Talk:Byzantines

Redirect
Apparently there is disagreement concerning what is "misleading" about the Byzantines redirect, as such I'd say the only solution is make the article a disambiguation page that will include both meanings. Aldux (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The correct term is Romaioi i.e. Romans (which incidentally is still in use as a Greek ethnonym) and this reffered to the Greek speaking or linguistically hellenized contigent alone. When another community is refered to (e.g. Armenians, Syriacs, etc) it is refered to by name. So for example when someones says the "Byzantines lived there" they would mean the majority population. Whereas if they want to specify that it was an Armenian city it would say "Armenians lived there" etc. At least that is how I see it. I am open to different interpretations however.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But here we are hitting exactly the point: we are not speaking of a self-identifying term like Romans, but instead of a term coined by scholars to help explicitate the shift from west to east and the foundation of a new capital. As for the "majority" issue till the Arab conquests the Greeks themselves were a minority in the vast population of the empire and the emperors themselves were very rarely Greeks (it is often said that Maurice was the first Greek emperor). So when I write, say, "the Byzantines attacked the Sassanids", this can hardly be taken as the same thing as saying "the Greeks attacked the Sassanids", while instead a more correct meaning is "the Byzantine Empire attacked the Sassanids". The "Byzantines" redirect is full of links to possibilities such as these. Keep in mind the work of one of the top Byzantinists, Averil Cameron, who wrote a work titled precisely The Byzantines and premitted immediately that the Byzantines could in no way be called a people in the ethnic sense. For this, a disambig page is anavoidable, I'm afraid. Aldux (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If by Greeks you mean Greek-speakers (as opposed to Hellenes) than I gues they might not have been the majority in the Roman empire during the middle years as they were during the later centuries. The Hellenes of course were romanized after the fist few centuries. As for the ethnicity I would rather say that it varied through time and while the Emperors were not Greek-speaking orignially they were Romans nonetheless. The Syriac-speaking population might not perhaps have identified whole-heartedly with Romanitas but that is not something I am certain of. I have read that this rift was a factor in the spread of non-Orthodox belief and the passage below does only refer to "the middle period of Byzantium's history" so I guess it would be wrong to conflate the property of being a subject to the Empire with posessing a Roman identity in any more meaninguful sense at least for every subject and at all periods.


 * Kaldellis, Anthony (2008). Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521876885. pages 42-43


 * "It is well known that the people we call Byzantines today called themselves Romans (Romaioi). In the middle period of Byzantium’s history, with which the second and more narrative part of this study will be chiefly concerned, this ‘‘national’’ label appears or is pervasive in virtually all texts and documents (excluding the strictly theological) regardless of the geographical and social origins of their authors, which, in Byzantium, were diverse. (‘‘Byzantines’’ were for them only the residents of Constantinople, archaically styled after the City’s classical name.) These Romans called their state Romania (Ρωμανία) or Romaıs, its capital New Rome (among other names, titles, and epithets), and its rulers the basileis of the Romans, whom we call ‘‘emperors.’’ This Roman identity survived the fall of the empire and Ottoman rule, though it was greatly changed by those events. While in Byzantium the Romans were a highly unified nation, under the Porte they were redefined so as to encompass a multi-ethnic and linguistically diverse religious community. Later, with the foundation of the modern Greek state, romiosyne came to represent the orthodox and demotic aspects of the new Hellenic national persona, complementing the classical and idealistic aspect that was projected abroad.Continuity and change are alike illustrated in a story remembered by Peter Charanis, born on the island of Lemnos in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University. When the island was occupied by the Greek navy [in 1912], Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of us children ran to see what these Greek soldiers, these Hellenes, looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ we replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ he retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans.’Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history finally absorbed and ended. Charanis, as we will see, eventually came to regard himself as a Hellene"


 * Personally I find the whole treatment of the later Roman Empire riven with inaccuracies, most of which stem from the misnomer Byzantine and the assumption that it was multi-ethnic throughout its millenial existence. I could see a disambig page working if we split it up in time periods. Identity is a fluid thing and romanization worked in some places longer than in others. For example it could say that for the period up to the 7th c. see the article Byzantine Empire and from the 8th century onwards see Byzantine Greeks or something of that sort, we can certainly argue when the correct time to split it would be. For example Gill Page in Being Byzantine argues for a national identity post 1204 (later period). Kaldelis places it in the middle period of the ERE as well. All this could be included in the disambig page. I look forward to your reply.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is for quite a lot of time, even after the disappearance of the Empire on their territories, in the west they still called themselves Romani (and not, to be clear, as inhabitants of Rome); it was only very slowly, especially in Italy that this would cease to be automatic. As for Hellenic culture and Greek language the interactions and differences have always been an object of great interest to scholars: consider for example something like Rus, that can be considered part of a "Byzantine commonwealth" but where no troops ever arrived. As for "Byzantine", I feel you're uncorrect in calling it a "misnomer": instead it's a convention, and conventions are something fundamental to give a sense to events. In this case through the concept of Byzantium one can mark better the difference between Trajan's empire and Basil's empire, because to be honest I'd say modern historians have remarked the fundamental Greek character of the Empire in the 650 - 1453 years, and some like Ostrogorsky have argued that only that one should be considered the Byzantine Empire (as always, it's questions of periodizations). Returning to our more specifice issue. The problem is that these sort of ambiguities: the very first link to this redirect says "Alp Arslan led Seljuk Turks to victory against the Byzantines in 1071" Now I think you would agree that by Byzantines here the meaning really is "Alp Arslan led Seljuk Turks to victory against the Byzantine Empire in 1071" rather than "Alp Arslan led Seljuk Turks to victory against the Byzantine Greeks in 1071". Thus my opinion is, keep it simple: say like this "Byzantines may be meaning: 1) The Byzantine Empire, an empire that existed between CE 330 and 1453. 2) The Byzantine Greeks, the most important people of the Byzantine Empire." Keep in mind that the disambig page doesn't provide info, only redirect to the place where they can find it. What's your opinion? Ciao, Aldux (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply but yesterday was pretty hectic. I would be very interested on more information on the self-perception of western Romans following the dissolution of the Empire there. If you could point me to the book(s) where you got that information from I would be grateful. Wrt to the issue of a commonwealth the Rus even after converting were not considered as Romans by the Romans themselves. Neither were they considered barbarians of course and nor were the Franks. There were graduations. As for the use of the term “Byzantine” I believe it is politically charged and aims at its core in denying the Roman identity of these people. It has been accepted by the West on the implicit assumption that anything Roman is essentially Western and by the modern Greeks as a result of nationalism in order to emphasize Hellenic continuity. They are both wrong but that is the subject of another discussion which I would be very pleased to continue in mine or your talk page or via email if you are interested since WP is not a forum. On the matter at hand I would say the following: 1) should read something like: The Byzantine Empire, the conventional term of reference for the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East after the fall of the Western half 2) the subjects of that empire irrespective of religious or linguistic considerations and 3) The Byzantine Greeks (Romaioi) the majority population for most of the empire’s existence (since most important is a value judgment). I look forward to your input. --Anothroskon (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my terribly late answer, but to be honest the thing had slipped out of mind, and then I was far from internet for some time :( Again, accept my most felt regrets. First of all, you really hit it with "WP is not a forum": considering all the editors I've used these words with in the past I should have known better. Oh well, nobody's perfect. As for the self-perception, I thought I was just stating the obvious: consider the writings of Cassiodorus, Gregory of Tours, Gregory the Great and legions of other Latin writers of the ages; there were the Romani (themselves) and the Barbarbarian ruling people. And this difference was accepted by the Germanic rulers, that when they put down their laws always speak of Franci/Burgundi/Gothi and even the Langobardi (in their laws they sure didn't call their subjects Italians (unsurprisingly ;-)), but Romani; Langobardi was reserved only for those recognized as being under Germanic customs).
 * But as you said again, lets put an end to this unwikipedian debate and turn to the issue. I agree with your proposals for articles 1 and 3; I'd keep out 2 for the simple reason there is no article there, and what we speaking of is a disambig page.Aldux (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I 'm fine with that and will implement it fortwith. I will also look up the sources as the Roman identity interests me on a personal level. It was very nice talking to you. Take care Aldux.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Links
Now that this former redirect has been turned into a disambiguation page, I hope that interested editors will heed WP:FIXDABLINKS and WP:USURPTITLE by helping to review and retarget over 300 other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Byzantines". Suggestions for how to do this most efficiently and effectively can be found at WP:DPL. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, as the one who raised the issue I'll work with the links. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)