Unworthy Cowards Greeks Lost Constantinople
Pavel Makedonski
taken from http://www2.h-net msu.edu
*for fair use only*
Letter of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to Mr. William E. Gladstone,
February 13, 1878
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following letter is reproduced from Seton-Watson, R.W. The
Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy. London: Constable
and Co., 1911. The pagination and all punctuation has been retained
from the original.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Page 433)
VIII. Bishop Strossmayer to Mr. Gladstone, February 13, 1878.
(In German.)
Forgive me for writing to you once more and taking up your valuable
time. First of all I thank you again and again for the splendid proofs
of your courage and devotion to the cause of the unhappy Christians of
the Illyrian Peninsula. God will reward you and your family for it. By
your noble conduct you have done a great service to your own nation
also, and even to your Government. To-day the Congress is accepted by
all the Powers, the work of peace and pacification begins. Let me make
a few observations.
(I) I think it would be worthy not only of this or that party in
England, but of the whole great and glorious English nation, to
represent at the Congress the principles of humanity and liberty and
to allow no petty considerations to divert one from this. I must
confess that in this respect I am not without anxiety. When there was
a talk in the English Parliament of liberating all North and South
Bulgaria, your Premier spoke in a very frivolous and unwise manner. He
exclaimed in a somewhat threatening and mocking tone, "So far as the
liberation of Bulgaria is concerned there are others there, who will
also have a say in the matter in their own interests." Every one among
us knows what that means; but every one asks if this is the language
of the great England, which seeks to pass in the whole world as the
school and stronghold of freedom, morality, humanity and noble
activity. Every individual and community lives not merely from
material but far more from spiritual bread. Truth and justice is the
best policy which peoples and states can follow; this policy triumphs
even when it is apparently defeated; while falsehood and injustice
lead peoples and states to ruin, even when they seem to triumph. That
is what we call Divine Providence, the final hope and often the sole
support of oppressed and unhappy peoples. Great peoples possessing
culture and the Divine favour (and to these England especially
belongs) are called before all others to represent truth, justice and
liberty in the world: otherwise they are untrue to themselves and to
God. If then I compare this with the statement of your Premier, he
seems to me to say: the liberation of the Bulgarian nation is a just
cause, and England as a free nation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Page 434)
has nothing against it; but for other considerations England will be
glad, if others do so. That is surely, to some extent, imitating
Pilate, who thought that it is as easy to cleanse one's guilty
conscience as to cleanse one=s dirty hands with water.
I know, in this country there are people who think it is in the
interest of their own freedom and culture, not to permit the freedom
and culture of their neighbours to flourish.* But my God, does this
principle, or better said, this absurdity, deserve to be supported?
Freedom and culture can never be injurious to freedom and culture.
What is injurious to them, is slavery and barbarism. Hence all really
noble men and all truly free peoples must endeavour that every trace
of slavery and barbarism may disappear as soon as possible from the
Continent of Europe. The sooner the poor and unhappy peoples of
European Turkey are freed from their yoke and restored to liberty and
culture, the better for all European peoples without exception. Hence
England will not only act in conformity with its natural destiny, if
at the Congress it represents to the full the interests of the
oppressed peoples; but also will do a material service to those who
to-day from blindness and passion oppose the liberation of the peoples
of the Thracian Peninsula. England will win morally in the eyes of the
whole world, but especially of the oppressed peoples, whose liberation
is in question. Moreover, I think that England by representing openly
and unreservedly the oppressed peoples, will lend fresh weight to
every argument for the protection of its own interests. A contrary
attitude on England=s part might obviously cause a general
conflagration, whose ravages none can foresee. I beg you then, if
possible, to work upon your Government in this direction. This will be
the crown of your activity hitherto. There are, as you well know,
moments in human life when one earns scant recognition in defence of
the great principles of truth and justice; but very often it is just
such moments which are the loveliest wreath for the memory of the man
who did not shrink from staking his own popularity in the service of
truth and justice and exposing himself to much abuse.
If I am eager for the liberation of the oppressed peoples of European
Turkey, I mean by that not only the Slavs but also the Greeks. This
time, it is true, they have behaved most unworthily; just as their
behaviour was truly unworthy and shameful when like cowards they lost
their capital Constantinople to the advancing Turks. None the less,
their liberation also should be achieved to-day, in the interest of
humanity and the permanent pacification of these parts of Europe.
Secondly, my noble friend, I have to recommend to you the Serbs and
the Montenegrins. So far as the former are concerned, it would be very
desirable that all Old Servia should be handed over to them. I do not
know howfar at present they have victoriously penetrated by force of
arms; but this I know for certain, that the Serbs will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Page 435)
only be permanently pacified and deprived of every excuse for
revolting, when they are assigned Pristina in the south, then Ipek (or
Petsch) in a westerly direction, then further south Prizren, or
"Prisrendt" as is written to-day. Each of these towns has for the
Serbs a dear and sacred memory. For instance, Prizren was long the
residence of their kings. Ipek was long the seat of their supreme
Church authority, their Patriarch and a famous monastery. No people on
earth easily forgets such precious traditions. Every Serb carries them
in his heart and also in his mouth, in the shape of splendid popular
songs. In the present excited state of feeling quiet could hardly be
reckoned on for a week, if these places so sacred to every Serb were
still left in the hands of the Turks.
The Montenegrins with their splendid and truly heroic prince, I hardly
need to recommend to you. If any little people deserves the world's
admiration, it is this splendid Montenegrin people, which has taken up
its abode like an eagle on a lofty and barren crag, in order to buy
its freedom and independence by a thousand sacrifices and
renunciations for centuries.
Thirdly, I recommend to you, and to your Government if you have any
influence in this direction, the Bosnians and Herzegovinians. I am
lawfully Bishop of Bosnia, and am therefore in some ways a Divinely
appointed defender of Bosnia and Herzegovina. How happy I should be,
if it were possible to grant me a place, however modest, at the
Congress, so that I might represent the interests of this very worthy,
but also much neglected, people.* Since, however, this is impossible,
I venture to recommend them most earnestly to you and if possible to
your Government. What is just and fair for the Bulgarians, Roumanians
and Greeks, is equally just and fair for the poor Bosnians and
Herzegovinians, since it was from them that the first impetus came for
the present movement and liberation of these peoples. These districts
deserve to be freed from their present yoke and to be entrusted with
adequate autonomy. In present conditions it would be impossible to
entrust the administration of these countries to the hands of the
Serbs, with reservation of the Turkish suzerainty--a course which I
regard as the most practical; on the other hand, it is not easy to
imagine any other suzerainty or influence on an international basis,
without great confusion. There is then nothing left, in my opinion,
but to make these countries quite autonomous and to retain Turkish
suzerainty, perhaps defined by international law. What I consider to
be extremely important for these countries, is that the Eastern
Orthodox Church should be freed as soon as possible from the shameful
yoke of Phanariotism. Till now the Bishops here have been Phanariots,
who bought their office for hard cash from the Patriarch in
Constantinople, in order to compensate themselves a hundredfold for
this price by more than Turkish exactions.* That such Bishops did not
understand the language of the people, and that they kept the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Page 436)
Orthodox clergy in ghastly ignorance, and entirely neglected all the
duties of their calling, goes without saying.* Henceforth this people
ought to have a Bishop from among itself, who, knowing its language
and customs and loving it, will attend to its spiritual interests
better than before.* So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it
has been hitherto far better served, but even in this respect changes
are absolutely necessary, and these I shall discuss with Rome quite
openly. I know you are too much occupied to reply: I only ask you to
see that some one acknowledges the due receipt of this letter.
With true respect and admiration, I remain your admirer and friend,
STROSSMAYER
pyrsos27
? "Pavel Makedonski" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:c3d429fb.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Unworthy Cowardice Greeks Lost Constantinople
>
> taken from http://www2.h-net msu.edu
> *for fair use only*
>
> Letter of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to Mr. William E. Gladstone,
> February 13, 1878
Strossmayer, a Croatian-Catholic "enlightener" of the 19th century and a
sworn enemy of the Serbs and the Orthodox in general is not an objective
source.
Those "unworthy Greek cowards" had been devastated economically by their
numerous wars with Europe's most prominent Catholic nations, the Normans,
tha Venetians and the Franks. The Catholic Crusaders had already sucked
Constantinople in 1204, stoled all the gold, killed numerous civilians and
devastated the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks managed to expell the Catholics
by 1340, liberate the Holy City in 1261 but by the time they did so they
were very weak and did not have the strength to confront the numerous Turks
who were advancing westwards from Minor Asia virtually unopposed.
When the ailing Emperor Manuel Paleologus travelled to Europe in order to
ask for Catholic assistance prior to the Turkish final onslaught he was
confronted with the following dilema: "Renounce the Orthodox Church and
accept the Pope as your master or face the Turks alone".
We chose to keep our faith and face the Ottomans in a last stand inside the
walls of Constantinople. We annihilated two Turkish assault waves (the
bashibazooks and the Anatolians) but succumbed to the final wave of
Janissaries. All 5,000 Greeks fell (including the Emperor) during this last
heroic battle.
BTW, your cowardly people, Pavel, fell to the Greeks long before the Turks
appeared. Remember Basil the Bulgarlayer.
pyrsos27
formivn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[The following letter is reproduced from Seton-Watson, R.W. The Southern
Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy. London: Constable and Co., 1911.
The pagination and all punctuation has been retained from the original.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Page 417)
I. Bishop Strossmayer to Mr. Gladstone. October 1, 1876.
(Written in German.)
[All the other letters I have myself translated from the originals, but this
version is transcribed from a MS., on the back of which are the words,
"Translation in Lord Acton's hand." Needless to say, Lord Acton's version is
at once scholarly and accurate. R.W.S.W.]
Allow me to thank you from my inmost soul for the generous initiative you
have taken,(506) before your own glorious nation and the whole civilized
world, for the rights of humanity and freedom, for which the unfortunate
Southern Slavs are suffering so much and are pouring forth their blood in an
unequal conflict. We have rejoiced at it the more, because of our sincere
admiration for your country, which has succeeded so well in reconciling
order and stability with liberty and with every description of progress, and
the noble movement which has recently taken possession of a part of the
English people(507) fills us with hope, because the force of public opinion
is irresistible when it is directed towards noble ends, and is guided by men
of your services and reputation. Therefore I thank you again heartily, and
will add a few words, not to say anything that is new, but to relieve the
pressure that is on my heart.
The Koran has manifested before God and man its absolute incapacity to
govern Christian nations, by making itself the basis not only of religious
but of social and political life. Its fatal purpose is either to force
Islamism upon them, or to deprive them for ever of political rights, and to
plunge them into an intolerable oppression. No power in the world can change
this inherent mission of the Koran, for it comes, in the belief of the
Moslem, from God Himself. To rule and aggrandise, and to indulge undisturbed
in all those unnatural vices which, before they bring about the death of
nations. are always the source of dreadful cruelties, that is the appointed
mission which the Mussulman has received from God. Between the slavery of
the Koran and all other slavery there is this difference, that the one is
commonly the result of evil custom, of vice and passion, of causes that are
destitute of divine sanction, whilst the other claims
(506) Mr. Gladstone's famous pamphlet on The Bulgarian Horrors and the
Question of the East, appeared on September 5, 1876.
(507) Through the correspondence both Strossmayer and Gladstone invariably
use the words "England" and "English" for "Britain" and "British."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Page 418)
to be directly sanctioned by God Himself, and must therefore be unchangeable
and perpetual. Hence the evident truth, that all attempted reforms are
fruitful of nothing but increase of suffering to the Christian. The Turks
have the right to say that they must obey the voice of God rather than the
precepts of human policy. They regard compulsory reforms as sacrilegious
follies, calculated to disturb the rights and enjoyments assured to them by
Heaven, and take their revenge on the Christians who occasion the demand for
reform. They are cunning enough to abound with treacherous promises in the
hour of trouble; but we can truly say of such hollow pledges--"mentita est
iniquitas sibi" and "quae societas lucis cum tenebris aut Christi cum
Belial." It is impossible that their promises should ever be sincere.* It is
pitiful that there should be men who have the courage to allow themselves to
be so openly deceived; and it is sad especially that the European diplomacy
should be among them. Diplomacy ought to be the highest and safest tribunal,
full of wisdom and experience; but it exhibits itself now in a light that
does not deserve the confidence of the world. Instead of simplifying
problems it makes them obscure, and supplies solutions which instead of
peace and tranquillity produce new complications, new delusions, new
animosities and new conflicts. Of this kind are assuredly all the reforms
now spoken of.
To make the situation of the Christians in some measure bearable, it is
requisite that the Turkish Government should be able to give them securities
for their personal safety, for intellectual progress, and for a decently
upright administration. Turkey is manifestly unable to satisfy any one of
these requirements. Not the first, for Turkey cannot grant to Christians the
right of serving with Mohammedans in the regular army.* The Christian cannot
remain a slave whose liberty, property and life are at the disposal of his
Turkish master. He must be unarmed, because he is not his own master, and
has no country of his own. In consequence of the undeserved protection it
enjoys, and perhaps of secret suggestions, Turkey intends to create an
universal militia or Landwehr, to deliver it once and for all from European
influence and from proposals of reform. If, to the disgrace of Europe, this
should be accomplished, then woe to the Christians! God knows whether in
that event the self-constituted protectors and advisers would not afterwards
suffer for it themselves.
Turkey cannot satisfy the second requirement, because it absolutely
contradicts its nature and its divinely appointed mission to pay for
Christian schools and institutions. Islam regards this as the greatest
crime, whereas the destruction of the Alexandrian library was a holy and
religious work. Lastly, the Turkish administration is the incurable spot in
the Turkish State. We know by our own experience, the character of the
Asiatic bureaucracy which the Turks have, for many years, sent into our
Slavonic provinces. They
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Page 419)
have not an atom of the laboriousness and integrity necessary to a decent
administrative system. They are so covetous and so vicious that they can
only be compared to swarms of locusts that devastate a country, and leave
nothing but desolation and disease behind; and I cannot help observing the
contrast between the Arabs, who left splendid traces of their mental
activity in Europe, and the Turkish race, which is utterly incapable of
creating anything and is only skilful to destroy. They will leave nothing
behind them in the fairest regions of Europe, after four centuries of
occupation, but destitution and misery, without a sign of any loftier or
better purpose.* All that is spoken about reform is an illusion, founded
very often on bad faith. For there are men who foolishly conceive that the
resurrection of the Slavonic race in these parts would be the ruin of their
own people.(508) Hence the cry, that the Slavonians must not be free, that
the germs of an independent commonwealth must not be suffered to take root
in that country. These men are blind to the truth that, by a providential
law, the deliverance and revival of an oppressed nation is a pledge of
future benefit for others.* That is the true secret of the solidarity of
nations. That must be a truly wretched and intolerable existence, which
requires as its condition, that a neighbouring people should be crushed and
enslaved. There is a process of union going on among the Slavonian people,
which, in spite of many obstacles and errors, God seems to have taken in His
hands. The issue is a secret of Providence. But I hope with my whole heart
that it will be for the advantage of the state to which I belong, and which
seems to have the exalted mission of interponing between great nations, to
prevent conflict and to bring about a solution of the most intricate
questions, that shall be for the advantage and happiness of Europe. The
result depends on this: whether that Power remains true without swerving to
that law of justice which is the daily bread of the nations that live for
the achievement of great ends. We Croats can truly say, that in this little
group of Slavonian brethren, we represent the Tuscan element. Under great
difficulties and in a short course of years, we have called into existence
institutions which justify us in claiming the lead in the path of
intellectual progress and of high ideals. We have a great duty to perform,
and we are conscious of our function in this region, and in the questions
which are stirring the world. It is in the power of others either to
frustrate our action, or to free and consolidate us.
The Bulgarians are an extremely quiet, sensible and hardworking people, rich
in domestic virtues. A moral and hardworking people is eo ipso fit for
self-government.* An independent administration, if it was granted to this
fine Slavonian race, would set free forces that would soon do much for
material and for moral civilization; and ecclesiastical self-government,
partially introduced, would serve them as a school for political
self-government.*
(508) A reference to the popular view prevalent among the Magyars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Page 420)
The Servians are a warlike and very enterprising race, full of vitality. It
would be a just reward of their sanguinary sacrifices in a sacred cause, to
put the autonomy of Bosnia under the protection of their energy and their
fifty years' experience. A valuable security for the success of Bosnian
self-government would be due provision for the moral influences which are
never more important than in a primitive condition of society. A good
Catholic and Orthodox Bishop could do a great work in that country.
Such a system of self-government in its European provinces would suit the
true interest of Turkey far better than the continual intervention of Europe
in its internal affairs, which is injurious to its honour and reputation. I
am thoroughly convinced that any solution of the Eastern question which does
not include full administrative autonomy in the European provinces of Turkey
will increase the confusion and the danger.
Once more I thank you most sincerely, and hope that I shall soon be able to
thank you personally and to shake you warmly by the hand. Two distinguished
Englishmen, Dr. Liddon and Mr. Malcolm MacColl, visited me lately, and gave
me courage to write to you. I need not say that if you should ever visit
this country, you will find the heartiest and most fraternal reception at my
house.
STROSSMAYER, Bishop of Bosnia.
DIAKOVO, October 1, 1876.
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~habsweb/sourcetexts/stross1.htm
It seems that your beloved bishop accused everyone even the TURKS !! So he
accusses Greeks, Turks. Well of course we know that he was the spiritual
father of Yugaslavia but he seems a little bit jealous.Greece at that time
was already a state. At least our own priests took weapons in their hands
and fought for the greek revolution. Everyone in the Balkans should thank
Greece for starting the fight ! The Berlin treaty (July 1878)that created
Bulgaria, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Armenia, Georgia
and signed by all except Greece, created all those artificial states that
form the Balkans, WHAT A JOKE! You didn't have the stomach to even to fight
for your freedom (like we did). Well at least you fought in the Balkan wars
30 years later!
Yannis
> Letter of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to Mr. William E.
Gladstone,
> October 1, 1876
> Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy. London:
> Constable and Co., 1911. The pagination and all punctuation has been
> retained from the original.]
> for your freedom (like we did). Well at least you fought in the
Balkan
> wars 30 years later!
Macedonians were ALWAYS Greek !!
Yannis
Macedonia, Greece
Emmanuel
Roman Empire did not fall due to cowardice as you support, but rather was
gradually weakened from the exterior threats. A multitude of nations
attempted to gain the prize that was known as Constantinople. Arabs, Russ,
Slavs, Bulgars, Franks, Latins, and Turks all made assaults at the empire.
In the end, depopulation, lack of resources, and more importantly byzantine
intrigue as to who would be emperor brought us down. Cowardice was never a
factor. You fail to site one example of cowardice during the period of the
Empire. We all know what happened to the Bulgar king Samuel when he saw
what Basil the Bulgar-Slayer did to your troops (and if you don't you should
read it). For it was Samuel who trembled with fear and was in shock when he
saw the thousands of Bulgars blinded by the Greeks.
"Pavel Makedonski" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3d429fb.02061...@posting.google.com...
Nicolas
Nicolas
Ioannis Borbelis
what Pyrsos wrote, in case you conveniently missed it:
>We chose to keep our faith and face the Ottomans in a last stand inside the
>walls of Constantinople. We annihilated two Turkish assault waves (the
>bashibazooks and the Anatolians) but succumbed to the final wave of
>Janissaries. All 5,000 Greeks fell (including the Emperor) during this last
>heroic battle.
>BTW, your cowardly people, Pavel, fell to the Greeks long before the Turks
>appeared. Remember Basil the Bulgarlayer.
try this, the Bulgarians surrendered to the Turks long before the Byzantine
Greeks lost their final battle in 1453.
GM
"Pavel Makedonski" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3d429fb.02061...@posting.google.com...
WolfWolf
WolfWolf
"Nicolas" <n...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:3D0A52D3...@nbnet.nb.ca...
June R Harton
"Pavel Makedonski" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3d429fb.02061...@posting.google.com...
> taken from http://www2. h-net.msu.edu/
> *FOR FAIR USE ONLY*
> Letter of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to Mr. William E. Gladstone,
>snip
>I am but a weak man,......
That says it all, Bulgarian. And keep your repetitive spam out of here.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
catougn
was a very heavy insult. Eastern Roman Empire was a multinational
state. And at the fall of New Rome it was consisted only by the city
of Constantinople. Actually the empire was fallen at the 4rth crusade.
One more thing.Among the peoples who helped the Turks to conquer the
City were too many Greeks.
Anastassios D. Retzios
"catougn" <gat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l9engukq03bfmtnlu...@4ax.com...
> Why you mix Greeks with the Byzantines? Before 1453 to be called Greek
> was a very heavy insult. Eastern Roman Empire was a multinational
> state. And at the fall of New Rome it was consisted only by the city
> of Constantinople. Actually the empire was fallen at the 4rth crusade.
> One more thing.Among the peoples who helped the Turks to conquer the
> City were too many Greeks.
Did the Byzantines disappear by magic upon the fall of Constantinople? Of
course not. In addition, they were never called Byzantines. This is a
latter invention.
In order to answer this, one must undertand how the ancient Greeks became
"Rhomaioi". There was a whole philosophical and logical argument behind
this transformation, mostly enunciated by Poseidonios. In anyway, by the
time this transformation occured, the notion of "Romanitas" -or Rhomiosyne
in Greek- had fragmented substantially. A Rhomaios (or a Greco-Roman, if
you prefer) had a very different identity than a Roman in Iberia, a Roman in
Gaul or a Roman in Italy. The Rhomaic identity was a superset of the Greek
identity and included substantial elements of the origical Hellenic
identity, elements of Roman civil virtues, and a heavy dose of Christian
mythology. In addition, by the time of Justinian -as excellent treatises
indicate- the Rhomaic identity had reached a certain maturity and complete
differentiation between itself and the western version of the term.
The modern Hellenic identity is not really very new because it appeared
probably in the 12th century, at least. By the 15th, it was seriously
advocated in the court of the Palaeologii in Mystra by Plython. It picked up
steam in the expatriot communiities in the 16th century but remained weak in
Greece itself, where the "Rhomaic" identity predominated. The
revolutionary and prerevolutionary times did not provide any stark contrasts
either. Rhigas, for example, worked from the premises of the Rhomaic
identity. The fighters of the revolution thought of the new Hellenic
identity as a novelty. The Korais element of this identity never remained
unchallenged. Finally, I would say that the two identities reached a kind
of coexistence in the 20th century.
It is clear that the modern "Hellenes" are rebranded "Rhomaioi". Although
there is some more emphasis on the ancient Hellenes in modern Greece, all
elements of civilization and culture remain almost exclusively Rhomaic.
ADR
astron
Good post . Look up alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox under the
header of " the double-headed eagle flag " where the false term "
Byzantine " which was first used in the 1600's by a Frenchman for
propaganda purposes and has stuck until recently with many Byzantinists(
what an irony ! ) increasingly using the term " Romans " ( which is what
they called themselves -- the Greek speakers that is ) . It was the
Roman Empire *not* the Byzantine Empire .
June R Harton
"astron" <ast...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:3D0C47A8...@bigpond.com.au...
Yes, and no. It was a fair post, however it really did not address
the poster's post:
----- Original Message -----
From: "catougn" <gat...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.news.macedonia,soc.culture.greek
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Unworthy Cowards Greeks Lost Constantinople
> Why you mix Greeks with the Byzantines? Before 1453 to be called >Greek
was a very heavy insult.
You know very well why. If you had the knowledge to state the above
you certainly know that the term Hellene at some points was used
by the Romaion to refer to the Ancients as Pagans as opposed
to Orthodox Christians of the latter eras. Thus, follows Tasso's
post that the people were the same people.
Also omitted is the overall heritage produced by modern concepts
of nation. The Greeks have the heritage and history of the entire continuum
from Mycenaean through to Modern Greek. This is their
right and of course includes the Romaion portion.
> Eastern Roman Empire was a multinational state.
Of course it was, but the Romaion identity was basically the Greek
speakers.
For fair use only.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE?
by
Clifton R. Fox
Professor of History
Tomball College
Tomball, TX, USA
Introduction
By modern convention, the phrase "Byzantine Empire" refers to a political
entity that once dominated the Mediterranean world. The city called
Constantinople or [on today's maps] Istanbul functioned as capital of the
Empire. The "Byzantine Empire" originated with the founding of
Constantinople in the fourth century AD on the site of the much older Greek
colony of Byzantium. The Roman Emperor Constantine I [died 337] called the
site New Rome or Constantinople. Constantine situated his capital in the new
city named after himself. The successors of Constantine I lived in
Constantinople without interruption until 1204. In 1204, Crusaders from
Western Europe, diverted from the path to Jerusalem, captured and looted
Constantinople. They held the city until 1261. The "Byzantines" restored the
"Byzantine Empire" at Constantinople in 1261 after the "Franks" were
expelled. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks stormed Constantinople. The "Byzantine
Empire" ceased to exist.
The role of the "Byzantine Empire" in European history is not sufficiently
understood by the educated public of today. Constantinople stood at the
economic, political and cultural heart of Europe from its founding until the
wanton sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders. The New Rome withstood
the assault of many attackers, protecting all Europe against the flood of
invasion. The "Byzantine Empire" flourished in the same era that found
Western Europe ensnared by poverty and violence. One cannot omit the added
fact that Constantinople yet remains the religious lodestar of Orthodox
Christians: the predominant faith of Russia and other lands is rooted in the
Byzantine experience. In our time, with recent changes in Russia, her
Byzantine roots seem more relevant than ever to the present. In spite of its
rich heritage and significant role, the achievements of Byzantine
civilization have often been given short shrift and denigrated: the very
name "Byzantine Empire" is, in fact, an insult.
The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French scholars
such as Montesquieu, an influential figure of eighteenth century
intellectual life.. He was the same author whose seminal volume The Spirit
Of The Laws did much to inspire the Founding Fathers of the United States in
their writing of the American Constitution. Like other thinkers of his time,
Montesquieu revered the ancient Greeks and Romans with immoderate enthusiasm
as masters of politics and culture to be emulated. Following a Western
European tradition that extended back to the early Middle Ages, Montesquieu
regarded the Empire at Constantinople as corrupt and decadent. Although he
wrote a long history of the Empire at Constantinople, Montesquieu could not
bring himself to refer to the Empire at Constantinople with the noble names
of "Greek" or "Roman." From the obsolete name "Byzantium," Montesquieu used
the word "Byzantine." The word "Byzantine" denoted the Empire and connoted
its supposed characteristics: dishonesty, dissimulation and decadence. The
English scholar Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
treated the Empire after the sixth century as an epic of unrelieved
degradation and corruption.
The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word
"Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely
nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to
the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I
had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before
Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal
City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived.
Before the Imperial period, in 89 BC, a Roman law had granted Roman
citizenship to people throughout Italy. Afterwards, citizenship became
extended to an increasing number of people in different parts of the Empire.
In 212, Emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the Empire to be
Roman citizens, entitled to call themselves Roman, not merely subject to the
Romans. Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire
less often [in Latin] as "Imperium Romanorum" [Domain of the Romans] and
more often as "Romania" [Romanland]
In the provinces close to Constantinople, where the Greek language
predominated over the Latin of Old Rome, the idea of Roman citizenship and
identity appealed to a broad segment of the population. Greek speaking
citizens were proud to be Romans: in Latin, "Romani," or, in Greek,
"Romaioi." The word "Romaioi" became descriptive of the Greek speaking
population of the Empire. The old ethnic name applied to Greeks,
"Hellene",fell into disuse. In ancient times, of course, "Hellene" had meant
Greek. Hellene meant Greek from the seventh century BC onward, if not
earlier. Although Homer called Greeks by other names, Herodotus, Pericles,
Plato and Alexander were all "Hellenes," as were Greek speaking inhabitants
of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. In the fourth
century AD, as the Empire became Christianized, the term "Hellene" became
redefined by common convention to include people who still worshipped the
old gods and studied philosophy in hopes of resisting the new faith of
Christianity. Emperor Julian II [361-363], an Emperor who tried to stop the
Christian tide, described himself as a "Hellene." By "Hellene," Julian
signified his combination of Neo-Platonic philosophy and worship of the
Olympians.
In the final years of the fourth century AD, Emperor Theodosius I [379-395]
made Christianity the sole state religion after subduing the rebellion of an
"Hellene" usurper, a westerner named Eugenius. After Theodosius' critical
decision, fewer and fewer people were willing to call themselves "Hellenes."
For centuries more, the word "Hellene" remained in bad repute, associated
with outlawed religious ideas and disloyalty to the state. Greek speakers
found the identity of "Romaioi" in place of "Hellene" to be a safe refuge in
changing times. Greek speaking "Romaioi" inhabited the Empire until the its
demise in the fifteenth century.
The Empire at Constantinople should not be called the "Byzantine Empire" at
all. If it requires a special name, we might better name the Empire at
Constantinople with the title of the "Romaion Empire" from the Greek
"Basileia Romaion" [Empire of the Romaioi].