Byzantines = Roman = Ellinos?

[Andrew Dalby]

Greek does exist in the Arabic language.

 

Yunan=Greece

Yunani=Greek

 

I think they used it even then.

 

I believe when Christianity took root, Greeks felt more into the Eastern Empire then a Roman would. Lets not forget it also encompassed: Phoenicia, Syria, and Egypt. The capital was set up by Romans, but the Greeks had a large amount of influence.

 

It is not uncommon to see some Christians call themselves Byzantine. In one Greek Orthodox Church I visited, some of their hyms were in 'Byantine.'

They certainly did use the term Yunani back then. It has a very long history, from the time when the Ionians (the Greeks of much of the Asia Minor coast and Aegean islands) came into contact with, and partly became subject to, the Persian Empire (6th-5th century BC). To the Persians, therefore, the name 'Ionians' came to be synonymous with 'Greeks' because these were the Greeks the Persians knew best. From ancient Aramaic (lingua franca of the Persian Empire) Ionian > Yunani gradually spread into other Asian languages including Sanskrit and Arabic.

[Nerva]

If you were to ask a person living in the Byzantine Empire (at its height), they would call themselves Romioi or Romans.

 

If you were to ask someone living in the West what that Empire in Constantinople was, they'd say "The Greek Empire."

 

If you were to ask a modern day Greek what they called themselves, they'd say Hellenes. As several folks have mentioned, this has a lot to do with 20th Century Greek nationalism. Greeks today associate with classical Athens, Sparta, etc as part of their cultural heritage. It's a shame in some ways because of so much of the groundwork for their current society was laid down by the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

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

 

It's actually a complicated issue, but if I had to pick one, I'd say they called themselves Romioi. Hellenes is more modern in origin.

[Gaius Octavius]

If you were to ask someone living in the West what that Empire in Constantinople was, they'd say "The Greek Empire."

 

When do you feel that this was the case?

[Nerva]

When do you feel that this was the case?

From the selection I posted:

The Byzantines' failure to protect the Pope from the Lombards forced the Pope to search for help elsewhere. The man who answered his call was Pepin II of Aquitaine, whom he had named "Patrician", a title that caused a serious conflict. In 772, Rome ceased commemorating the emperor that first ruled from Constantinople, and in 800 Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor by the Pope himself, officially rejecting the Eastern Roman Empire as true Romans. According to the Frankish interpretation of events, the papacy appropriately "transferred Roman imperial authority from the Greeks to the Germans, in the name of His Greatness, Charles".[41] From then on, a war of names about the New Rome revolved around Roman imperial rights. Unable to deny that an emperor did exist in Constantinople, they sufficed in renouncing him as a successor of Roman heritage on the grounds that Greeks have nothing to do with the Roman legacy. Pope Nicholas I wrote to Emperor Michael III, "You ceased to be called 'Emperor of the Romans', since the Romans whom you claim to be Emperor of, are in fact according to you barbarians."[42]

 

Henceforth, the emperor in the East was known and referred to in the West as Emperor of the Greeks and their land as Greek Empire, reserving both "Roman" titles for the Frankish king. The interests of both sides were nominal rather than actual. No land areas were ever claimed, but the insult the Byzantines took on the accusation demonstrates how close at heart the Roman name (ρωμαίος) had become to them. In fact, Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, a delegate of the Frankish court, was briefly imprisoned in Constantinople for not referring to the Roman emperor by his appropriate title.[43] and in reprisal for his king, Otto I, claiming the "Roman" title by styling himself as Holy Roman Emperor.

It was for political reasons that the Latin West changed how they referred to the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a matter of necessity that the Popes threw in their lot with Pepin and later Charlemagne. The Lombards were still around since the Gothic Wars and Rome could not defend herself against them. The Eastern Empire lacked either the will or the ability to defend Italy from the Lombards at this point. Some of the turn to the Franks as defenders of Rome was the ego of the church who didn't like some of the principles of the Orthodox church in Constantinople. They simply traded one master for another though with the switch to the Holy Roman Empire.

[Gaius Octavius]

Did not the kings of Europe seek the sanction of the Emperor at Constantinople upon ascending their thrones?

[Nerva]

Did not the kings of Europe seek the sanction of the Emperor at Constantinople upon ascending their thrones?

I don't know. What time period are you talking about?

[Gaius Octavius]

Did not the kings of Europe seek the sanction of the Emperor at Constantinople upon ascending their thrones?

I don't know. What time period are you talking about?

 

During the Middle Ages.

[Nerva]

In the Holy Roman Empire becoming Rex Romanorum or "King of the Romans" meant traveling to Rome to be crowned by the Pope. This process had nothing to do with the Emperor in Constantinople.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Nerva

[trimithountios]

Yunnan means Ionian (one of the original 4 Hellenic Phyla aka Achaeans, Dorians,Ionians, Aeolians) not Ellinas or Greek and you can meet this term even in India when they are refferring to Greeks. The Ancient Greeks never used the name Greek for themselves, they used Hellenes instead.

 

The people living in the Eastern Empire called themselves Romaeous (in Greek because that was their language) and their state Romania, Vasileia Romaeon or Ecoumeni. To be Romaeos you ought to speak Greek and to be Orthodox regardless of your Ethnicity.The word Hellen was used by the church as synonym to pagan till the time of the crusades when in literature begins to appear as the name of the empires inhabitants gradually replacing the term "Romaios" till the time of the Ottoman conquest. Both Plethon and Cardinal Bessarion use the term Hellenes and not Romaeoi when they reffering to the population of the Byzantine teritories.

 

Spyridon Trimithountios

[Julius Ratus]

During the middle ages the Rus' called the Greeks 'Gretsi', IIRC. The city of Constantinople was called Miklegard by the Varangians and Tsaragrad by the Rus'.

 

BTW, how did the word 'Greece/Greek' come into existence? I know the Romans called them 'Graeci', and the country was 'Graecia'.

[trimithountios]

During the middle ages the Rus' called the Greeks 'Gretsi', IIRC. The city of Constantinople was called Miklegard by the Varangians and Tsaragrad by the Rus'.

 

BTW, how did the word 'Greece/Greek' come into existence? I know the Romans called them 'Graeci', and the country was 'Graecia'.

 

Graikos(Greek) in the myths is a brother of Helen (Elinas).

 

There was a city in Euboan gulf called Graeki.The Euboaeans(from the island of Euboea) were the first Greeks to settle in the Italian pensinsula in the Pithicusae island.The Greeks, up to now, have a tendensy to identify with their town so there is a possibility that a town's name become a national one.

[georgious]

ok well for the past two days ive been in an argument with a fellow who is Greek..

 

i corrected him on using the term 'Byzantine' and simply told him that it was a modern term and that the 'Byzantines' themselves called themselves Romans.

 

anyway he claims that the Byzantines called themselves Ellinos/ellinas? which he says means Greek (I know no Greek at all.).

 

so what im asking is did the 'Byzantines' call themselves Ellinos/ellinas? or did they call themselves Romans?

 

In a conference Greek professor of Law told us, the audience that the Byzantines were Romans because of the ideology of world domination that was inherent in the Empire.The last sovereign of Byzantium, Constantine Palaiologus was called Βασιλευς Ρωμαιων, King of the Romans. I do not think that it has to do with actual ethnic origin but with political and social pretensions-being Roman was fashionable, as being American or European is today.Surely the ruling dynasty of Byzantium identified itself as Roman but that does not say many things about so an extended empire.Generalizations are dangerous. I would think that most people identified with class and local identities and did not have in mind something so grandiose as an identity of imperial application-but for the rulers they certainly considered themselves Roman.

[sonic]

QUOTE

"Once upon a time there were TWO Emperors. One in the West and one in the East".

 

Correct me if I am wrong but, just before Constantine the Great (330 CE), there were TWO Emperors in the East and TWO Emperors in the West. Making a total of FOUR Emperors.

 

I know little of this era but watched the BBC 'Ancient Rome' doc a few months ago that showed how Constantine won his wife's brother in battle, making him the sole Emperor in the west whilst helping one of the eastern Emperors do the same in that part of the empire. He then deposed the Eastern Emperor making him the undisputed, undefeated Emperor of ALL the Roman Empire.

 

Unfortunately, the BBC don't always achieve perfection in their historical dramas. There were never four emperors of Rome, except possibly if you include all of the individuals who rebelled and set up for themselves. The situation before Constantine became emperor was that there were TWO emperors. The other two individuals were 'Caesars'; that is, they were below the emperors in rank, but acknowledged as being successors to the emperors when they resigned. The two emperors resigned, but the two Caesars did not inherit the thrones. Civil war broke out, during the course of which Constantine ggradually increased his power and became sole emperor in AD 324.

 

However, even this is a simplified version of the situation. Diocletian, the man who set the system up, always remained 'senior emperor', even telling his partner that he had to resign at the same time as he did. Realistically, the empire only divided after 395 when the sons of Honorius became equal emperors of the two divided halves.

 

Interestingly, although the men of the Empire seem to have called themselves 'Romans', Procopius always seems to refer to the capital city as 'Byzantium', not 'Constantinople'.

[Fedor]

i dont care what he calls them but theres more to the story that i dont wish to speak about.. anyway so they called themselves Romans? not Ellinos?

 

Forget all the jumbled mess, just know that the people of classical and medieval Greece to the time of mid 20th century never even used the word Byzantine. Now as to the correct term, it depends on the time period. The ancient Greeks around the time of Roman dominance would call themselves people of Hellenes. The Christian Greeks meanwhile would term themselves Romaioi, and if you used the term Hellenes, the Romaioi would hate you even if he acknowledge his pagan past=Hellenes because to a Christian Greek, Hellenes was a forbidden and pagan past. Since the Romaioi was extremely assertive of the fact that his empire was the true Roman Empire/Basileia Romaion, so yes, a Romaioi, considered himself Roman. Now why do we have the creation of different terms like Byzantine? Blame Western European politics and probably the pope who crowned Charlemange. Since Charlemage was supposed the new Roman Emperor of the [Holy] 'Roman Empire', however, what do you do when there was an already existing empire in the East? Simple, you discredit them and call them the Greek Empire. Soon, Western Europe was calling the Greeks a bunch of things, and one of them was Byzantine because it became popularized by the West. [Note, Byzantine was the equivalent of saying the Greek Empire].

Well said Valerius!

[Fedor]

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place for this discussion. I apologize to the moderators. Here is a link to the disscusion that has been going on for maybe 5 days or so. I just want some opinions from people on unrv.com about the relation of Rome and the "Byzantine Empire". I'm in a disscusion with a Greek person who lives in Greece. I think he is getting annoyed with my view on history about this subject in history about the Roman empire errr... or what he calls The Byzantine empire.

 

So what are your opinions about the Byzantines? Was it the Roman empire in the East? Was it called the Byzantine empire? Or is my view of history just plain wrong? What date is correct? 476AD or 1453AD which i believe was 1453AD.

Again i apolgize to the moderators if this is in the wrong forum.

 

I would read page 4 when i commented on this subject about the "Byzantines".

 

My name is Titus on civfantics.com. The guy i have been debating with is ww2commander.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224206