has always been the Patriarch of the West, the successor of the Apostles Peter and Paul who founded the Church of Rome, the first in honour, primus inter pares, and he who presides in Charity, and it is only logical that upon this title, within the framework of the ancient pentarchy (agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople of 879 and signed by the Legates of Pope John VIII) of the first millenium that we can build the reunification of the One Undivided Church." This from the Patriarch of Athens! http://www.ecclesia.gr/english/archbishop/...heading=Letters Although the Pope still retains the ancient title of Pontifex Maximus he does not include the Patriarch of the West, in his titles any longer. http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=86437 . This is all kind of strange really but from what I have read there was a big hubbub when he renounced the title in March of 2006. I guess it all means something and the fact that it goes back to Rome should interest us all. He does apparently wear the Red Shoes http://secretlifeofshoes.blogspot.com/2005...rial-shoes.html . On February 15, 44 BC, Caesar sat upon his gilded chair on the Rostra, wearing his purple robe, red shoes http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-king.php ( red shoes being a affectation of Roman Kings) From Mommsen " the plebeians in the senate did not become senators, but remained members of the equestrian order, were not designated -patres- but were even now -conscripti-, and had no right to the badge of senatorial dignity, the red shoe." http://italian.classic-literature.co.uk/hi...ook-page-06.asp .Bizarre stuff symbols and such. Veering off topic for sure but the fact that Roman officials and symbols survive to this very day is fascinating to me.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Horatius

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

FVC, what do Yunan and those other terms refer to?

 

Oh, those other terms are historically accurate alternatives for the "Roman Empire."

Yunan is of Persian origins, which the Persians used to identify the Greeks.

Iones is another terms to refer to the 'Roman' people of Graecus, though seldom used.

[Rum]eli means land of the Romans to the Ottomans.

Romania obviously was intended to mean land of the Romans too. Even the current country and its people of Romania call themselves Romans,but unfortunately, unsensistive Westerners call them Romanians.