Talk:Byzantine Greeks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Byzantine Greeks, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Byzantine Greeks is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Nice! It could go for GA!--Yannismarou 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Comment

The debate from the Byzantine Empire should be continued here. Jarvis' last edits proved that our little dispute can be in fact harmful to other people's hard work in the article Byzantine Empire. I don't want this to be repeated. Miskin 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Varana what we proposed about the marking point between the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empires is already treated here. Have a look and at the same time we can discuss the name issue. Miskin 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low-level Greek

Quick note on "levels of style." "Low-level Gk." was of course used in writing through at least the 10th c., most notably in hagiography, but also in other contexts (e.g. certain of the administrative and other treatises from the circle of Constantine VII). (Cf. for example I. Ševčenko, "Levels of style in Byzantine prose," JÖB 31 (1981), 289-312.) The major problem is that most of the hagiographic examples were re-written in atticizing Gk. as part of the Metaphrastic project, although enough pre-Metaphrastic lives survive to give us an idea of their style. The question of whether "low-level" written Gk. was equivalent to vernacular / demotic spoken Gk. is another one altogether. In any case there are some fine points here in need of untangling. --Javits2000 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Jarvis").

I think 'popular' or 'vulgar' Greek are more popular terms for 'spoken Byzantine Greek'. If by 'low-level' it is meant 'popular' then it does refer to the spoken vernacular/demotic Greek, in which very few written texts survive. Miskin 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, the problem is that "low-level Greek" has a technical meaning in scholarship on literature, as in Sev. above, quick summary in L. Ryden, "New forms of hagiography" (17th Int. Byz. Cong.): "According to tradition there were three levels of style, high, middle, and low... all three are represented in the hagiography of the early 9th c., the Life of Philaretos the Merciful, BHG 1511z, alone representing the low style. Thereafter the low style fell into disuse [in hagiography, not all around]. This means that with the exception of the L. of Phil. and a few scattered passages in other texts the natural, lively, and picturesque style that makes much early Greek hagiography so attractive does not occur in our period...." (541). But whether or not low-level prose = spoken Greek of some sort is a whole other question; noone would really call VP "demotic," just "simple." --Javits2000 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

In attempting to provide usable references for the sources cited in this page, the following footnote stumps me:

Woodhouse 1986, 109; Sp. Lambros, "Argyropouleia", Athens 1910, 7,29

Three problems here:

1) In the previous incarnation of this article (in the main article on the Byzantine empire) this citation supported only the remarks about the "sun king"; I find it unlikely that a presentation of Argyropouleia would say anything about Plethon, but perhaps the remarks in question are to be found in --

2) "Woodhouse 1986" -- which is what, exactly?

&

3) I assume that the Lampros in question is Spyridon, who of course published many texts from manuscripts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly working on Athos. But a search of the major catalogues reveals no monograph with the title "Argyropouleia". Is this perhaps an article published in the Νέος Ελληνομνήμων? --Javits2000 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved this paragraph from Byzantine Empire along with it's source. I don't know who the original editor was but we could check the edit-history to find out. I'm familiar with the fact that the title "King of the Hellenes" so there might be no need to go through Ελληνομνήμων, I could back it up with a different source if you prefer. Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Javits, a query, you say that the Emperors would list neither Augustus or Pericles among their ancestors, although Anna Komnena never does this, she quite clearly draws upon Ancient Greek and Roman History in her writings as a source of inspirations from a shared 'Greco-Roman' past. Constantine XI also called the defenders of Constantinople 'descendents of the heroes of Greece and Rome' in his speech.
Hallo, anon -- I didn't contribute that line, just removed the double negative. But perhaps another editor could shed some light. --Javits2000 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That said, I should add that the statement in the article generally conforms to my own understanding of the subject. The paradigmatic "good emperor" throughout most of Byz. history was Constantine; other lt. antiq. emperors crop up now and again. --Javits2000 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, no problem! I see your point, I think Norwich's point in regards to Constantine's moving of the Capitol also deserves a mention here. It had a further Romanizing impact upon the Greeks (along with Christianity and the decline of Paganism), simply because when Constantine had moved his capital to Constantinople, as Norwich says, The Greeks could no longer view the Government as a 'foreign' Government run by 'foreign' Latin Romans in Rome itself. Don't know how relevant that is upon identity, but it seems to be relevant to the idea of 'Roman Greeks' to me.

I made this edit by retro-translating D. Nicol, who is most likely providing his personal opinion on how the majority of the Byzantine Emperors would perceive themselves. I'm saying 'retro-translating' because I own the French version of the book (translation from the English original). As Jarvis puts it, the author most likely aims to describe how the Byzantines had developped a unique culture from their Greco-Roman heritage. It is not stated as a rule of the type "no Byzantine emperor ever laid claims to Augustus and Pericles". Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You should register a username, it would make it easier to track your edits. Miskin 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ptochoprodromos

I'm troubled by this reference to the Ptochoprodromic corpus: "As shown in the poems of Ptochoprodromos, Modern Greek had already been shaped by the 11th [sic] century AD and possibly earlier." The poems are written in a mixed style, incorporating a great number of contemporary (i.e. 12th century) vernacular usages -- but they're hardly in "modern Greek" (is there a "sto" to be found therein?). I'm not a native speaker, so I can't say, but I imagine the effect would be something like that of reading Chaucer, if not slightly weirder (the lexicography is eccentric to say the least). I find an article in which Alexiou uses the corpus to argue for the 12th century as the "starting point for 'modern' Greek," (DOP 53, p. 109), but clearly the scare quotes are significant. Please shed some light. --Javits2000 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the majority of linguists consider the poems of Ptochoprodromos as the first attested text that can be identified as "eary Modern Greek" (H. Tonnet, N. Andriotes and N. Nicholas just to name a few sources easily accessible to me). Andriotes (whose historiography of the Greek language is used by wikipedia and Britannica) clearly states that 1453 is only set as a symbolic starting date in the history of Modern Greek, only to make it compatible with history (which of course also applies to the starting dates of Koine and Medieval Greek). H. Tonnet follows a different and more analytical approach, which ignores the actual historical periods of states, and places its starting point earlier (12th century if I'm not mistaken). There must definitely be some scholars who would put that into question, but in my knowledge, consensus places Modern Greek's starting point at Ptochoprodromos, and many historians speak of Modern Greek as a the vulgar language of Byzantium. However I'm also familiar with some sources that regard the Acritic poems as the earliest form of Modern Greek, hence my edit ""and possibly earlier"". I don't remember whether Ptochoprodromos uses modernisms such as 'ston' or 'sten'. He probably doesn't because I remember that it was the Chronicle of Morea that introduced this construct, but still that wouldn't be a reason to exclude Ptochoprodromos from modern Greek. It definitely doesn't use "tha", which is a pure post-1453 construct. I guess it would be impossible to trace all characteristics of today's demotic Greek to the 12th century, this is why it is often called an early stage modern Greek. I can't draw a parallel to Chaucer because I'm not familiar with his language's phonology. However I know that demotic Greek phonology is unchanged since the 11th century. Miskin 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I know where the confusion lies. If you have access to TLG (which you probably do) and look up Ptochoprodromica you'll be confused as his language seems to be somewhat mixed. The first page of poem 1 has clearly Atticizing elements (it uses infinitives and other archaisms), but the second page for instance is much more closer to the vernacular. I guess linguists who view it as early Modern Greek must have isolated the "archaism-free" text, and interpreted it as the vernacular. I agree with you that many parts are nowhere near demotic Greek (not even Koine Greek), but those were very different to the texts cited by other linguistic sources. I suppose that not all of his poems are using vernacular language. Miskin 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's just a slight danger in characterzing any medieval vernacular text, the Akritic poems included, as being in "modern Greek" unqualified -- by which one generally understands the language of, say, Ta Nea. Hence "early modern Greek" or, as in Alexiou, "'modern' Greek." --Javits2000 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting source on this [1] ("it is conventional to date the emergence of Modern Greek dialects to about the 10th to 12th centuries (AD)"). Miskin 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Where it mentions that it was probably best to be a Greek speaker and member of the Orthodox Church at least in ones public persona, perhaps cite the example of Zeno who was, as we all know an Isaurian known as Tarasicodissa, that was until he changed his name, according to Norwich, to Zeno to appeal to the Greek speakers of the Empire as more of a 'Roman' (i.e. Greek Roman).

A better example might be the one of Abba Maximus (Saint Maximus), who was accused by the Byzantine state as a heretic who "loved the Romans and hated the Greeks" (Oxford History of Medieval Europe), and gave the diplomatic response that he loved the Romans because he followed their religion but he also loved the Greeks because he spoke their language. Miskin 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear definitions? Questionable history?

I think this article should introduce the topic a little differently, perhaps more in the fashion that the Byzantine Empire article does. Maybe something like

Byzantine Greeks, or Byzantines, is a conventional term used by historians to refer either to the citizens of the Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire, or else the Greek-speaking (Hellenized) community of that empire. This communited was centered mainly in Constantinople, the southern Balkans, the Greek islands, the coasts of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and the large urban centres of the Near East and Northern Egypt. In systems of historiography such as Arnold Toynbee's, where Byzantium is defined as a civilisation rather than a state, the term "Byzantine Greek" is restricted to the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, while "Byzantine" can refer to any medieval state of the Orthodox faith (such as Moscovite Russia).

Given that the term "Greek" was used in the Middle Ages as a derogatory term for the Eastern Romans and the term "Byzantine" was brought into play for a similar purpose I think the article should follow the lead of modern historians to, while still allowing "Byzantine" to be used, be careful about overly distinguishing this from "Roman" and to be careful about implying too close a relationship between Ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire. Such implications are misleading.

Similarly the article is vague about the Byzantine identity in many parts, presumably trying to be "unbiased." Among other things there is the statement

Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed descent from the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands.

This is a bit of a dangerous statement. Modern historians pretty much all agree (as indicated in the Byzantine Empire article) that the Emperors of Constantinople, before the Ottoman conquest, were the legitimate emperors of the Roman Empire. Other claims at best had very tenuous merit. I certainly do think that the article should attempt to be unbiased but I would argue that sticking with the thinking of modern mainstream historians is the more "unbiased" viewpoint here. It is certainly appropriate to state that Western Europeans of the later Middle Ages did not agree with the viewpoint of modern historians (most of those same people also thought the Earth was the center of the universe) but that viewpoint should not be given the same weight as the historians.

Also, I don't think the following statement is appropriate.

The evolution from the Eastern Roman into the Byzantine Empire, properly speaking, starts with the reign of Heraclius, when Greek replaced Latin completely in law and administration.

Simply put, there is no universally agreed upon date for the "start" of the "Byzantine" period (and many historians argue that this is a pointless debate since the Byzantine and Roman Empires are the same thing). In particular this date contradicts what the Byzantine Empire article lists as a start date, the founding of Constantinople (I think that article needs to be more careful as well). IMHO, this article should not try to make statements like this but rather leave it to the Byzantine Empire article to clarify these details. --Mcorazao 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As an additional comment, I know that some of the viewpoints expressed are in fact consistent with some of what the Roman Catholic Church says even today. Although Catholic histories can be valuable sources of knowledge it is important to recognize that some of what the Church says is not regarded by mainstream historians as "unbiased" so the information should be treated carefully. --Mcorazao 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the content of the article is very well sourced, so I don't see how it can be put into question by stating one's personal opinion and calling it "unbiased" and "mainstream". For example the edit "The evolution from the Eastern Roman into the Byzantine Empire, properly speaking, starts with the reign of Heraclius" is reworded from Ostrogorky (arguably the best Byzantinist in history) who actually states that it was a transition "from the ancient Roman to the Medieval Greek Empire". We can replace it with a direct quote if you think that this wording is not neutral enough. I don't agree with many of your points, "Greeks" was not used derogatory, it's just how the Latin-speakers always perceived the Greek-speakers, i.e. as "a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece". In fact according to one source this was used as an argument by the Goths in order to get the Italians to join them against Justinian. Anyway all of the other edits you posted come from citations, some almost direct ones. The edit "Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed descent from the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands." is from George Finlay, though it is common knowledge anyway. This has nothing to do with the Church, I don't know where you got that idea from. If you care to read the sources linked to every paragraph, you'll find out that they are very credible and very "unbiased". If you think that they don't reflect a mainstream view then you must prove it by citing a sufficient number of opposite opinions. So far you've been judging the article as if it was the result of original research, but considering the number and quality of the sources provided, your claims about "non-biased sources" and "non-mainstream" views have no rational basis. Miskin 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I didn't say the article was original research. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
I haven't personally read Ostrogorsky's work directly (nor am I a historian) so I'll defer to you if you say the wording is consistent with his statements. However, your quote that the it was a transition "from the ancient Roman ot the Medieval Greek Empire" does not by itself contradict what I said (unless there is more to that than what you have stated). My understanding too, though, is that, although probably few of the details of Ostrogorsky's history have changed since he wrote his book, the viewpoint has shifted a little (i.e. it's not that anybody would say that Ostrogorsky was "wrong" about anything but some recent scholars might argue that the work perpetuated some biases as, inevitably, every historical work does). Regarding Finlay, historians' viewpoints have -- I think -- changed in important ways since his time. His work should be viewed in the same way we view Sir Isaac Newton's work, brilliant and important, but not entirely consistent with the most recent thinking.
As far as the derogatory use of "Greek" I have to disagree with you. The Pope and eventually the Franks intentionally referred to the Eastern Romans as "Greeks" specifically for the purpose of not calling them "Roman" and, thereby, challenging their heritage and sovereignty (if you read the Byzantine Empire article it kind of makes this point although, admittedly, not emphatically). There are articles all over the web (e.g. [2]) that explicitly state that the Eastern Romans saw this as an insult. Similarly Montesquieu later popularized use of the term Byzantine motivated by Westerners' not only wanting to claim the ancient Roman heritage but also wanting to claim ancient Greek heritage and so invented a naming convention to promote their viewpoint. The Eastern Romans themselves did not really know the term "Byzantine" (although, of course, they knew the historical name of the capital's predecesor).
Anyway, as I say I am not a historian so I certainly could not get into a battle of documentation with you. I base my comments on what I've found on the web and in discussions with folks who actually are experts on history and have said clearly that there has been a recent shift in thinking among historians away from the "traditional" Western viewpoint toward a more objective stance. I realize a lot of what I have said essentially amounts to a TOMAYTO/TOMAHTO debate but it is often the case that the terminology employed to describe something significantly affects people's understanding of it.
In any event, the article does cite cell and seems well researched. I am only trying to suggest improvements (somebody who is more of a history buff would be better suited to supply authoritative references than myself).
--Mcorazao 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the Church, it is common for Roman Catholic sources to be cited in arguing that "Greek" or "Byzantine" was the proper name for the Eastern Romans so I wasn't sure if that played a factor here. Wasn't trying to jump to conclusions. --Mcorazao 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. Just curious but, regarding your comment on the Heraclius quote, are you contending that the Byzantine Empire article should explicitly 629 (I think that was the date) as the start of the Byzantine Empire (which is not what it says now)? Just wondering ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcorazao (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi Mcorazao, I think you make many valid points, and your introduction sounds acceptable to a point, however, the debate in itself is not pointless, nor have I ever heard any historian (as you claim) claim it to be pointless. The conventional date is Constantine's changing of the capital, I think Norwich makes a very good point in regards to this when he states in his 3 volume history of byzantium that the shift it represented was that the Greeks (despite long being Romanized and Christianitized) could no longer view the Empire of Rome as one being ruled by foreign latin speakers in Rome itself. You are quite right about a Western effort to appropriate Roman and Greek History, particularly in Britain (Gibbon constantly refers to the Roman Legions stationed in Britain in the early Imperial period as the 'British Army' as though to believe they were some kind of naturalized Roman citizens with a British ethnic identity - absurd obviously, but the effort has been quite successful), this is not to doubt Rome's universality, but for the vast majority of the Empire's existence, it's 'natural' borders were considered to be the balkans as far north as the Danube and Asia Minor (as well as some parts of Southern Italy), areas which when combined undoubtedly constituted a native-Greek speaking majority.
There is also a tendency to confuse geographical identity (as mentioned in this article I believe) with ethnic identity, to be a Byzantine (Roman) one effectively had to be culturally, linguistically and religiously what we would today consider to be a 'Greek' (though we Greeks do not call themselves by the name 'Greek' and never have, which casts a certain irony on this whole discussion :) ). I think we also have to go into more detail about what it meant to be a 'Roman' in Byzantine times, and what it meant to be a 'Hellene' in early Byzantine times (i.e. an identification with Greek as a pagan, for example Marcellinus). For example, many point out 'how could Byzantium be what we would today consider to be a Greek Empire when quite a few of its Emperors were Armenian'? The fact is Armenian in middle and later Byzantine times simply referred to a native Greek speaker (most of the Armenian emperors couldnt even speak Armenian), from the province of Armenia.
Heraclius is the conventionally accepted date for when the last vestiges of Latin were removed from the Empire, and as such, ending Latin dominance in it's final field of existence in the East - that of jurisprudence. From that point on all Governmental decrees, official letters, Handbooks on Law (for example the Macedonian Code) were written in Greek, it became the predominant language long before this, in fact it had always been the predominant language in the East, but as far as latin as an 'official' langauge in the East goes, Heraclius represents the removal of the the last Latin vestiges from Government. Basically, what it meant to be a 'Roman' had changed - and changed quite a lot, it is simple as that, and that is why we distinguish between 'Byzantine' and 'Roman'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.204.19 (talk • contribs)
If you would like to be taken seriously User:GreekWarrior, you should stop leaving comments like this on the talk pages of other pages [3]. Be glad that your comment above wasn't removed per WP:BAN - but refrain from posting messages to the talk pages of any Wikipedia article. Good bye. Baristarim 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Baris you are really too serious, you have to learn to take jokes. Anyway, I will not edit pages but Iwill provide Miskin and others with sources, such as this one, feel free to use it how you will.
None the less, we have to face the facts both that the Byzantine world survived against a repeated attack in a way that the Latin world did not; and that a profound attachment to the classical Greek past remained fundamental to Byzantine culture. So with these perspectives in mind, one may venture to suggest that what we find in the third century is not merely that fuller literary evidence happens to reveal more about popular resistance in the Greek East; but rather that the Greek society of the Empire, gained self confidence and coherence precisely from it's vigorous literary and intellectual tradition, and it's intimate connection with it's heroic past.
Fergus Miller: Rome, The Greek World and the East, Volume 2: Government, Society and Culture in the Roman Empire (Page 297)
Miller's 3 volume set is brilliant for a topic such as this so if you need any more sources ask me.
Arbitrarily drawn distinctions between the Eastern Roman Empire (A state which was in existence prior to the fall of the Western Empire, and thus a full 'part' of the Roman Empire) and the 'Byzantine Empire' (A term that didn't come into existence until a century AFTER the fall of Constantinople to the Turks) have always been false. However, you can make some important cultural distinctions between the Empire of Augustus, Trajan, and even Constantine, and the Empire of Mikael Dukas and Basil II. Since it's so hard to define historical states (with the true concept of the nation state not really even emerging until well into the Renaissance), I think it's still important to change some phrasing in this article. Bringing up a previously contested line: "Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed the continuation of the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands". This statement is almost insulting in that, well into the 'Middle Ages' the Eastern Empire was almost completely inseparable politically from the extinct Western Empire, in the sense that it maintained many of the same institutions of the pre-ceding united Empire. Even after the 'Hellenizing' of the 7th century, the Greeks had a much greater claim to Roman heritage than any other extant nation of the time. This line, neutral on the surface, should not put the Eastern Empire on the same level, seemingly, as other claimants to Rome simply because no other state at the time had a politically legitimate claim (except the HRE, but only contemporaneously, as we know today that the Pope had no actual legal ability to crown an Emperor).
Several other lines stand out as almost insultingly vague, such as, "Yet most Byzantine Emperors would list neither Augustus nor Pericles among their ancestors, but Constantine the Great and Justinian, and the Christian emperors of Constantinople.[9]". If this is supposed to be some sort of proof for a delineation between the Eastern Empire and the later medieval Greek one, it bears mentioning that very few Latin Roman Emperors traced lineage from Augustus, either. I'm not sure why Pericles is mentioned. Likewise, Constantine WAS a Roman Emperor, so it's almost a moot point.
Ultimately, the question is somewhat unsolvable because it's inherently vague in nature, but it seems it's always just vague enough to make the proponent of whatever argument 'right'. When one speaks of the ethnicity of the later Empire, it was certainly Greek, but when speaks of the political continuity, it was very much Roman (at least up until the fall of Constantinople to the crusaders and the first break-up of the Empire). If, by some trick of fate, the 'Byzantine' Empire existed today, we'd almost certainly be calling them Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I agree with your points mostly, except the one mentioning 'If, by some trick of fate, the 'Byzantine' Empire existed today, we'd almost certainly be calling them Romans.' That's absurd, the emergence of the word 'Hellene' in the later empire (Constantine XI used the term repeatedly in his speech to his troops when the Turks attacked, proves anything (along with the emergence of a more distinct 'national' consciousness among peoples in the Renaissance and beyond, it proves that the Byzantines certainly would not have been calling themselves Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Actually Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century. The reason that this ethnonym was given up for 'Hellenes' was due to Western pressure. So there's no need to ask for a trick of fate, this has actually happened already, and it was the West that changed the native name of the Byzantines from Romans to Hellenes in the "Romaic language". Actually the West had never called Byzantium or any Greek-speakers 'romans' in the first place, precisely because the ancient Roman heritage was very much alive in Western Europe and the Latin world. This was acknowledge in Byzantium only after 1204. This is why Hellenic identity became a very important factor in the late centuries of the Empire. Miskin 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, you mentioned and i quote: "...Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century..". No. The name still used until today actually is not "Rhomaioi" as you say, but "Rhomioi" (I am a descendant of a Constantinople family) to differentiate themselves from the Romans i.e. Greek citizens of the Roman empire. Another comment that i would like to make (and a question to who ever has information on this) is that the people coming from the east of the Mediterranean basin call the Greeks with the name Unan which from what i know comes from Ionian. How come after the Byzantine empire this name (more appropriate than Greek) prevailed? [user: Nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Am I banned?

Miskin, I take it that your unexplained deletions mean I am banned from editing your articles? --Mcorazao 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete your edit, I only copy-edited to a better, referenced version. Your edit is shown on red font in the diff because I put it on a separate paragraph and not because I deleted it. I understand that you have certain POV on this topic but it has to stay out of wikipedia as long as can't be supported by reliable, published sources. A level of neutrality must be retained, and wording such as e.g. "those so-called 'Greeks'" is not up to the standard. Miskin 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
However, I did revert your edits in Rum because they replaced directly cited content with original thought. Miskin 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I misread the edits. --Mcorazao 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Millar cite

I'm removing the recent citation of Millar under "Byzantine Greek language" for the following reasons: 1) it has nothing to do with "language," rather the "spiritual center of the empire," whatever that might mean; 2) whereas the suggestion of a crucial break under Heraclius, posited directly above, is well-explained (loss of significant non-Greek speaking territories), the reference to Theodosius II is simply asserted without any explanation; 3) it's tendentiously worded ("many, such as," when only Millar is cited). --Javits2000 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree I worded it poorly, but I still think the citation has a place. It explains the continuity of a distinctive Greek literary culture throughout the period of Rome which then became what we would describe as Byzantine literature, if you read Anna Komnena you can see the links with the past quite clearly.--NeroDrusus 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think is missing from the article. That Greek continued to be used throughout the Roman era is made clear in the first paragraph under "language." Anna Komnene wrote in the "archaising "high" style which imitated classical Attic" which is mentioned in the second paragraph -- which is incidentally at the root of Karl Krumbacher's remark, that she had learned Greek as a foreign language (Geschichte der byzantinischen litteratur (1897), 277). Whether this is part of a direct continuity from Roman-era/ late antique literature is debatable. To take Anna, she's writing in a genre ("classical" historiography) which hasn't left any traces btw. Theophylact Simocatta & the continuators of Theophanes ("Theophanes Continuatus" -- 10th c.) --Javits2000 09:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point, if you read Millar, he argues for the primary importance of literature in maintaining a distinctive 'Greco-Roman' culture of the East, and it was partially from this that the East was able to 'realise it's full potential after the fall of the west' (or something to that effect, I can't remember his exact quote). I agree with you that largely it doesn't really need any more sourcing though. What it DOES need, are a couple of images and to be rewritten in a more, how shall i say, 'palatable' style. I mean, the 'meat' of a good article is there, my issue is mostly about how it is arranged.--NeroDrusus 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Pictures yes! --Javits2000 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Comnena learned Greek as a foreign language?? You must mean classical Attic Greek..? Miskin 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Roman identity during the 12th century?

'the pretence of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades'

I disagree. In The Alexiad, not once does Anna Comnena refer to her people as anything but Roman. Furthermore, Anna frequently uses titles such as 'Augustus' and 'Caesar' to describe members of the Imperial family. She also displays a very Roman attitude in describing the Latins as 'Kelts' and 'barbarians' and also describing the Turks and Arabs of the east as 'barbarians.' She certainly does not appear to consider her Romanity to be a 'pretence' and there is no evidence that her identity as a Roman is wearing thin.

The book is thought to have been published at around 1148 I believe, which was the height of the crusader era. Hera52 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is a direct citation from Beaton's book - maybe even too direct and needs to go within quotes. The statement you quoted refers to the impact of the infamous Battle of Manzikert. Miskin 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)