The Question of Identity: Who was a Roman and who a Byzantine?
Part B: The Empire of Constantinople
It would be more appropriate, in academic terminology, to divide the Roman Empire into the pre-Constantine and post-Constantine Empire, or else, pre-330 and post-330. Every effort should be applied to make clear that the change inferred on the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine the Great was fundamental and profound. And not just the introduction and spread of Christianity, as this was only one of many aspects of the new, unique character that was attributed to the empire. Of crucial importance was the emergence of the Greek element in the East.
The ancient city of Byzantium was not only an important trading port, it was not just a strategic location at the crossroads of the Mediterranean and Eurasia. It was located right at the geographical center of the ancient Hellenistic world, which had not just survived during the roman era, but it had prospered and defined the Empire itself. Moreover, Constantine’s New Rome was not a roman city, as it was not founded by Romans. Byzantium was an ancient Greek colony, founded by a group of Megarene settlers led by Byzas, as early as 8th century BC. Byzantium was never simply a new or a second/alternative capital, such as Mediolanum was in the West. It emerged, from the very beginning of becoming the new roman capital, as the Greek capital of a dawning new age. It was after all, the first nationwide capital the Greeks ever had in their history. It was the absolute cosmopolis and culmination of the Greek universe - something that even Alexander the Great had not managed to accomplish.
Historians and scholars have treated Emperor Constantine with an equal mix of positive and negative reviews. But one thing remains certain: the man was a great visionary, gifted with a unique insight of current and future affairs of the world he lived in. He, therefore, made no random choice in Byzantium. One must not ignore the fact that he spent his childhood and teenage years in Emperor Diocletian’s court at Nicomedia; another Greek city on the Asian shore of the Bosporus and just a few dozen kilometers from Byzantium itself. He was, of course, himself a Greek, on his mother’s side, but it is clear that, besides the East being, at the time, culturally superior to the West, Constantine knew that the Roman Empire was a Greek Empire at its heart. Therefore, it was only fitting for a Greek world to have a Greek capital too.
Already in the previous chapter, we explained that the roman identity, of the ancient imperial period, was clearly a political one and had seized to be national, as soon as Rome expanded and begun distributing roman citizenship to foreigners. Hence, in the first centuries AD, “roman” was the political identity of a vast variety of different ethnicities living within the boundaries of the empire. As years and centuries passed by, however, the lands of the empire were shrinking more and more, hence the different ethnicities living within its boundaries became ever fewer. The roman lands in Western Europe were conquered by Goths, Franks, Vandals and other Germanic tribes. The romanised Celtic populations eventually lost both the roman name and the roman political identity. A typical example of this historical reality is the roman province of northern Italy, where Milan was at one time capital of the western part of the Empire: but later in medieval times this historical Roman province is found to be called "Lombardy", named after its conquerors, the Germanic tribe that settled there during the barbarian conquest of the West.
Hence, the Eastern Empire and Constantinople itself, were de facto left as the only rightful heirs of Roman political identity and Roman name. Here in the East, however, the empire is clearly limited in territory and, hence, variety of indigenous ethnicities. Until the emergence of Islam and the Arabic expansion of the 7th century - and with the exception of Justinian’s re-conquest in North Africa and the short-lived recovery in Italy and southern Spain - the Empire of Constantinople was geographically limited to the the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Palestine and Egypt. Provinces that were all already part of the Hellenistic world in the pre-Roman times, and whose indigenous populations were either direct descendants of ancient Greek colonists or native ancient peoples who had become hellenised.
Several modern "historians" deny the existence of the nation and nationality before the French Revolution. We will not deal, here, with this ridiculous and unfounded opinion, as we consider it unnecessary and pointless to be constantly on the apologizing end of the argument, striving to prove the obvious and self-evident. We point it out, however, because some of these scholars have unfortunately put their hands on Byzantium as well, and deny the existence of the Greek nation before as late as… 1821(!). There stands, however, an astonishing fact - which deniers of hellenic identity either ignore completely, pretending to not see it, or when they accept it, they have produced some infuriating, even ridiculous, interpretations of it – is the undeniable and majestic fact that Greeks of those times adopted the name and epithet “Roman” to connote not only their political identity as heirs to ancient Rome, but also their own national identity and characteristics. Hence during byzantine times, greek dressing style, for instance, came to be called “roman”, and greek language too. The whole of Greek civilisation, language, literature, philosophy, and education in general came to be called “roman” (romeika) having become integrated in Greco-roman civilization. It is, besides, known that this tradition of the Greeks survived the centuries of ottoman conquest and occupation, and even until early 20th century Greeks were widely called and known in the East as “Romioi”, their language, dressing style and distinguished culture known as “romeika” too. Similarly, in byzantine times, something could be “roman” only if it was greek and somebody could be a “Romios” only if they were Greek, not Goth, not Slav, not Bulgarian, not Armenian. Byzantine historians themselves have stated this quite clearly. Therefore, how can anyone deny this historical reality so many centuries later? Or how can one accept it, but at the same time attempting – even more infuriatingly – to interpret it by denying hellenic identity in Byzantium?
One, therefore, has to point out the impressive fact, that since the final fall of the western part of the Roman Empire and from 5th century up until early 20th century, the name and epithet “Roman” becomes gradually and increasingly associated and eventually identified with the Greek, as their own national name. Exactly how this happened is rather hard to explain based on modern terminology and commonly accepted norms, which derive from the set-out of the modern westphalian nation-state itself.
Besides, it should be noted that at no time before 1830 had there ever been a single Greek state bearing the name “Greece”. In Greek antiquity one finds Mycenaean kingdoms and later city-states and Hellenistic kingdoms, all bearing different names, but inhabited by people of the same greek/hellenic nation. A greek nation-state as such never existed in ancient and medieval times, as the very concept of the nation-state system is not greek and did not exist before Westphalia 1648. The Greeks however, sustained their own state system for centuries before 1648, and maintained their own common national identity, many centuries before most other modern European nations were even formed. Many scholars today, disregard this, silenced but otherwise, so simple fact and claim to find an inexistence or insignificance of the greek nation between the end of greek antiquity and the beginning of 19th century. But, that is a huge historical time gap, for a nation that has a continued physical existence and an unabated evidence of written and spoken language in every single century from Bronze Age until today. So one can only naturally ask: and wherever did the Greeks “disappear” from 146 BC until 1821 AD? But the answer is that they never left the front stage of history, because a) they were the other half of the greco-roman world of the ancient Roman Empire and b) they were the primary and defining element of the later Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire.
In conclusion, one cannot understand the past – especially a very distant and long in duration past, as is the period of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire – viewing it with modern glasses and studying it based on today’s standards. Today, modern nations worldwide are defined in nation-state terms. But that was not the case in Ancient and Medieval times - for any other nation in the world, but especially for the Greek nation. In the ancient Greek world an Alexandrian, an Athenian or an Antiochian, would only need to use their local identity to say that they were Greek. The name of a Greek city-state of city-kingdom was enough to indicate greek nationality. Today, on the contrary, one would have to indicate first whether they are Greek, French, Italian, German and then if they come from Athens, Milan, Paris or Berlin.
In the previous part of this brief study, we explained that, in the multi-ethnic ancient Roman Empire, the identity of a “Roman” was purely political, while romanisation was a process that hardly ever affected nationality and ethnic identity. But, what needs to be explained here is that in the Roman Empire of Constantinople, the Greek nation was from the very start, and by default, the overwhelming majority of the population. In ancient Rome, as centuries went by, indigenous Romans eventually became only a minority among the crowd of other nations which they had conquered. On the contrary, when the end came first at 1204 and then 1453, Greeks where the only nation that was left in the Empire of Constantinople.
Gradually over time, the boundaries of the empire shrunk. Initially stretching from northwestern Africa and even Spain to Egypt, Armenia and the Euphrates in the East, the Empire of Constantinople, eventually came to a point, around the end of 7th century, where its lands were inhabited, either exclusively or in majority, by Greek populations. The Greek nation, in other words, was all to be found within the limits of a nominally 'Roman' Empire and nowhere else. The Roman Empire of Constantinople was thus the natural patris of the Greek nation, while no other nation, such as Armenians, Slavs or Illyrians could ever substantiate such a claim.
During the early period between 4th and 7th centuries, one can see the Empire of Constantinople being progressively dominated by the greek civilization. Orthodoxy and orthodox theology is the natural evolution of ancient greek philosophy and the battle against heresy, is in essence a battle between Greek theologians and Egyptian, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, who insisted on interpreting the Gospel and the Christian faith according to their own pre-christian, pagan traditions. Thus emerged the Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Paulicians and others, who basically transferred ancient Middle Eastern beliefs and superstitions, within the new Christian faith. The final victory of Orthodoxy, through the state-backed Holy Synods, was in fact a victory of greek culture and theology, which had a direct negative effect on the relation of the imperial centre of Constantinople with its non-greek periphery in Egypt, Assyria and Palestine. The latter became increasingly alienated and were, finally, cut off the main Greek core of the Empire, during the rise of Islam and the Arab invasions in 7th and 8th centuries.
Hence, within the Empire of Constantinople, the Greek nation was, for the first time in history, united within the limits of a single state. "Roman" was the name of this first united Greek patris, and "roman" was concomitantly the identity of all Greek nationals. This simple fact is made very clearly evident by all major byzantine sources, such as the “Alexiad”, and writers such as Michael Psellos, Katakalon Kekavmenos, Emperor Ioannes Doucas-Vataztes, Georgios Plethon “Gemistos”, Ioannes Kanavoutzes and others. It is striking that they all refer separately to “Romans” and all other ethnicities of the Balkans, i.e. Vlachs, Albanians, Slavs, Bulgarians, who were considered second category subjects of the empire and were never called Romans, not even when they remained faithful to the Emperor in Constantinople and paid their taxes: “καὶ τὰ ὁμοροῦντα ἔθνη καὶ πρόσοικα τὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ὑπήκοα” – “and the coterminous nations and neighboring ones, those subject to the Romans” (John Scylitzes, later 11th century). Meaning that “Romans” were in fact only the Greeks, who, in classic greek tradition, considered all foreigners and especially their enemies, as barbarians: Anna Comnene, in her “Alexiad”, famously calls “barbarians” all enemies of the empire (Pechenegs and Seljuk Turks) but also all western Europeans, whether they are enemies, i.e. the Normans of Sicily, or allies who fight as mercenaries in her father’s army, i.e. Germans and Varangians. Or as Ioannes Kanavoutzes (15th century) has famously, and even more clearly, put it: “one is not a barbarian on account of religion, but race, language, the ordering of one’s politics, and education. For, we are Christians and share the same faith and confession with many other nations, but we call them barbarians, I mean the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Albanians, Russians, and many others”. This declaration by Kanaboutzes, is hugely important for one further reason: he clearly puts the distinctions of race and language first in his definition of nationality, proving that the Byzantine “Romioi” were never simply a greek-speaking population of an obscure, mixed ethnic origin. They did not simply speak the greek language but were definitely ethnic Greeks, direct descendents of ancient Greek nation, and were fully conscious of the fact.
Another common and "popular" mistake, widely circulated today, is the notion that the Empire of Constantinople was a theocracy, a state that put its religious identity above its political and national nature. Many moderns Byzantium fans very much like to talk of a "Christian Universe" or a “Byzantine Commonwealth” (in line to the “British Commonwealth), which supposedly the Roman Empire of Constantinople was. But this is a clear modern confusion of what the byzantine institutions and the byzantine world system were. The Empire of Constantinople was a direct continuation of the ancient Roman state apparatus, it was, therefore, and always remained a secular state. When one speaks of the Orthodox Christian universe, this can only refer to the Orthodox Church itself, which in byzantine times, indeed had only one centre and that centre was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople was never the… Empire of Constantinople! State and Church were two clearly different and divided institutions in the byzantine world and they clashed and fought against each other many times over. Yes indeed, the Emperor of Constantinople was crowned by God’s mercy and yes he was considered the “on earth” political leader of the entire Christian world, and only he could allow foreign European Christian leaders to be crowned kings – until at least he was challenged to this task by the Pope in Rome. But all that was mere politics and power struggle in medieval Europe. The Emperor of Constantinople never had any real, tangible authority over, i.e. the independent kingdom of the Bulgarians, or that of the Kievan Russians. He could not draw taxes from them, or levy them to the imperial army. (But even when, for whatever reason Bulgarians, Vlachs, Slavs and Albanians are found fighting in an imperial army, again they are always mentioned seperately to the "Romans"). Thus, the Greek Emperor could only assert diplomatic power and influence to other fellow Orthodox kingdoms, but nothing more. And, moreover, yes indeed, those other orthodox nations became deeply influenced by the byzantine culture and civilization; they adopted it and built upon it on their own. But again, that was nothing more than a strong cultural influence. Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians were never called Romans, they were never “byzantinised”: they remained Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians, “spiritual brothers” of the Byzantine Greeks in theory, but in practice and in reality they were enemies who fought against the Empire as much as any other non-christian and non-orthodox nation.
Ioannis Dandoulakis ©
Part B: The Empire of Constantinople
It would be more appropriate, in academic terminology, to divide the Roman Empire into the pre-Constantine and post-Constantine Empire, or else, pre-330 and post-330. Every effort should be applied to make clear that the change inferred on the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine the Great was fundamental and profound. And not just the introduction and spread of Christianity, as this was only one of many aspects of the new, unique character that was attributed to the empire. Of crucial importance was the emergence of the Greek element in the East.
The ancient city of Byzantium was not only an important trading port, it was not just a strategic location at the crossroads of the Mediterranean and Eurasia. It was located right at the geographical center of the ancient Hellenistic world, which had not just survived during the roman era, but it had prospered and defined the Empire itself. Moreover, Constantine’s New Rome was not a roman city, as it was not founded by Romans. Byzantium was an ancient Greek colony, founded by a group of Megarene settlers led by Byzas, as early as 8th century BC. Byzantium was never simply a new or a second/alternative capital, such as Mediolanum was in the West. It emerged, from the very beginning of becoming the new roman capital, as the Greek capital of a dawning new age. It was after all, the first nationwide capital the Greeks ever had in their history. It was the absolute cosmopolis and culmination of the Greek universe - something that even Alexander the Great had not managed to accomplish.
Historians and scholars have treated Emperor Constantine with an equal mix of positive and negative reviews. But one thing remains certain: the man was a great visionary, gifted with a unique insight of current and future affairs of the world he lived in. He, therefore, made no random choice in Byzantium. One must not ignore the fact that he spent his childhood and teenage years in Emperor Diocletian’s court at Nicomedia; another Greek city on the Asian shore of the Bosporus and just a few dozen kilometers from Byzantium itself. He was, of course, himself a Greek, on his mother’s side, but it is clear that, besides the East being, at the time, culturally superior to the West, Constantine knew that the Roman Empire was a Greek Empire at its heart. Therefore, it was only fitting for a Greek world to have a Greek capital too.
Already in the previous chapter, we explained that the roman identity, of the ancient imperial period, was clearly a political one and had seized to be national, as soon as Rome expanded and begun distributing roman citizenship to foreigners. Hence, in the first centuries AD, “roman” was the political identity of a vast variety of different ethnicities living within the boundaries of the empire. As years and centuries passed by, however, the lands of the empire were shrinking more and more, hence the different ethnicities living within its boundaries became ever fewer. The roman lands in Western Europe were conquered by Goths, Franks, Vandals and other Germanic tribes. The romanised Celtic populations eventually lost both the roman name and the roman political identity. A typical example of this historical reality is the roman province of northern Italy, where Milan was at one time capital of the western part of the Empire: but later in medieval times this historical Roman province is found to be called "Lombardy", named after its conquerors, the Germanic tribe that settled there during the barbarian conquest of the West.
Hence, the Eastern Empire and Constantinople itself, were de facto left as the only rightful heirs of Roman political identity and Roman name. Here in the East, however, the empire is clearly limited in territory and, hence, variety of indigenous ethnicities. Until the emergence of Islam and the Arabic expansion of the 7th century - and with the exception of Justinian’s re-conquest in North Africa and the short-lived recovery in Italy and southern Spain - the Empire of Constantinople was geographically limited to the the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Palestine and Egypt. Provinces that were all already part of the Hellenistic world in the pre-Roman times, and whose indigenous populations were either direct descendants of ancient Greek colonists or native ancient peoples who had become hellenised.
Several modern "historians" deny the existence of the nation and nationality before the French Revolution. We will not deal, here, with this ridiculous and unfounded opinion, as we consider it unnecessary and pointless to be constantly on the apologizing end of the argument, striving to prove the obvious and self-evident. We point it out, however, because some of these scholars have unfortunately put their hands on Byzantium as well, and deny the existence of the Greek nation before as late as… 1821(!). There stands, however, an astonishing fact - which deniers of hellenic identity either ignore completely, pretending to not see it, or when they accept it, they have produced some infuriating, even ridiculous, interpretations of it – is the undeniable and majestic fact that Greeks of those times adopted the name and epithet “Roman” to connote not only their political identity as heirs to ancient Rome, but also their own national identity and characteristics. Hence during byzantine times, greek dressing style, for instance, came to be called “roman”, and greek language too. The whole of Greek civilisation, language, literature, philosophy, and education in general came to be called “roman” (romeika) having become integrated in Greco-roman civilization. It is, besides, known that this tradition of the Greeks survived the centuries of ottoman conquest and occupation, and even until early 20th century Greeks were widely called and known in the East as “Romioi”, their language, dressing style and distinguished culture known as “romeika” too. Similarly, in byzantine times, something could be “roman” only if it was greek and somebody could be a “Romios” only if they were Greek, not Goth, not Slav, not Bulgarian, not Armenian. Byzantine historians themselves have stated this quite clearly. Therefore, how can anyone deny this historical reality so many centuries later? Or how can one accept it, but at the same time attempting – even more infuriatingly – to interpret it by denying hellenic identity in Byzantium?
One, therefore, has to point out the impressive fact, that since the final fall of the western part of the Roman Empire and from 5th century up until early 20th century, the name and epithet “Roman” becomes gradually and increasingly associated and eventually identified with the Greek, as their own national name. Exactly how this happened is rather hard to explain based on modern terminology and commonly accepted norms, which derive from the set-out of the modern westphalian nation-state itself.
Besides, it should be noted that at no time before 1830 had there ever been a single Greek state bearing the name “Greece”. In Greek antiquity one finds Mycenaean kingdoms and later city-states and Hellenistic kingdoms, all bearing different names, but inhabited by people of the same greek/hellenic nation. A greek nation-state as such never existed in ancient and medieval times, as the very concept of the nation-state system is not greek and did not exist before Westphalia 1648. The Greeks however, sustained their own state system for centuries before 1648, and maintained their own common national identity, many centuries before most other modern European nations were even formed. Many scholars today, disregard this, silenced but otherwise, so simple fact and claim to find an inexistence or insignificance of the greek nation between the end of greek antiquity and the beginning of 19th century. But, that is a huge historical time gap, for a nation that has a continued physical existence and an unabated evidence of written and spoken language in every single century from Bronze Age until today. So one can only naturally ask: and wherever did the Greeks “disappear” from 146 BC until 1821 AD? But the answer is that they never left the front stage of history, because a) they were the other half of the greco-roman world of the ancient Roman Empire and b) they were the primary and defining element of the later Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire.
In conclusion, one cannot understand the past – especially a very distant and long in duration past, as is the period of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire – viewing it with modern glasses and studying it based on today’s standards. Today, modern nations worldwide are defined in nation-state terms. But that was not the case in Ancient and Medieval times - for any other nation in the world, but especially for the Greek nation. In the ancient Greek world an Alexandrian, an Athenian or an Antiochian, would only need to use their local identity to say that they were Greek. The name of a Greek city-state of city-kingdom was enough to indicate greek nationality. Today, on the contrary, one would have to indicate first whether they are Greek, French, Italian, German and then if they come from Athens, Milan, Paris or Berlin.
In the previous part of this brief study, we explained that, in the multi-ethnic ancient Roman Empire, the identity of a “Roman” was purely political, while romanisation was a process that hardly ever affected nationality and ethnic identity. But, what needs to be explained here is that in the Roman Empire of Constantinople, the Greek nation was from the very start, and by default, the overwhelming majority of the population. In ancient Rome, as centuries went by, indigenous Romans eventually became only a minority among the crowd of other nations which they had conquered. On the contrary, when the end came first at 1204 and then 1453, Greeks where the only nation that was left in the Empire of Constantinople.
Gradually over time, the boundaries of the empire shrunk. Initially stretching from northwestern Africa and even Spain to Egypt, Armenia and the Euphrates in the East, the Empire of Constantinople, eventually came to a point, around the end of 7th century, where its lands were inhabited, either exclusively or in majority, by Greek populations. The Greek nation, in other words, was all to be found within the limits of a nominally 'Roman' Empire and nowhere else. The Roman Empire of Constantinople was thus the natural patris of the Greek nation, while no other nation, such as Armenians, Slavs or Illyrians could ever substantiate such a claim.
During the early period between 4th and 7th centuries, one can see the Empire of Constantinople being progressively dominated by the greek civilization. Orthodoxy and orthodox theology is the natural evolution of ancient greek philosophy and the battle against heresy, is in essence a battle between Greek theologians and Egyptian, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, who insisted on interpreting the Gospel and the Christian faith according to their own pre-christian, pagan traditions. Thus emerged the Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Paulicians and others, who basically transferred ancient Middle Eastern beliefs and superstitions, within the new Christian faith. The final victory of Orthodoxy, through the state-backed Holy Synods, was in fact a victory of greek culture and theology, which had a direct negative effect on the relation of the imperial centre of Constantinople with its non-greek periphery in Egypt, Assyria and Palestine. The latter became increasingly alienated and were, finally, cut off the main Greek core of the Empire, during the rise of Islam and the Arab invasions in 7th and 8th centuries.
Hence, within the Empire of Constantinople, the Greek nation was, for the first time in history, united within the limits of a single state. "Roman" was the name of this first united Greek patris, and "roman" was concomitantly the identity of all Greek nationals. This simple fact is made very clearly evident by all major byzantine sources, such as the “Alexiad”, and writers such as Michael Psellos, Katakalon Kekavmenos, Emperor Ioannes Doucas-Vataztes, Georgios Plethon “Gemistos”, Ioannes Kanavoutzes and others. It is striking that they all refer separately to “Romans” and all other ethnicities of the Balkans, i.e. Vlachs, Albanians, Slavs, Bulgarians, who were considered second category subjects of the empire and were never called Romans, not even when they remained faithful to the Emperor in Constantinople and paid their taxes: “καὶ τὰ ὁμοροῦντα ἔθνη καὶ πρόσοικα τὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ὑπήκοα” – “and the coterminous nations and neighboring ones, those subject to the Romans” (John Scylitzes, later 11th century). Meaning that “Romans” were in fact only the Greeks, who, in classic greek tradition, considered all foreigners and especially their enemies, as barbarians: Anna Comnene, in her “Alexiad”, famously calls “barbarians” all enemies of the empire (Pechenegs and Seljuk Turks) but also all western Europeans, whether they are enemies, i.e. the Normans of Sicily, or allies who fight as mercenaries in her father’s army, i.e. Germans and Varangians. Or as Ioannes Kanavoutzes (15th century) has famously, and even more clearly, put it: “one is not a barbarian on account of religion, but race, language, the ordering of one’s politics, and education. For, we are Christians and share the same faith and confession with many other nations, but we call them barbarians, I mean the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Albanians, Russians, and many others”. This declaration by Kanaboutzes, is hugely important for one further reason: he clearly puts the distinctions of race and language first in his definition of nationality, proving that the Byzantine “Romioi” were never simply a greek-speaking population of an obscure, mixed ethnic origin. They did not simply speak the greek language but were definitely ethnic Greeks, direct descendents of ancient Greek nation, and were fully conscious of the fact.
Another common and "popular" mistake, widely circulated today, is the notion that the Empire of Constantinople was a theocracy, a state that put its religious identity above its political and national nature. Many moderns Byzantium fans very much like to talk of a "Christian Universe" or a “Byzantine Commonwealth” (in line to the “British Commonwealth), which supposedly the Roman Empire of Constantinople was. But this is a clear modern confusion of what the byzantine institutions and the byzantine world system were. The Empire of Constantinople was a direct continuation of the ancient Roman state apparatus, it was, therefore, and always remained a secular state. When one speaks of the Orthodox Christian universe, this can only refer to the Orthodox Church itself, which in byzantine times, indeed had only one centre and that centre was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople was never the… Empire of Constantinople! State and Church were two clearly different and divided institutions in the byzantine world and they clashed and fought against each other many times over. Yes indeed, the Emperor of Constantinople was crowned by God’s mercy and yes he was considered the “on earth” political leader of the entire Christian world, and only he could allow foreign European Christian leaders to be crowned kings – until at least he was challenged to this task by the Pope in Rome. But all that was mere politics and power struggle in medieval Europe. The Emperor of Constantinople never had any real, tangible authority over, i.e. the independent kingdom of the Bulgarians, or that of the Kievan Russians. He could not draw taxes from them, or levy them to the imperial army. (But even when, for whatever reason Bulgarians, Vlachs, Slavs and Albanians are found fighting in an imperial army, again they are always mentioned seperately to the "Romans"). Thus, the Greek Emperor could only assert diplomatic power and influence to other fellow Orthodox kingdoms, but nothing more. And, moreover, yes indeed, those other orthodox nations became deeply influenced by the byzantine culture and civilization; they adopted it and built upon it on their own. But again, that was nothing more than a strong cultural influence. Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians were never called Romans, they were never “byzantinised”: they remained Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians, “spiritual brothers” of the Byzantine Greeks in theory, but in practice and in reality they were enemies who fought against the Empire as much as any other non-christian and non-orthodox nation.
Ioannis Dandoulakis ©
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου