Did Heraclius Change the Official Language of the Roman Empire to Greek?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Join Our Discord: / discord
00:00 Intro
00:41 Origins of the Claim
03:13 Greek Language in the Roman Empire
07:26 Imperial Titles
10:26 Outro
Book sources:
Georghe Ostrogorsky - History of the Byzantine state
Cristopher Kelly - Ruling the Later Roman Empire (Revealing Antiquity)
Jus Graeco-Romanum, Volume 3
Procopius of Caesarea - Secret History
Kyle Harper - The Fate of Rome
Footage:
Tarihin Efsaneleri | Halid Bin Velid (1. Bölüm) | TRT Belgesel (2021)
Rome: TV Series by HBO (2005 - 2007)
Rise of the Empires: Ottomans (2019)
Agora (2009)
Alexander (2004)
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Music:
Crusader Kings 2 Sountrack - Alexander Nevsky Rides into Battle
Imperator: Rome Sountrack - We The People
Imperator: Rome Sountrack - The Mediterranean
Imperator: Rome Sountrack - Tyrrenum
Crusader Kings 2 Sountrack - Komnenos
Finally someone killed this myth. I have dedicated way too much time and energy trying to debunk it in arguments, and to purge it from Wikipedia.
I don't even think most people get this claim from Ostrogorsky, since when it used to be cited on Wikipedia it was from an unrelated source that doesn't say what the Wiki editor says.
It's still probably a derivative source. Oatrogorsky is very influential
What's your username there? I'd like to follow you, also I feel your pain when I edit related articles even Byzantine saints
@@RomabooRamblings Pretty sure I got it from John Julius Norwich.
@@seronymus yeah, wikipedia editors can be very stubborn to accept changes.
I remember my grandma saying: "I do not care what they teach you at school, the Rhomaioi were using latin even after Heraclius."
The conflicts between the Greeks and Romans (from the Pyrrhic Wars to the Battle of Corinth) are so fascinating that it's absurd that Hollywood just ignored them. At best, there's the 1961 movie "The Centurion" (starring Drew Barrymore's father), but it's not a very good one.
I suspect they, at least, have a lot of metaphysical hate for greek and roman history, especially now. Its a place that runs on titulating subversion and shock factor.
Western culture rests on Graeco-Roman foundation. Even the fact that the word "Graeco-Roman" exists is a testament to this. Westerners have long viewed Greece and Rome as this fused together monolith which is fundamental to their culture. So it's no surprise that in art and literature, it is usually seen as ultimately united and uniform, often pitched against the dark forces of the Middle East.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
I wanna see phyrus throwing waves after waves of his army
@@nicmagtaan1132
Fun Fact: Pyrros’ Pyrrhic Victories actually saw him Lose LESS MEN than the Romans in their Battles 😃
It's worth pointing out that, from the days of Augustus, 'Autokrator', 'Kaisar' and 'Sebastos/Augoustos' were being used to translate 'Imperator', 'Caesar' and 'Augustus', and that Latin continued to be used on coins well after Heraclius.
Kaiser is literally just Caesar though. It isn't even a translation. The two are pronounced exactly the same. The English 'Caesar,' pronounced see-zer, is actually a translation of the Latin Caesar
@@pyropulseIXXI exactly.
Just because Latin continues to appear in Byzantine coins, doesn't mean it was still widely spoken. There is some Latin in US currency, does that mean the Americans know Latin?
@@lukemitchell5337 no, but that was (unlike the usage of Latin in coins in modern states today) a vestigial remnant of Latin as actually used in the Roman Empire.
As was the use of (debased) Latin in court acclamations.
@@jonathanwebster7091 Still doesn't prove Latin was used in any official capacity from the 7th century onwards.
As a person raised in America, the more I learn about the history of Greece and study the language, the more I learn that Western scholarship has many unfounded and wrong views of Greece and its people.
It has been a aptly said that, "Westerners love Greeks, but only the dead ones," in reference to the fascination with classical Greece and a ignorance and/or disdain of medieval and modern Greece.
The West has distorted & Hi-jacked the Legacy of the Greeks! All because of the Great Schism & because the Greeks are THE LAST of the Hellenes & Romans…not these Germanic Imposters!!! 🤡🤣
This is so true!
It's even more ironic when the West always tried to pose the Ancient Greeks as "the Fathers of Western Civilisation" and, while it isn't completely wrong, as soon as we enter the Late Antiquity period (or even earlier, with Alexander), Greeks are classified as "Eastern" is a derogatory way, as to antagonise the "superior" Western civilisation with the "inferior" and "exotic" Easterners, a notion that is still prominent in the West, unfortunately.
In reality, though, the Ancient Greeks didn't regard themselves as founders of any arbitrary division between Western and Eastern civilisation, but conversed with many different cultures and the Hellenisation of the East after Alexander was also mutual in a way the local beliefs and philosophy of these people also influenced Greek thought.
@@zelkovas Exactly! My friend, the West is Hellenic, & the Near East was also Hellenic. This is something that the Germanics HATE so Much!!!! The Barbarians!
There's a word for it: "Orientalizing."
Im american with greek ancestry and i agree.
Finally a video that shows the truth! It was annoying that people were saying "When Heraclius chose Greek as the official language, he gave up the imperial title. Now we'll call the empire byzantine". Such nonsense. Thanks a lot for this video.
In the eyes of the West and the non Orthodox world, this was pretty much the case and only further soldified the notion.
@Compatriot that's not true. The west always viewed them as Romans ruling from Constantinople. The HRE would continually push Byzantine marriages and law reforms to integrate more Roman Legitimacy.
@Compatriot the "kingdom of the Greeks" really was just a slur and more emphasised the "kingdom" part to infer they were less than Emperors. People read too much into political slander. Look past it and see after 1204 how the same users of this slur argued who would be the new Roman Emperor...
@Seditionist no that's a Byzantine Emperor from the 9th century, whose name I have chosen.
@@compatriot852 Only around the 9th century.
Heraclius and his dynasty were universally accepted as Roman emperors.
I think people latch onto this because Heraclius being the 'First Byzantine' is kind of a vibe for a lot of different reasons people can't super articulate, so find this simple explanation.
When Heraclius takes office we're a provincial empire stretching across Greece, parts of Illyria, even I think some of northern Italy but don't quote me on that, fighting the Persians like Romans had been doing for the last thousand years.
By the time Heraclius is dead, we're in a Theme system in an empire that rules Greece, south Italy and Anatolia, fighting Muslims. Heraclius at the start still resembles the old Roman Empire in terms of it's place in the world and what it's up to, while by the end it resembles what people recognise as 'The Byzantine Empire' doing what it will do for just under the next thousand years. I think the aftermath of Heraclius's reign is also the first time we see someone get disinherited by being mutilated.
I don't think Heraclius is a bad person to put as being 'the first Byzantine', largely because of where the Empire's AT by the end rather than necessarily anything Heraclius did; but trying to express that is hard, so going "Yeah he's the Greek guy" is an easy short cut to that rather than trying to articulate stuff that's more of a vague sense than a specific event.
There's a need people have to put events into distinct eras. The dramatic changes in the Empire during Heraclius' reign suit such a desire, even if the reality is oversimplified.
The conquest by the Arabs was a slow affair though, Carthage in North Africa wasn't conquered until the end of the heraclian dynasty. You could say that the heraclian dynasty was the last proper roman dynasty though.
@@god-of-logic99 >You could say that the heraclian dynasty was the last proper roman dynasty though.
Why though?
@@monetizedyay6827 well because they are the last dynasty that still ruled what remains of partial rebuilt Roman Empire ie: ruling both West and East aswell one point in the time ruled partially both western roman africa and roman egypt after the Heraclians the other dynasty was been contain only in Balkans & Anatolia and sometimes Partially recovering Southern Italy .
@@mikered1974 Southern Italy constitutes as "Western Roman" territory though doesn't it? Maybe, maybe not, I disagree with your point regardless. I think self identity, the laws and customs they follow, and the government and people they rule are better factors. I think the dynasties following the Heraclians were all proper Roman dynasties but thats just what I think.
It should also be noted that in the chart of Greek speakers, its really natural for the southern parts of Italy to have an amount of Greek. They have been colonized (among others) long ago by Greek people. Cool video!
Also the Byzantine Greeks controlled it until 1,000 Years ago. The Katepanos 🇬🇷👍
Imagine if the video just ended with the first few seconds of this video.
Should be a short
It’s also important to note that the decline of Latin also happens when the eastern Roman Empire loses its latin speaking territories.
As showed in a videos’s map, the north-west of the balkans was mainly latin speaking (Justinian was born in that area).
The balkans are lost by the slavs by the 7th century, leaving only a few costal cities surviving like Ragusa, Splatum or Jadera (Zadar), which would be autonomous.
Then the arabs conquered north Africa by the end of the same century. The lost of this two territories reduces the population of who speaks or understands latin.
The exarchate of Ravenna will be independent by the iconoclasm controversy, leaving the empire territory practically all greek.
Even they still had Sicilly and south Italy, these parts were bilingual or mainly greek speaking.
So by the mid 8th century there was no reason to keep latin as a language of the empire, and the shift of language can be said it’s completed.
Latin was still spoken in southern Italy in the 9th century, which is reflected by the letters used in the imperial coinage. You also have to remember that Sardinia and Corsica was also held by empire for several centuries. These areas were certainly not Greek-speaking.
In the case of Roman Moesia, the Moesians (Thraco-Romans) simply became the Vlachs and were not displaced by the Slavs before the 11th -12th century, when they crossed the Danube and settled in what was once Dacia, forming Romania. This also reveals that there were infact Latin or atleast Romance speakers within Basil's empire.
The constant warfare between Bulgaria and Rome has destroyed much infrastructure in the lower danube, which has impoverished the Moesians, which explains their agricultural and later nomadic ways after the 7th century.
Reminds me of the Ptolemies practice of 'pharoah at home, king abroad' where the official language and styling depended on where the official text was intended to go rather than some kind of enforced cultural standard
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
@@TGeoMin nice quote! But if the official texts and degrees were localised my point stands, even if the Roman elite did have a long history of snobbery based on a particular Hellenic language and urban lifestyle
I assumed Heraclius and his successors still used the Imperator Caesar Augustus title and Basileus interchangeably.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
They used Basileus & Autokrator!!!
Those Beautiful Hellenic words! 😍🇬🇷
Yeah but they didn’t. By the 1000s they were fully Greek. Only Roman in name. By 1198 they were paying tribute to the actual Latin Empire in the West.
@@TGeoMin 😂
@@joeroganstrtshots881 they spoke Greek. They called themselves ROMANS.
Oh, another thing that crops up under the Comnenus dynasty is that the Emperors start using victory cognomina/titles like 'Gothicus' and 'Armenicus' again, as can be seen in the Emperor Manuel I's full titulature in the video.
looool I honestly hadn't notice this until now... "Manuel in Christ God Faithful Purple-Born Basileus, Most-Pious Autocrator of the Romans, Ever-Sebastos Augustus, Isauricus, Kilikicus, Armenicus, Dalmaticus, Oungricus(Hungary), Bosthnicus(Bosnia), Khrobaticus(ok that's easy, Croatia), Lazicus, Ibericus, Bulgaricus, Serbicus, Zekkhicus(???Czech???), Khazaricus, Gotthicus(what??I thought Narses had taken care of these guys?), Divinely-Guided Inheritor of the Crown of Constantine the Great"!!! ....seriously what a humble guy!😒 I wonder if he would have been able to recite all of his titles in the correct order😏
@@ntonisa6636 there were still Goths in Crimea.
@@ntonisa6636 I guess Manuel and Commodus would be good friends in high places. 😅😅😅😅
@@Michael_the_Drunkard ah yes indeed I'd somehow forgotten about our good ole friends the Crimean Goths, I should probably apologize to Jordanes' ghost...
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
Maurice was a native Greek speaker from Cappadocia.
Heraclius is one of my favorite Roman/Byzantine emperors😎. By the way, I have been opposed to this thesis from the very beginning, and it seems to me that Latin was used as the official language until the beginning of the eighth century. Even Heraclius did not create the theme system, but his grandson, Constans II. In 'The Byzantine Wars' John Haldon wrote that during the reign of Heraclius there were still field armies led by magister militum per Armeniam, per Orientem and per Thraciam. The only changes being the merger of both field armies in praesenti and no records of a field army commanded by magister militum per Illyricum
One of the things that Romans did best was adapt to situations that threatened the state of the empire.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
A great little video, it just goes to show how a keen observation in the primary sources can be blown out of all proportion by scholars and other scholars using their colleagues work.
Heraclius can quite rightly be said to have changed to using the Greek term for ruler, Basileus but you make a great point about changing the official language. We should also remember that not every in the empire spoke Greek either with Coptic, Armenian, Aramaic and Slavic being notable minor languages. In fact, in Fergus Miller's book about the empire of Theodosius II, he shows how extensively Greek was being used by the imperial court already in the fifth century. Also, unofficially, historians like Malchus and Priscus called the emperor Basileus, over a century before Heraclius.
I assume you mean Priscus of Panium, who wrote about Attila's invasion.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard The very same.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
Eastern Roman History...I cannot remember from which source I obtained this little fact, but I recall reading from some source that Augustus Caesar was being addressed as "Basileus" by residents of the Greek-speaking East. Moreover, Emperor Nero who had visited Greece so that he could see the Olympic Games in person, was hailed as "Basileus" by the Olympian Greeks.
@@user-rq2ly4bf1w It makes sense, since the Greek would for ruler/king/emperor is Basileus.
The beginning of the gradual Hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire can be traced in the early 5th c. when emperor Theodosius II (a Latin speaker) made as his empress a pagan Greek woman, Aelia Eudocia. The empress was personally involved in the founding of the Πανδιδακτήριον τῆς Μαγναύρας/Pandidacterium of Magnavra (regarded as the first Byzantine university) in 425 CE where the Greek language for the first time gained an edge on Latin (after her influence perhaps?) since sixteen out of the total thirty-one disciplines were taught in Greek
Interesting...I always placed it with the ascent of Christianity. Most original scripture was written in Greek and studied in this form. Following Pulcheria and the like- the imperial court at Constantinople was entrenched with religious and spiritual affairs unlike before. And much of the theological debate around this time was done in Greek. Which language was used at the council of Chalcedon I wonder?
@@theholyschois7477 Well the minutes have survived and are in Greek. Besides, the Pope did not attend, he stayed in Italy of the fear of Attila
I thought Greek was always considered the high class language of the Roman elite?
@@pyropulseIXXI Then why did Paul write his epistle to the Romans in Greek? Do you think that it was the Roman elite that had converted to Christianity in Rome?
@@apmoy70 That had more to do with the location. At that time, Paul was wandering around Greece and Asia Minor, which would explain his knowledge of Greek, despite him being an Aramaic Judean.
You should do a video on the Germanic Lombards of southern Italy and their interactions with the Byzantine empire. Like for example
The Germanic Lombards of Southern Italy became heavily influenced by the Byzantine Empire due to a combination of factors. The Lombards had initially invaded and settled in the region, bringing with them their own language, customs, and beliefs. However, the Byzantine Empire had also established a presence in the region, and tensions between the two groups eventually led to conflict. Over time, the Byzantines sought to Romanize the Lombards by promoting the Greek language, adopting Byzantine customs and practices, and establishing a cultural and political influence over the region. As a result, the Lombards of Southern Italy became heavily influenced by Byzantine culture and society, and this influence continued to shape the region's history and identity for centuries to come. Just like their theme was named after them by the Byzantines called “Theme of Longobardia” or Λογγοβαρδία, θέμα Λογγοβαρδίας in Greek. I think you’ll find the topic of the southern Italian Lombards very interesting and even more interesting is their interactions with the Byzantines!
Interesting topic, thanks for the suggestion
@@RomabooRamblings one more suggestion, maybe do a video on why some cultures survived domination by another empire (Greece, Persia/Iran) while others fell (Egypt, Assyria)
@@RomabooRamblings also life under the Lombards and how "romanized" they were. I remember reading once by c. 700s, the Lombards were so assimilated even Germanic drinking horns disappeared.
@@jacklaurentius6130 I get it that Assyrian culture disappeared, as far as I know, but I'm not so sure about Egyptian. Cleopatra (her again) was descended from Ptolemy, one of the Macedonian generals who divided up Alexander the Great's empire - but before she met Caesar, she was married to her brother the Pharaoh...
@@RomabooRamblings Also I think another good one would be the history of Latin throughout the eastern empire, focusing from Justinian until 1204. I've been pestering my professor about this all semester and researching a bit on my own, but largely the knowledge of Latin at all in the city seems to fall off in the Later Makedonian period. I find it curious that we have so many Latin and mixed Latin/Greek inscriptions on coins and seals, and that Tzetzes seems to know some phrases in Latin in the 12th century, yet we have little to any knowledge of who was teaching Latin in the city or how many could speak it(at a scholarly level). So if you find this topic as interesting as me, I'd love to see a video on it.
The thing is Greek was pretty much a second language for the most part of the Roman empire. Officals only really spoke it in regards to their subjects, but still wrote in Latin to each other.
By the time of Heraclius, Most of the Latin speaking provinces had been lost, so the need to use Latin slowly fell out of favor as the empire continued to shrink/consolidate in the East.
Someone like Justinian I would probably be mortified seeing Rome decay like this. Dashing all hopes that unification with the West would ever happen again.
Greek wasn't only spoken to appeal to peoples of the Roman East. It was also the language of Roman high society and the sciences. Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek. Augustus was taught by Athenodorus of Tarsus. Famous medics like Galen (under Commodus) and Oribasius (under Julian) and philosophers like Aelius Aristides (under Antoninus), Epictetus (under Domitian) and Dio Chrysostom (under Trajan) had close relations to the emperors.
You're only partially right there. Greek itself would have been accepted as civilized by Justinian (had he time-traveled), since it was his wife's tongue.
Justinian Literally made writing Greek edicts the norm and called it the modern day language of the Romans.
The provinces themselves had little bearing on the use of Latin in the imperial court.
@@tylerellis9097Justinian was controlled by his Greek wife!
This brings up an equally interesting question, at what point did the Greeks start calling themselves Romans? When the Roman republic took over Greece the local inhabitants considered the Romans to be barbarians. It would be great to see a video about how this view shifted over time.
During the christinization of the empire the word Hellene(greek) became synonymous with the word pagan. Paganism got abolished in the empire, so the greeks adopted the name romans as they were part of the roman empire ,or Romania as it was called back then. Still some emperors and scholars genuinely admired and adored the legacy of the ancient greeks, thus referring to the greeks as hellenes with pride, but others were very hostile and unforgiving against the greek pagan past and the hellenes for them were the embodiment of paganism .
I agree, that would be an interesting question to explore (and the reverse as well i.e. when did the Romaioi start calling themselves Hellenes, but I guess that's more for a Greek studies subject than for a Roman history channel to tackle).
Certainly the Greeks were still very much Greeks and proud of it in Plutarch's day for example(after over two and a half centuries of Roman rule). My non-expert guess would be that it likely was a relatively slow process starting around the time of Caracalla extending Roman citizenship to everyone in the empire (212 CE) and probably being more or less complete by let's say 500AD when the identification of the word Hellene with paganism/"idolatry" had fully crystalized, and perhaps also importantly in my opinion, the Western Empire had been dissolved meaning the "senior" (Latin) Romans had effectively exited the historical stage thus greatly reducing the competition over the Roman identity (although of course this development was partly undone for a while by Justinian's reconquest)
It probably started after 212 with Caracalla granting all the Greeks civitas. Christianity then sped up the process with its demonization of the Hellen as being a pagan.
@@ntonisa6636 I agree, but I sincerely doubt that Western Romans would have objected to the Greeks calling themselves Romans. Since they would have liked the Roman identity to expand outside of Italy or the Latin West.
I agree with pretty much all the replies, but would definitely stress the idea that Hellene became virtually synonymous with pagan. My guess would be to find the earliest use of the Greek language being called Roman Ρωμαϊκή and seeing what happened before that date...if there's something significant that happened in relation to the topic, then we can theorize that the process was sped up by said factor, but my two cents is that is was a pretty slow process that solidified with the Christianization of Greeks
Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium. (Book II, epistle 1, lines 156-157.)
"Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio."
Horace
Basically everyone spoke greek from the beginning but heraclius made it official
Greek and Latin were the two languages of the Roman Empire since Greek was the lingua franca in the East so Heraclius made it official in 620. The use of Latin was rather limited. The title Basileus/Βασιλεύς was adopted after the triumphant victory over the Persians in 628. Not only is he the Emperor, but also the King of the Romans. A title that he claimed from the defeated Persian King of Kings. just like Alexander III did, in order to outline that the Roman Empire is an Imperium with the identity and homogenous strength, of a Kingdom, so he used both, the same as most of the Emperors from then on.
Ηρακλειος, πιστός έν Χριστώ τώ Θεώ, Βασιλεύς καί Αυτοκράτωρ, Ρωμαίων.
Heraclius, faithful in Christ the God, King and Emperor of the Romans.
A Roman King, for a strong Roman identity in the Roman Empire.
Which is,
Κάθε γή βατή, καί κάθε θάλασσα πλωτή.
Every walkable land, and every navigable sea.
Excellent work as always !
great vid, especially the answer at the start xD just commenting to help you out with the algorithm.
As usual, excellent video!
"Greeks are always inventing something. Why are they so clever?"
"If they're so clever, why are they a province of ours instead of vice versa?"
*Conversation between Emperor Augustus and his nephew/heir Marcellus*
Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes intulit agresti Latio · Greece, once conquered, in turn conquered its uncivilized conqueror, and brought the arts to rustic Latium. (Horace)
I’ve only ever heard that dialogue in the fictional show “I, Claudius”
Not a real thing sorry...
@@wankawanka3053 I know, it's from "I, Claudius". That's where I picked it up from
@@OptimusMaximusNero it's inspired from a real speech Claudius gave to the Senate tho
Greetings, RomabooRamblings! Once again, another great video. I got to admit, I did infact use this claim in my video about Heraclius. But I did know that diplomatic and legal documents were written in greek before Heraclius (for example the reign of Justinian) and I know that he still used the roman titles for the emperors (Augustus) alongside his greek one (Basileus), but I guess when talking about this topic, I meant the official language of the empire as a whole and not some few documents which were written in greek. I meant everyday conversations, the language in which schools teach, etc. Well, people can be wrong sometimes. Thank you for this new piece of information as well as this new video. :)
What did your Grandma use to tell you about it?
@@Sp-zj5hw I am unsure as to what you mean, unless you're poking fun at the Cleopatra Netflix backlash (which is well deserved for attempting to change history and steal another country's culture). Have a great day!
@@MarahTalksHistory What i am saying is that he was citing from primary sources, being writtten by Eastern Romans in Greek, trying to make a point that they did not speak Greek officially. Αυτοκράτωρ means in Greek someone who has power over himself, from auto(αυτο)+keep(κρατωρ). 99% of the words he cited were Greek, from Greek texts. How on earth they did not speak officially Greek?
@@Sp-zj5hw Greetings, again. Although it may seem confusing on "how could the official language not be greek, even though the documents are written in greek" it is infact, a common thing. For example my country of algeria the official language is arabic, however legal and diplomatic documents are written in french (although recently it has been changed, and the documents are now written in arabic) so it is normal to find confusion in this topic, however it is more common than it may seem if you dig deeper. I hope this clears up everything, have a good day!
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
Thank you for answering the question right away instead of dragging it out😂
Great vid!
Inconsequential spelling errors I want to point out, unless you found sources using them otherwise:
1. σεβαστ ό ς is stressed on the final syllable, unless it's on a compound word.
2. αύ γουστος is stressed on the first syllable.
3. nevermind the pronunciation, βασιλικ ή takes the feminine final -η
But I think that Heraclius used the title (King of kings) to piss off the persian shah or something like that.
It's J.B. Burry's hypothesis, there may be some truth to it.
Ofc he would
Informative and entertaining. Bravo .
Most Laconic and grand intro/Answear I've ever beheld
The New Testament was written in Greek.
Saint Paul the Apostle wrote a letter to the Romans, in Greek.
Aramaic language: Am I a joke to you?
@@user-fl5mq9kp7g new testament is in koine greek
A great video debunking this myth, although the reign of Herakleios saw an important step in the continuing process of the Hellenization of the Roman Empire, as he lost the eastern non-Greek provinces twice in his life, he couldn't just flip a switch and make everyone suddenly start speaking Greek instead of Latin. Hellenization was a long process that took centuries, not something an Emperor could just decide in one day.
Also, may I know where did you watch Tarihin Efsaneleri "Halid Bin Velid"?
Glad that you liked it!
All those Turkish documentaries are on youtube.
@@RomabooRamblings Oh epic, thank you!
Long story short is that Justinian II was the last roman emperor, who's mother tongue was *latin*. By not understanding and speaking latin you fulfil the first requirement of being roman, period.
Fascinating video!
Officially or not it doesn't change the fact that Eastern Roman Empire was Hellenized in terms of culture, ethnicity, language etc. What it gradually left was Roman/Latin only by name but Hellenic/Greek in everything else.
I would like to give you my admiration for my language pronunciation!
Great job Sir and for your information in our tradition except calling ourselves Greeks 'Έλληνες' we also called as Romans'Ρωμιοι' especially we who have ancestry from Asia minor =old Greece =παλιά Ελλαδα
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
we never called ourselves Greek=Γραικοs.
that was what the Romans called the Hellenes. the original old Greece population was Achaian displaced to Ionia from Achaia thru Attica. Being the remnants of Christian Romans in Asia Minor highly unlikely constitutes that population as Old Greek, a term that came into being in the later part of the 19th century in Asia Minor.
Very informative video❗Thank you‼
If I may, a couple of corrections:
@7:57 : " *Βασιλική* " is the correct spelling of the female form of the adjective "IMPERIAL",
@9:37 : " *σεβαστός* " is the correct spelling of the male form of "AUGUSTUS".
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
@@TGeoMin A philosopher, a theologian, a scholar and a just Emperor.
To me the hellenization of the Eastern Empire is some sort of "Ship of Theseus" Situation. The Republic started out with Latin as the main language, and greek as a noble second language, and that state mostly continued until the start of the empire in 27BC. The Empire ended with Greek as the main language and roman basicly not present in everyday life in 1453. And during that long time, steadily, and espacially after the fall of the west, the change occured. While I feel like its wrong to say that one singular event/law/edict "changed" the official language, I think that if you feel the need to draw such a line, then Heraclius is a pretty decent candidate. His reign marked a strong transition, with the (soon to happen) loss of old Roman Imperial provinces like Egypt, Syria and Africa concentrating the empire even more on the greek speaking heartland.
You forget the regions of Syria and Egypt that were lost were the ones administratively Greek with significant Greek power structures and populations. More important is the lost of the Exarchate of Africa, the Empires' now 2nd wealthiest and main Latin province, lost in 698. Its in the 20 years afterwards with the conclusion of the 20 years anarchy and end of the Heracliuan dynasty that we finally see the erasure of many Latin policies, Elites and traditions with the ascension of Leon the Isaurian, who you SHOULD actually be drawing the line at as the first "Byzantine Emperor" imo.
All that said. It should be said that Greek transplanting latin by and large already happened under Justinian when he switched to Greek Law codes for the Eastern Provinces, something that already had precedent since Theodosius II a century prior.
The loss of territory does not change the identity of an empire. Especially if we consider that Egypt and Syria were under Greek instead of Latin influence.
Using that logic, the Western Roman Empire stopped being Roman, when it lost Mauretania and Carthage in the 440s.
@@tylerellis9097 as I said in previous comments, Byzantine should not be used as a term for "deromanized" Greeks, it is not only wrong but insulting to the legacy of the Roman emperors after Heraclius or in your case, after Leo the Syrian. Byzantine shouldn't be more than a synonym for Eastern Roman, which can be applied from 395 onwards.
Videos like this, which you probably didn't watch before this comment, should actually invigorate Byzantium's claim to Roman heritage and debunk any claims of later "deromanization".
@@Michael_the_Drunkard I literally helped make this video and yes I have watched it lol. Byzantine is an academic term and often used to distinguish the post Heraclius Empire. As long as is, I’ll continue to use it.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard He never mentioned anything about "deromanisation"
Nice vids
Respect to our most respectful enemy and the great roman emperor Heraclius Qaysar al-Rum Hiraql.
What does Herakleios mean in Latin?
@@SpartanLeonidas1821I think it's just another version of the name heracles
@@alomaralsulaiman6501 My name is Herakleios! Greetings from ΕΛΛΑΣ 🇬🇷
".. *His pronunciation was such as you would expect of a Latin who had come to our country ["Byzantium"] as a young man and learnt Greek thoroughly but was not quite clear in his articulation, for he mutilated his syllables here and there.* This want of clearness in his utterance and his dropping the last letters did not escape even ordinary people and made rhetoricians call him 'rustic' in his speech. As a result, although his writings were crammed with dialectical commonplaces, drawn from all sources, they were decidedly not free from faults of composition and solecisms scattered broadcast .."
*-Anna Komnene*
*[Alexiad 5.8]*
«.. *τὴν δὲ φωνὴν τοιοῦτος οἷος ἂν ἀπὸ τῶν Λατίνων ἐληλυθὼς νεανίας εἰς τὴν ἡμεδαπὴν γῆν τὰ Ἑλλήνων μὲν ἐκμάθοι, οὐ πάνυ δὲ καθαριεύοι τι τὴν φωνήν, ἀλλ' ἔστιν οὗ καὶ κολοβωτέρας ἐκφέροι τὰς συλλαβάς.* Ἀλλ' οὔτε τὸ τοῦ στόματος οὐκ εὐαγὲς οὔτε τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἄφωνον ἐλάνθανε τοὺς πολλούς, τοῖς δὲ ῥητορικωτέροις ἀγροικίζων κατελαμβάνετο. Ἔνθεν τοι καὶ τὰ συγγράμματα τούτου συνέσφιγκτο μὲν ἁπανταχόθεν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς τόποις, ἀσυνταξίας δὲ κακίαν καὶ σολοικισμὸν σποράδην διερριμμένον παντάπασιν οὐκ ἐξέφευγον ..»
*-Ἄννα Κομνηνή*
*[Ἀλεξιάς 5.8]*
Interestingly in that edict 'basileis' is part of a statement in relation to Christ, that in the other edicts go as "Heraclius, new Constantine, faithful in Christ, Augustus..." and "imperator Caesar Flavian Heraclius faithful-in-Christ our great worker of peace..."
This might suggest that the preference for 'basilevs' developed out of Christianization rather than hellenizing tendencies. After all, Christ was not commonly called emperor, Cesar, or Augustus but he is always referred to as king ('basilevs') both in the New Testament and Church literature of the time period. The movement towards this title reflects the emperor's position in respect to both Church and Roman state, that he is emperor with respect to Romanity, and he is king in relation to Christ and the Church- in the shared sense of reigning with Christ (2 Timothy 2;12 "ei hypomenomen, kai sym*basilevs*omen")
On the other hand, while Greek culture and language were never an impediment to being Roman, being a Germanic barbarian certainly was. The renewed emphasis on Latin in the West under Charlemagne was part of his efforts to become legitimate, since he natively spoke a Germanic Frankish dialect.
So in a way, saying Heraclius replaced Latin with Greek is about as wrong as saying Charlemagne replaced Latin with German!
Concise right to the point
It's worth noting that one of the names of the Byzantine Empire was "Bhasileia ton Romaion/Βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων", which in literal Greek translation means "Kingdom of the Romans". Contextually, the term is used to address the realm based in Constantinople as "Empire of the Romans", not "Kingdom of the Romans".
I don't believe Basileia ever signified "Kingdom", rather it was probably only intended to translate the word Imperium(naturally followed by "tōn Rhomaíōn" as that's what "Romanum" means in the original Latin phrase) especially since Basileus was clearly meant to be the Greek translation of Imperator. Hence why almost nobody (the only exception I can think at the moment is Charlemagne and maybe Simeon of Bulgaria, but those were special cases) was ever called "Basileus of France" or "Basileus of the Hungarians/Magyars" by the Byzantines. When they wanted to refer to someone as "king" they always made sure to employ a different title, something like "ρηξ" (from Latin Rex) or "κράλης" (from Slavic "kral", ultimately from Charlemagne AKA Karl)
@@ntonisa6636 I meant it as in the modern sense of the Greek translation, not the ancient/medieval one.
Wasn't also the Serbian ruler Stefan Dusan titled as Basileus of Greeks/Romans and Serbians at some point?
@@angelb.823 Well even though it isn't very relevant, Basileia in modern Greek means monarchy(the form of government) rather than "kingdom"(that would be basíleion), but again one shouldn't be confused by modern meanings of old words. After all a basileus in the Mycenaean world appears to have originally referred to something well bellow the dignity of king, perhaps a minor chieftain or even merely a guild boss, that's why we should be careful not to conflate the distinct meanings a certain word might have had during different periods.
As for Stefan Dusan I think yes he did call himself that way, but I don't believe the Byzantines ever recognized such title of his.
@@ntonisa6636 In a docu movie I watch, the serbian ruler was referred to as κράλης during the civil war between Andronicos 2nd and 3rd.
El oriente romano, al tener ya un anterior proceso de helenización mucho más avanzado, lograría unificar el idioma griego, que fue evolucionando del koiné al medieval, y del medieval al moderno.
Genuinely as soon as you were like "... replaced IMPERATOR, CAESAR, and AUGUSTUS" I was immediately "Well thats just demonstrably not true" or in laymen's "Bullshit" lol
If Heraclius didn't change the official language to Greek, then who did? The video fails to answer that question. The video mainly points out that Greek was a popular language in the East, (which no one is denying and this is widely known within the Byzantine field) but doesn't explicitly mention when Latin died out in the Eastern Roman Empire. Because from the 7th century onwards, Latin stopped being used as an official language for the Byzantines (ignoring the sparse examples of 'Augustus'). During the reign of Leo VI the Wise, the laws were translated from Latin to Greek. Would that be when they stopped using Latin? But that just shows most people in the governing class didn't know Latin at that point.
Nobody, there was no official decree. The remaining Latin officials were slowly replaced by Greek ones, which was facilitated by the losses of lands inhabited by Latin speakers (Moesia, parts of Italy, Africa, parts of Spain and Dalmatia). Noble families like the Anicii and Decii assimilated.
Also the title of Augustus (Αύγουστος in Greek) wasn't sparse, it was part of the imperial title, otherwise it would not have survived until the 15th century.
Even Wikipedia admits that some knowledge of Latin was preserved by diplomats/messengers to communicate with the Latin West and by scholars like Michael Psellos and Maximos Planudes. If nobody knew Latin past the 600s, how could they have upheld and later translated the code of Justinian into Greek.
Additionally, the Thraco-Romans then known as the Vlachs (Proto-Romanians) still lived in the lower Danube regions, speaking a Romance language until they slowly started migrating north in the 11th century.
"Would the translation of documents from Latin to Greek have stopped, if there had been no linguistic shift?" (I am paraphrasing).
No, it was already done in the 5th century, when there were way more Latin speakers, since the majority population was Greek-speaking. Yes even back then.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Leo VI the Wise decision to translate Justinian's laws from Latin to Greek shows that practically nobody knew Latin except for an extreme minority. Hence why it had to be translated. Afterward, only dedicated translators to the West knew Latin. What I mean by "sparse" is that except on the coins of a few emperors, Basileus replaced Augustus as the mainly used title for the ruler. From Alexander in the 9th century onwards, the official title of the emperor was 'Basileus kai autokratōr Rhomaiōn' ("Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans"). Notice how the direct Greek translation of Augustus (Αύγουστος) as you have mentioned wasn't used.
The main point is, even though there is no official decree by Heraclius, his adoption of the Greek equivalent of Augustus in the form of Basileus shows a shift or move from Latin to Greek as the preferred language of choice in government.
For all intents and purposes, Latin was the "official" language before the 600s. Note the quotation marks, because there was never an official language of the Romans as stated in their records. But when defining an official language as being used in the government, laws, and army, it was still Latin. Remember, the Institutes and Novels were in Latin. Edicts were meant to be seen by the public, so Justinian made them Greek to make life easier. Even the video said that during Maurice's time, orders were given in Latin which shows that soldiers knew basic Latin at the minimum. But they were probably better speakers in Latin than that, as quite a lot of field army soldiers came from the Balkans (fun fact). In conclusion, most people in powerful positions were bilingual anyways, they knew Latin and Greek, this included Justinian.
Bonus fact, the USA and UK don't have an "official" language either. But Russia and Germany do, look it up.
Latin was already dead by the 5th century
What’s that footage from?
Fun Fact: Latin was more widely used as an official language in the umayyad caliphate than in the Eastern Roman empire, in coinage, administration and the army.
Spain and North Africa?
I remember reading in a twitter thread (I know great source) that as late as around the 1100s, some Byzantine soldiers spoke in (likely some dialect closer to Italian) rough Latin. However, Michael Psellos (a monk-scholar, the best in his region, died 1096) allegedly -confused Caesar with Cicero-, such was the level of ignorance of the Old Roman past in the Empire by then.
A spelling mistake by a Greek-speaking scholar (language of the Roman East) is lightyears away from "ignorance" and the Roman "past" hadn't passed, since it was still ongoing.
I know, that these words are not yours but from some Western historian spewing useless conjecture. I too heard it before.
Examples like this are a cautionary tale how secondary sources corrupt the interpretation of the past.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard ;~; I'm sorry, you're right, I didn't think about that.....
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Those people were Greeks though! 😃
Did brazil change the language of Portuguese to brazillian? I say yes! Jokes aside, fantastic video and something I've said for a while myself.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
The Eastern part of the Empire was always Greek , Never Latin, The Hellenistic Empire Of Alexander the Great was always there .
Except Moesia, which was Latin speaking.
The eastern part of the Roman Empire was heavily Latinized north of Macedonia. From the land where Serbia and Albania are today all the way up to Romania. The whole Balkan area aside frorm Greece, Macedonia and Thrace spoke Latin. There were also some regions in Asia Minor and even Greece wherein Latin colonists heavily dwelled.
@@user-rq2ly4bf1wtry hard, in Italy school east roman empire doesn't consider as Italian latin claim
0:01 Understandable, have a nice day
Officially or not it doesn't change the fact that Eastern Roman Empire was Hellenized in terms of culture, ethnicity, language etc. What it gradually left was Roman/Latin only by name but Hellenic/Greek in everything else.
You should make a video about the logistic of Roman army in mesopotamia,and what could had made differents to annex Persia..for example,i think that romans should copied nomadic tribes tactics, employ nomads tribes in big scale against the sassanids,and Copy the logistic of Alexander the great..also change the supply could had helped
They did something along those lines with the Ghassanid Arabs.
Excellent, outstanding, well researched video. I agree 100 %. The main reason Latin gradually completly vanished from the ( Eastern) Roman Empire is that the Latin speaking Italy ( most of it ), Balkans and North Africa were conquered by Longobards, Slavs and Arabs.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
@@TGeoMin δεν κατάλαβα καθόλου τι θέλεις να εκφράσει φίλε. δεν μίλησα πουθενά από την ιταλική γλώσσα. προσωπικά λατρεύω τα ελληνικά, την Ελλάδα και τους Έλληνες. αλλά διαφωνώ με τον βασιλευς των Ρωμαίων αφού νομίζω ότι όλες οι γλώσσες έχουν την ίδια τιμή. Καμία είναι ανώτερη η κατώτερη από τις άλλες.
I've been wondering...
Do you know of any films or series that accurately depict the late roman empire or medieval byzantium?
In Sweden there are gravestones for those who died while serving in the Varangian Guard. On those gravestones, Byzantines were called Grikkar (Greeks) and Byzantine Empire was called Grikkland (Greece).
The main reason I've always heard for greek being more codified in the Roman world was because Egypt was lost from Rome by the Arabs and the egyptian population held the most latin speakers in the empire that weren't from Italy. Once it was lost for good, he more or less decided to lean more heavily into the Greek language since the only Latin speakers you could find was in Italy (which was slowly inching itself away from imperial rule day by day thanks to Lomb*rds) and Carthage which was about to be lost.
Honestly forgot where I've read this from so forgive me if this stupid beyond belief.
Actually the biggest Latin-speaking population in the pre-Justinian East was in the Balkans, namely Romanized Illyrians (from whom most Emperors between 250 and 600 hailed) and Thracians. The area was increasingly depopulated starting with the Huns and eventually was taken over by Slavs by 650.
@@Burgermeister1836 these Thraco-Romans didn't disappear. They are very alive today especially in Balkan keyboard wars in youtube comment sections
Who and where are they?
R
O
M
A
N
I
A
@@Michael_the_DrunkardVlachs more generally. Not all Vlachs ar Romanians there are also Aromanians living mostly in Greece.
@@Burgermeister1836 Illyrians were definitely in the Greek language influence. Most even have Greek names.
Where these shots takes from?
What movie is used on scene 0:15?
Turkish show tarihin efsaneleri
while it not be something so bold as “changing the language” i do think it was part of a larger long term trend towards the preeminence of greek in the east, which is an understandable prospect given its location.
The upvote happened as fast as the answer
In classical antiquity the post-Julio Claudian Roman emperors also used the term “basileus” in the eastern part of the empire
Since long there were colonies of the Greeks in southern Italy (Gr. Italos) and no need to separate radically between Roman Latin in the West and Roman Greek in the East. These two interchangeably if we talking Roman Empire until 1453.
Do we know when the last edict in Latin was issued by the eastern empire?
for the East? seems the first few years of Justinian I before he switched to exclusively Greek Edicts when referring specifically to the eastern provinces. for the West? Seems to be Tiberius II or Maurice.
@@tylerellis9097 Thank you!
@@tylerellis9097 I think Tiberius issued 168 edicts , 166 are Greek and 2 Latin so yes probably these two are the ones. It’s possible some Latin were issued a bit later tho
I think it was Phocas, who was himself Thracian. He issued the decree of Phocas in 605, making the bishop of Rome supreme.
George Ostrogorsky said this, George Ostrogorsky said that, but what about George Visigorsky? What did he have to say?
That the Visigoths were true Carthaginians!
he sai: better finish that GED
I believe that Manuel the 1st had the longest name and titles of all Roman emperors. He put in there all of his victories.
Fascinating exploration, thanks for shedding light on this often oversimplified shift.
Quick side question: is there an f/ph sound in the first few syllables of the Greek pronunciation of autokratos? You take great care in pronouncing words, and I know there are some shifts in sounds over time. It would be interesting to know where this started or was removed.
I'm not a professional, but from what I've observed it doesn't work like that. It's not so much that languages SHIFT their sounds, it's more that they BLUR the differences between, eg, a "V" and an "F", or a "U" (call it "OO" for native English speakers) and a "V". For instance, a French comic actor playing a German will pronounce all the "V" sounds as "F" to imitate a German accent; and Dicken's Cockney characters are always saying things like "Wittles" (for "victuals", ie food) - as do many East Europeans.
It's under the cover of the blurring, which can go on for generations, that a shift will occur, that is the new pronounciation will become more popular than the old, until it becomes "official".
Yes the upsilon of all "au" and "eu" diphthongs is pronounced like an "f" when followed by a "voiceless" consonant (like the "t" in autokrátōr or the s in basileus) or at the end of a word like _άνευ_ , and like a "v" when followed by a vowel or a "voiced" consonant (β, γ, δ, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ρ) ... As for when the trend started, please don't quote me on this, but from what I've read apparently there's inscriptions indicating it had already began in Boeotia(around Thebes) in the 3rd century BC, though it likely took many centuries for it to become completely dominant...probably well before the time of Heraclius though...
I intirigued by the thumbnail and i get my answer immidiately. I say that's a good bargain so Subscribe
I sense a hint of Orientalism in Ostrogorsky's argument. Septimus Severus and Diocletian were the rulers who turned the Roman emperor into a monarchical title in the 3rd century, when the Roman Empire was still located in Rome.
I've personally never heard of this claim.
If there is a point where it can be argued as Greek becoming official it would be when the emperors started using it in edicts, rather than making edicts in Latin and having them translated.
Well then arguably the answer from that point of view is Theodosius II with Justinian later making it the norm.
Only the novels of Justinian used Greek, but the codex and institutes are in Latin.
I think even before the east and west split both Greek and Latin were used in the same rate and I would argue that Greek was more prominent among civilians. Roman's we're already in love with Greek and the Greek way, for example emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his book meditations in Greek rather than Latin, so I'd say that the Roman Empire had two languages not just one.
Plus a lot of what we know about byzantines comes from a western point of view which most of the time is biased against them and tries to paint them in a way that distances them from being Roman.
Sigh
8:01 βασιλική
9:39 σεβαστός and αύγουστος
The ''Latin'' vocabulary isn't latin at all, it's one of the 18 dialects of the Hellinic language, and used first time by the Greek colonies of Magna Greccia,and the tru origin is euboea dialect in Greece so.
Without any disrespect , can we call Byzantium a Greek empire? or was it a "foreign" empire that occupied Greece? In the schools in Greece we got taught the Heraclius story as fact I am quite confused now
It was a foreign empire but the greeks later embraced and preserved it
People need to understand that the Romans where the biggest Grecophiles during antiquity. Mainly because of Alexander's accomplishments. This is why half the Roman Empire was still speaking Greek even during antiquity. Julius Ceasar was often talking in Greek as well. Romans respected Greek culture and often copied it. Yes they did that with other cultures as well, but we need to understand Greek culture had a special place in Roman society (especially among the most influential Romans).
Therefore, it is of no surprise that Greeks were mostly fine with Roman rule. The two cultures slowly merged and were molded into what is called "Greco-Roman" culture. After centuries of cultural exchange there was virtually no difference between Greek and Roman culture, or between Greeks and Romans either. It was one and the same.
Of course today we can call it "Greco-Roman" or "Byzantine" to make a chronological distinction. However, to these people, after the full Christianization of the Roman empire, there was no "Greek", they were calling themselves just Romans (or to be more precise "Romaioi") and their empire was called by them "Romania".
Modern Greeks have more in common with the Christian medieval Greeks who identified as Romans, than their Classical pagan ancestors. Now someone might ask "why are they calling themselves Hellenes/Greeks today and not Romans, then?". Well, that's another story for another big comment.
@@NickStrife There was a book called Hellenism in Late Antiquity by G. W. Bowersock that details the decline of Hellenism (as in the terms of Hellenic paganism in favor of Christianity) from 6th century onwards. However, the book also makes mention of Hellenism as a vital school of thought for early theologians (e.g. the Cappadocian Fathers), which they used to counter arising heresies at that time (Nestorianism, Monophysitsm, etc., most of whom were based on Neoplatonist ideals), with strong assertments and arguments that would cement the position of the Church's doctrine (e.g. the role of the Holy Trinity, the persons, the substance, etc).
Moreover, the culture of Hellenism persisted on customs and traditions in places like Egypt and Syria, and in some occasions blended in with Christian traditions, until the Muslim Arabs conquered Egypt and the Middle-East. Then, it fainted in favor of the Arabic language.
So, while Hellenism dropped out of the identity of the people, who identified as Greek-speaking Christian Romans (or Romaoi for that matter), the cultural concept of Hellenism (as in the school of thought) remained in the Byzantine Empire, up until the Greek Enlightenment and the Greek War of Independence, where Greek identity was brought back.
@@angelb.823 I totaly agree. But to those people all the things you mentioned were just "Roman" to them. Of course the Greco-Roman culture I mentioned above will have tons of Hellenic elements in it. It's only natural.
The "Hellene" term and the pagan religion dropped out gradually. Not the Hellenic culture.
There are many reasons the "Greco-Romans" (I personally call them like that for accuracy) decided to use the "Hellene" term again during the 19th century. Cultural, ideological, diplomatic and political reasons.
@@NickStrife I partially agree. But it is not true to say that Eastern Romans were the same as Western Romans.
The West was mostly Latin-speaking. Most of these Western Roman people, except Italians, were Romanized Celts (Gauls, Iberians, Britons) so somewhat distinct from the culturally Romanized Greeks in the East. They shared a Roman civic identity, though.
".. *whether someone calls us Hellenes or Romans, that is what we are, and we safeguard the succession of Alexander* and that of those after him .."
-Manuel Chrysoloras
[Exhortation on behalf of the Genus]
«.. *Ἕλληνας βούλοιτό τις λέγειν εἴτε Ῥωμαίους, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν ἐκεῖνοι καὶ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου* δὲ καὶ τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνων *ἡμεῖς σώζομεν διαδοχήν* ..»
-Μανουήλ Χρυσολωράς
[Παρακίνησις ὑπὲρ τοῦ Γένους]
I don't get why people believe stuff like this. The default position should be to believe nothing until you personally confirm it. Yes, this means I don't believe in lots of things commonly held as true, but I also don't not believe in them. You can just hold in a state of superposition until you verify something. It isn't hard to do
I've read somewhere that the Eastern Title of BASILEIOS is the Equivalent of DOMINUS. The Western part of the Empire would never have looked at the Emperor as a Dominus or Lord. That comes from the eastern tradition of having 'Semi-divine, god kings. Like Persia, etc. The west would have at least waited for the Emperor to die before 'deifying' him.
A different understanding of the order of ruling i suppose.
It was the word for king in the world of the poleis. It had replaced the earlier anax or wanax as used for Agamemnon and co. So in Greek, the emperors admitted they were just kings.
Greek culture/identity was too strong to wipe out entirely. I wonder why? From the empires of antiquity, few cultures remained after their collapse.
It would make a good video 😉 I think Greeks are more greek than Egyptians are actually Egyptian.
The Christian Egyptians aka Copts are genetically Egyptian but only use old Egyptian for liturgical purposes. Culturally, they have been Arabized.
Egyptian is a modern nationality which was created few centuries ago, same thing with Greek nationality.. those nationalities are just the result of Western influence, which wrote and re-wrote most of ancient history
Egypt is a foreign word to locals (both today and in history) and big percentage of history you read about Egypt and Middle East s just wrong and far from reality.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard there's no such thing as "Genetically Egyptian" ... Egypt is a modern nationality, and the word Egypt is a foreign word to locals, and the history of Egypt was always very diverse since ancient times
And for Copts and Christians in Middle East and in the whole world in general, have mostly nothing to do with ancient people... This lie was created by Westerners (specially British) when they started colonizing those lands, they gave the name "native" to anyone who was ready to help them in their colonization
Christianity (specially Trinitarianism, which is the religion of the vast majority of Christians today) is a Roman/European political religion, everyone (outside Europe)who follow it is just a follower of a Roman/European religion which was created to benefit only Roman/European Empires
So you are wrong about Copts.
Interesting, I never heard of this myth, thankfully the first time I hear it is its debunking 😅
In the 13th c. Maximos Planoudes, a native Greek speaker, was the FIRST Greek intellectual who translated Cato, Ovid, Augustine, Cicero, and Boethius from Latin into Byzantine Greek...in the 13th c.!
For comparison, the Indian Panchatantra had been already translated three centuries earlier, and the French La Geurre de Troie (Benoît de Sainte-Maure), in the 12th c CE.
Does that mean that the Byzantines before Planoudes read these works in the original language, or that it took a few hundred years for the curriculum to offer Latin studies 🤔?
Interestingly enough, on Mount Athos a Latin speaking Monastery was founded in the late 10th c. (985 or 990 CE) with Benedictine monks from Amalfi, Italy, known as Ἀμαλφηνῶν /ɐmɐlɸɛnɔ̂n/ (of the Amalfitans), between the monasteries of Karakallou and Great Lavra, that became the centre of Latin studies in the Eastern Roman Empire, but after the Great Schism of 1054 it immediately started degenerating until it became vacant a few decades later (its ruins still stand on the Athonite peninsula)
Well maybe the thinking was that those interested in Cicero should just learn Latin and study it in the original... I mean it took even longer for ancient Greek authors to get translated in the vernacular. Even circulating vernacular Greek translations of the Bible was largely taboo until the early 20th century, because for some people to translate the scriptures was to "corrupt" them...
Edit: By the way in what idiom were Planoudes' translations produced? My guess would be Attic?
@@ntonisa6636 Yes, he used a learned version of Medieval Greek, closer to Attic. In his various epistles and Mathematical treatises, he uses the vernacular of his time. BTW, Planoudes is the first Byzantine who introduced the numerals we use today, in the Empire. He even wrote a thesis about the Indo-Arabic numeral zero 0, which he called τζίφρα /d͡z̠ifɾɐ/ (f.) from the Arabic صِفْر /ʂifr/
@@apmoy70 pretty interesting stuff, thanks! And to imagine I scarcely even heard this guy's name before!
No, these and many other Latin documents have already been translated in Byzantium centuries before. These Greek translations were meant for the Catholics in Italy and the rest of western Europe, since they were also translated to Latin by Maximos Planoudes.
Request u to watch the most important and accurante arab series called "Omar series"
Omar was the second calip of islam. Theres a series based on him which has 30 episodes>It has english subtitles too
Omar the 2nd caliph was the one under whose leadership muslims captured entire middleeast,persia and north africa.
The series has shown very well the conflicts and battles between muslims and romans very well
Request u to watch it.
If u want link with subtitles ,i will share it to u
Sure, man. I think a lot of people mentioned it. I just didn't manage to find time to check it out yet.
@@RomabooRamblings alright thank u
La baja alfabetización del occidente romano tendría como consecuencia indirecta el surgimiento de las lenguas romances, como el castellano.
Greek has also changed significantly
This argument kinda confuses me since Heraclius and his father served as governors of North Africa and the latter wasn't known for its Greek speakers...
Rome 756BC-1461 AD
AUG.15 1461AD 09:45AM
Last roman emperor was David megalocomnenos
You have, once again, taught me more about Roman History than the American Public Education System ever has. Thank You
Admirable, no doubt, but well...no great standard to surpass...
ok, but you should trust school more than CZcams....
@@Sp-zj5hw - Generally true, but not always; depends on the school - depends on the CZcams channel.
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
Man I fucking love Heraclius so much. That guy was so awesome
It never made sense to me why someone who, with his father, governed Africa, a heavily Latin province, would be so opposed to speaking or using it
And yet he did it 😂😂😂
They were using Greek in the law schools by the "turn of the fourth century." (4:05) This is 300 or 400? From the context, 400 would make more sense.
The biggest mistake is the term Byzantine itself, it's so hard to find the beginning of the Byzantine empire because it never existed, Rome fell to the ottomans in 1453. A folk song of the time says: "Romanía was taken".
What a dumb thing to feel the need to comment. Everyone knows it wasn't called the Byzantine Empire. Everyone.
*While Heraclius may not have changed the official language of the empire from latin to greek, his reign was still an important milestone in Roman history, since it was during Heraclius' reign that the centuries long conflict between the Roman and Persian Empires ended and the centuries long conflict with the Muslims started.*
According to us Muslims, we say that Heraclius changed the language
I have never heard this
Until the entry of the Slavs into the Balkans south of the Danube around the year 600 and the establishment of the first Bulgarian state, the presence of a large number of Latin-speaking subjects/citizens was numerous north of the Haemus mountains/Balkans and north of the Danube, so the use of the Latin language was justified . After the occupation by the Slavs of the areas inhabited by these citizens who were called themselves "Romanus" and some of them became Romanians in time, the influence of Latin in Byzantium decreased along with the number of Latin-speaking citizens now separated from Constantinople by the first Bulgarian empire. When Bulgaria was reconquered around the year 900 (Macedonian dynasty), the empire was already Greekized. North of the Haemus mountains were the Slavs and the Latins/Romanians now reintegrated into the empire. Then, after two centuries, the revolt of the Romanians and Bulgarians against the empire took place and the Vlach-Bulgarian empire led by the Asan dynasty was created, composed of Romanians especially north of the Danube and Slavs south of the Danube up to the Haemus/Balkan mountains. After the Mongol invasion around 1250, the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire disappeared, leaving room for the Bulgarian principalities (majority Bulgarians) S. Danube and Romanian Country / Wallachia and N. Danube Moldova (majority Romanians). It should be noted that Greek speakers still considered themselves "Romanus" until 1700-1800 when the Hellenistic origins were rediscovered. The Romanians remained "Romanus".
The Byzantine ruling elite faced the outside world and its unending dangers with a strategic advantage that was neither diplomatic nor military but instead psychological: the powerful moral reassurance of a triple identity that was more intensely Christian than most modern minds can easily imagine, and specifically Chalcedonian in doctrine: Hellenic in its culture, joyously possessing pagan Homer, agnostic Thucydides, and ir reverent poets-though Hellene was a word long avoided, for it meant pagan; and proudly Roman as the Romaioi, the living Romans, not without justification for Roman institutions long endured, at least symbolically.
But until the Muslim conquest took away the Levant and Egypt from the empire, this triple identity was also a source of local disaffection from the ruling Constantinopolitan elite, for of the three only the Roman identity was universally accepted.
To begin with, the speakers of Western Aramaic and Coptic, who accounted for most of the population of Syria and Egypt, including the Jews in their land and beyond it, did not partake in the Hellenic cul ture-except for their own secular elites, which were organically part of the Byzantine regime and were indeed often attacked by nativists as "Hellenizers." For the rest, the masses either did not know that Homer ever lived, or were easily led by unlettered fanatical priests to vehe mently hate what they were too ignorant to enjoy.
Moreover, the zone that rejected Hellenism, as it had rejected the Roman habit of bathing as too sensual, also rejected the excessively intel lectual Chalcedonian definition of the dual nature of Christ, both human and divine, insisting on the more purely monotheistic conception of the single, divine nature of Christ.
Luttwak, E., 2011. Grand strategy of the byzantine empire. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard, p.410
In about 1440 John Argyropoulos wrote of the struggle for the freedom of ' Hellas ' in a letter addressed to John VIII as 'Emperor of Hellas'. We have come a long way from the days when the ambassador Liudprand of Cremona was thought unfit to be received at the Court because his credentials were addressed to the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. But 'Graeci' was never an acceptable term. George Scholarius, the future Patriarch Gennadius, who was to be the link between the old Byzantine world and the world of the Turcocratia, often uses 'Hellene' to mean anyone of Greek blood. But he had doubts about its propriety; he still retained the older view. When he was asked his specific opinion about his race, he wrote in reply: "Though I am a Hellene by birth, yet I would never say that I was a Hellene. For I do not believe as the Hellenes believed. I should like to take my name from my faith and, if anyone asked me what I am, to reply "a Christian". Though my father dwelt in Thessaly,' he adds, 'I do not call myself a Thessalian, but a Byzantine. For I am of Byzantium.' It is to be remarked that though he repudiates the name of Hellene he calls the Imperial City not New Rome or Constantinople, but by its old Hellenic name.
Runciman, S. (1970). IMPERIAL DECLINE AND HELLENIC REVIVAL. In The Last Byzantine Renaissance (The Wiles Lectures, pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In contradistinction to a Julian, an Alexander Severus, a Marcus Aurelius and even a Hadrian, who felt themselves more Greek than Latin, Justinian wished to be a Latin Roman Emperor. He was confirmed in these feelings by his horror of Hellen ism. A Roman Emperor, Justinian was also a Christian Emperor. He considered himself the pillar of the Christian orthodox faith. The Hellenic spirit is profoundly pagan and Justinian abominated it. For him, as for his contem poraries and successors, Hellene was synonymous with pagan and to call anyone by this term was to insult him. The Greek peoples themselves assumed the name Pauaio (Romans). Even to-day Romios is still used by the common people. Hellene is an artificial term revived in the nineteenth century. The capital of the Empire is called Roum by the Arab and Turkish peoples of Asia.
Lot, F., 2013. End of the Ancient World. Routledge.
Many diverse peoples and languages coexisted within the Byzantine empire (Laiou and Maguire (eds.) 1992), and although Greek was the language of government and high culture and the terms 'Hellene' and even 'Greek' were sometimes applied to themselves by educated members of the elite in Constantinople from the Comnenian period onwards (Stouraitis 2014), Byzantium was not a Greek empire and Greek was never the only language spoken. Nevertheless the Byzantines' sense of themselves rested on a shared mythology of universalism and superiority.
Linehan, P., Nelson, J. and Costambeys, M., n.d. The medieval world.
Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire
After its capital was established in the east, the empire became, in scholarly parlance, the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, because Constantine and all of his successors (except Julian the Apostate, 361 63) were Christians, the empire from here on can also be called the Christian Roman Empire. As a consequence of these two changes the Roman Empire had become the Byzantine. However, though used by scholars, none of these three names was used at the time. Though the empire had its center in a Greek cultural and linguistic area, as a result of which there followed a gradual hellenization of its institutions and culture, the emperors recognized no change. The empire remained the Roman Empire and the citizens (even though Greeks came to domi nate it) still called themselves Romans. The term Hellene (Greek) connoted a pagan. The term Byzantine was an invention of Renais sance scholars after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was never used by its contemporaries. By the middle of the seventh century Greek had become the official language of all spheres of government and the army; nevertheless the empire remained "Roman" and despite divisions of its territory at times it was always seen as a single unit. Essentially the Byzantine Empire was a combination of three major cultural components: (1) Roman in political concepts, administration. law, and military organization. (2) Greek in language and culture, and (3) Christian in religion.
Fine, J., 1991. The early medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, p.16.
I dunno if you'll see this, but I'm kind of curious if you'd be interested in doing a video on homosexuality in the Roman Empire?
I know it's a bit controversial, but most of pop discourse boils down to "lmao, the Romans were turbo gay until Christianity ruined it for everyone". I just sort of find it unconvincing that it was so utterly widespread and that their attitudes would magically shift from tolerant to super intolerant.
Also an aspect that I never see discussed is that the "gay emperors" phenomenon might well just be slander. A prominent example being Octavian being Caesar's "boy toy", or all of Tiberius' "depravity". Everyone acknowledges the fact that politicians are the ones that wrote the histories and were often at odds with emperors, so were prone to mischaracter them. However, I feel our tolerant modern society fails to recognise (or willfully ignores) through our modern lense, that homosexuality might have just been slander. Especially since it's not done in an outright abrasive fashion (like calling someone a f@gg0t), like it is today.
It would be interesting to see a truly unbiased and nuanced discussion, instead of just assertions (from either side), and based on your videos dispelling myths, I believe you could afford this topic the due diligence it deserves.
The first decent video I've come across discussing this from another angle is from Leather Apron Club, called "the Lie Told to Us About Our History", but that focuses a bit more on Classical Greece. This topic is obviously a sensitive minefield, but I love your stuff, so a video would be amazing!
"From all the laguages of the world, Hellenic is superior. You Italian what reason do you have to boast?" Theodore II Laskaris Emperor of the Romans.
@@TGeoMin ελα!! ελεος, μας τα ζαλισες
I think that it was accepted to be a top because you are seen as still a manly man but taking it up the butt diminishes your manliness and brings shame upon you and your family.
Latin was still quite spread in the Balkans within imperial borders until the Avar conquest. The best evidence for that are the Romanian, Aromanian and Dalmatian languages. Romanian still preserves "împărat" for "emperor", as an example of many. The Migration North of the Danube of many Romanian speakers, probably in the late 1st Millenium, the gradual Slavic assimilation of most the Balkans and of Southern-Danube Romanians and Dalmatians from the 7th century up until the 19th century and the Greek assimilation of Aromanians until the beginning of the 20th century diminished the influence of Latin in the territories of the former Eastern Roman Empire. However, Latin never disappeared from every day life, up until today. Even Albanian has very strong Latin influences and formed alongside Romanian in its Early Medieval History.
Yes north of the Haemus mountains in Moesia. But this actually boosts the romanity of Byzantium.
Heck, there’s some coins from the “Byzantines” still calling their nation the Roman Republic. Some things never change