Timeline in the Making - Survival of the Byzantines

The Eastern Roman Greeks did not like to use the term Greek, Hellenic, or Hellenistic. They called themselves Romans, then later they acknowledged that their language was Greek, and that they were Greek Orthodox Christians, but they still called themselves Romans, as they saw Greeks to be ancient gay pagan barbarians.

True with one exception, they knew they were speaking Greek.

Also Orthodox Christianity was there all the time. Attaching the word Greek to it only came about after: a) some former Orthodox Christian communities entered into a Union with Rome b) more and more new non-Greek-speaking autocephalous Orthodox Christian Churches emerged. But by that time, Greek nationalism was already underway.
 

Don Grey

Banned

Im going to start from the bottom this time.

I think you have misunderstood me. I wasnt claiming you or scholars were doing plagiarism. I was never trying to say that. Im just saying it was easyer to connect the two then analyze them as two seprate things maybe. Then nationalism comes into play here. When i say nationalism im not saying your a nationalist or the greeks that belive this are nor am i saying the most of the scholars that say this are.Am saying these are by products of the effects of natioanlism in the past. Side effects if you want to call it.History doesnt always show the true picture most of the time its the image shown by victors or authers. As the things that nationalist have said in the past in a moment of self importantance or senceless pride tend to replace the truth of what it actualy was.As i gave example of that on the eastern romans and the ottomans and where it originaly stems from. Might i add i have enjoyed this debate as you seem to have extensive knowladge on the subject. Your understand of greek langauges general knowladge of the roman empire (united and split versions) plus you command of turkish is impressive when it all comes in one package. So im not accusing you of anything.

What we dont seem to agree on is your implying that hellenistic culture had an extensive influence on the eastern romans to a point that it was a hellenic/hellenistic empire. While what you see as extensive i view as mearly astheatic or cosmetic in its aclaimed extensiveness. Yet you do agree with the perfound effect christianity had on the eastern romans along with effecting there mentality and identity this only strengthins my point. The rest of the info and factoids you give while true are irrelevent to the matter at hand as i have clearly stated that the eastern romans didnt not consider thems selves greeks hellens or hellenistic (chose which ever one you like) as an identity nor culturaly. There is a huge gap of understand between the two thus making the claim that rum medeniyeti/eastern roman civilization is interchangable with hellenic/hellenistic civilization false. As the similarities between the to are few and far in between. And i dont think were going to agree on this as it has turned into a matter of perception. But my point still stand i do not agree that the eastern romans/byzantins were niether greek nor hellen nor hellenistic toa point worth mentioning. As the influences that made the eastern romans were very divers with the largest portion of influence stems from christianity. And abrahamic religions in general tend to kill any culture that conflicts with its dogmas that came before it. The term Rum are and were used as being interchangable with christian orthadoxy for the greatest length in time of its existance as it is still used to day in turkey (but not for the greeks in greece proper). Its however not interchangable if any form of hellenism of any kind with good reason. Though do feel this debate has started to get pointless and im very eager to see you TL. I think you should just start on that now.

As for the remark on democracy was wide spread in classical greek era and part of there culture seem to be some what false aswell. New research of classical greek era (minus the romantisizing of it) shows that classical greece wasnt exactly what we pictured it to be. So would like to direct your attention to the link below its and artical posted on this site by one of our memebers you might find it intresting.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=172141

The Eastern Roman Greeks did not like to use the term Greek, Hellenic, or Hellenistic. They called themselves Romans, then later they acknowledged that their language was Greek, and that they were Greek Orthodox Christians, but they still called themselves Romans, as they saw Greeks to be ancient gay pagan barbarians.

Or this is another simple way of explaining it.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, by the way of Hellenism, and to bring back focus from real history on what I'm going to write in my imaginary timeline, here's the national flag of the modern nation of Bactria.



Of course the Flag of the Empire of the Romans will involve a Double-Headed Eagle. But That's in the process of being done....

Don Grey, I was merely being a smart ass with the plagiarism thing I get what you're saying -- it's the modern Greek view of diachronicity of the Hellenic culture and countless others incorporated that into their timelines on these forums. So don't take that too serious.

But it is my view that nothing's new under the sun so to say. But I did nuanced my view on the Hellenistic component of the Byzantine culture.

As for the democracy thing, plese understand this: I dislike democracy and the idea of parliamentary supremacy repuses me. What I like is a republic - a mixed system of government where you have the demos, the aristocracy and an administration headed by one man, all exerting some influence on running the state. Kind of what the Roman Republic was supposed to be. Kind of what Cicero and Polybius (a Greek historian of the Hellenistic Period - but this guy was really Greek, he was from Arcadia) advocated. And kind of what Jefferson, Madison and co. tried to do within the U.S. Constitution. Believe you me -- I would not like living in Ancient Athens any more than in Ancient Sparta, I'd be banished like Aristoteles or condemened like Socrates. I don't idealise Classical Greece and I don't even idealise the Hellenistic civilisations.

What I do idealise and I am aware of this and of its faults, but I can't help it, is the Christian Greek-speaking Empire of the Romans. Though politically I wouldn't fare much better if I ever lived in those times and places either, with my libertarian views and such.
 
Last edited:
Postponing

Sorry for the double post.

I've been quite busy so I'm hereby postponing/giving up this timeline.

However, the good news is that, alongside the real life concerns that took up my time, one of the things I've been busy with is cooking up a framework for a new timeline. In this one 1204 still happens and the Ottomans still happen. However, several factors produce a different demographic reality in the 15th and 16th century. So in the 17th or early 18th century a benevolent power (but not Russia) will set up a "revived" Byzantine Empire in parts of a defeated Ottoman Empire (including the City).

Bactria might also feature (in a minor non-influencing-non-butterflying way, as I inteded for her in my now postponed Byzantine survival timeline)
 
Top