/lit/ - Literature

where do you study?

>>1379686

Tripping.

Tell me something interesting about Byzantine. Something that will really blow my mind.

Why did you throw your life away by studying useless shit ?

>>1379689

I should have put this in my initial post: The academic world is small, especially for Byzantine studies, and I'd like to remain private, here.

Similarly, I won't give too specific answers about my research.

>>1379697
about the byzantine empire*
derp

>>1379705
>ask a byzantinist anything
>i'm not going to answer any of your questions

hurr

>>1379702

Here I am answering a troll…

I won't argue its utility with you; I won't convince you. Instead, in true 4chan style:

>I get to do what I love and don't need to worry much about my income.
>umad.jpg

So what are you, some kind of hard core neo-classical modernist? Bow down before the wesern cannon -- Pound fof breakfast and Yeats for lunch?

>>1379713

Like I said, I should have said, "I won't answer personal questions." Sorry.

Roman empire, you motherfucker, or Rhomanía or if you want eastern roman empire.

Now i've a question for you: What well-known imperial gens of the old empire survived the fall of the western roman empire?

You didn't answer my question you niggertitted daffodil.
>>1379697
>>1379704

>>1379727

Pound of Eliot, but yeah.

Well, I think there are important developments in Byzantine theology/philosophy (there really isn't much of a distinction for most of the period, at least how we think of it) that bear on problems–epistemological and theological—modernity inherits from the Latin tradition. This is, in its broadest possible terms, what I'm interested in.

I dabble in military history, but it isn't something I'll ever publish anything more about than brief articles for wargamers.

>>1379739

I think I got this comment last time, too. Yes, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans. It's still the general term for the academic discipline. I don't make the rules, and I hate it when people are a bore about them.

Anicia is the one I can think of immediately. Boethius was of that family and there was a consul in Constantinople in the mid–6th century, IIRC. I realize you're wanting to authenticate my claim, here, but you're also going to have to realize that specialization means people aren't always going to know the same trivia as you.

>>1379686
How much did your empire contribute to the Renaissance? I was under the impression that although they were the direct inheritors of Rome they spent the dark ages herping and left preservation to the Muslims. Which is contradictory, because I've also heard the Byzantines were the pinnacle of the aesthetic society. So did they just not care about passing anything on?

>>1379741

I'm only answering your request for subjective thrills because of your creativity in cursing.

I really hate these questions. I've spoke a couple of times to the classes of my old high school Latin teacher, and inevitably some kid goes, "TELL ME SOMETHING REALLY COOL." And I say, "I dunno, dude, what are you interested in?" It's always been warfare, so I give a brief sketch of Heraclius's campaign against the Persians. If bringing an entire empire to its knees and re–capturing the True Cross doesn't BLOW YOUR MIND, I'm sorry.

What possible outcomes could the marriage of Charlemagne and Irene have produced? Could the East and West ever have really been reunified?

Which Rome is the best Rome: Constantinople, Rome, or Moscow

if a dude(u but with training in military technology) from 2010 went back in time to be a byzantine emperor when they were getting owned by the turks, can u conquer the world?

how much pussy do you get with bycantine studies?

>>1379765

The Byzantine contribution, both on its own and through Venice is, I think, traditionally underrated. They certainly did transmit texts, and the "classical" Greek literature remained a cornerstone of elite education throughout the empire.

For one really clear example, there is a direct lineage for the revival of Neoplatonism in the West through Plethon through Ficino to the Florentine renaissance at large.

>>1379758
I really want to know if gens like claudii, julii, cornelii, etc survived as a family in the eastern empire, or the western culture died with the decadence and death of the empire?

>>1379782

I really doubt a marriage between the two would have effected anything beyond their own lives. The court culture at Constantinople was already independently minded with its own interests that weren't really served by re–integrating what were now barbarian backwaters. I don't disagree that this could have been short–sighted, but that's kind of the depressing part about Byzantine history, being consistently undone by the aristocracy to later disaster.

Irene occurs after Greek had been the language of administration in the East for about two centuries; the cultural divide was wholly set at this point, which you can see really clearly in the ways the iconoclast controversy was understood in the West. (Even the current pope claims the West has never fully understood the 7th Ecumenical Council.) By the Crusades, you can really see how deep that cultural schism had become, but I think it was already there in the 8th century.

Also, I vote Constantinople. It had the most staying power.

>>1379785

Only my wife, but I get it a lot.

>>1379784

Haha. Yes, because if I still can't beat the Turks, I take my mass-produced rifles to the New World and build a new empire there and re–build. Because I have the advantage of knowing where it is, and where the gold is. (Take that, Spain.)

>>1379799

Most of the major gens die off within a few decades of the fall of Rome, in what is left of the Roman empire. A lot of the senatorial families remained in old Rome and continued to be prominent there, I think, but I don't know which ones and for how long.

I just IM'd a friend who'd know better than me and he said of the families you name, the Julia survive in Constantinople until at least the 600s.

>>1379833
nice

How much did living in the middle ages suck compared to today?

>>1379849

Sure, antibiotics, A/C, toliet paper and the internet are pretty awesome, but you'd be surprised how nice life in Constantinople would have been, especially before 1204.

In a sense beyond the material, I think there is something to be said for the difference in quality of life in living in a self–confident civilization compared to one like ours.

Have you read Robert Graves's novel about Byzantium, "Count Belisarius"? I was just wondering if it was worth reading, since I thought his historical novels about Rome (I Claudius & Claudius the God) and about Roman Judaea (King Jesus) were actually pretty interesting and well-done, but not knowing anything about Byzantine history, I never looked into the one about Belisarius. Just wondering if you read it.

>>1379739
when did they put an "h" in romania?

>>1379869
Interesting. So people didn't live as long, but they were happy (unless they were of the lower class perhaps)?

>>1379869
>>self–confident civilization

Could you elaborate on that? What made them self-confident?

>>1379892

I've seen people give life expectancy as high as the late 60s, but the early 50s is more likely. If I'm wrong and they're right, however, you'd only be looking at 5-10 more years nowadays, and at an age most persons don't accomplish a lot.

I don't think it's as much about happiness but about a lack of the sort of uncertainty we have.

>>1379890

That's just a transliteration convention. Ῥωμανία -> Rhomania.

>>1379884

No I haven't. I've really wanted to ever since I heard about it, but I haven't got my hands on a copy, yet. As far as I know, it's out of print, and I wish the publisher would at least release a Kindle version.

>>1379697

Some of their elite soldiers, the Varangians, were originally comprised from Vikings.

I like you, OP. You're doing what you love and that makes me happy, even if I'm not able to do the same.

>>1379884
I was about 12 when I read I Claudius and was so impressed with that oracular poem at the beginning that I got out of bed and bothered my parents about HOW AWESOME IS THIS? ...so yeah.

Anyway OP, thanks, this looks like a good thread. What's a good introduction to Byzantium - is John Julius Norwich still the man?

>>1379918

We're pretty unsure about the worth of our civilization or its actual foundations. For the Byzantines, this was clear: The Orthodox faith, Roman rule/law and Greek culture were all clear sources. While they wouldn't have thought of themselves as "superior" (they, like the medieval Latins, retained that ancient belief in the superiority of those who came before them), they wouldn't have had the sort of doubts about their legitimacy or the fundamental philosophical questions that we do. This is caricature, but I think there is something to it, as well.

What were the Byzantines? Greeks pretending to be Romans or Romans pretending to be Greeks?

>>1379958

Norwich isn't very scholarly, but he's so much fun, I can't think of anything better, especially that tries to be comprehensive for the whole history of the empire. Norwich doesn't go much into theology, which is so much a part of Byzantine culture (and this is his major weakness), but the writing is really exciting.

The Cambridge History would be the scholarly alternative, but it has the disadvantage of being like two hundred dollars.

Out of curiosity, I read that mass–market "Lost to the West" book one day last summer, and it was pretty much just Norwich condensed, without the good prose. (Speaking of Norwich love, his history of Venice is better, I think.)

>>1380008

They wouldn't have understood the question.

>>1379989
Hm. So they were placed at the opportune moment in history, the perfect number of years after Greece?

>>1380012
Elaborate please.

I think one of the most fascinating things about Byzantium was that it's last emperor's name was "Constantine".

Also, OP Count Belisarius is still in print; it's a Penguin edition, but it's like £15.99 or something. I'd say try to find a second hand one.

>>1380025
I think what he's getting at is that neither label fits well and neither is how they thought of themselves.

What do you think was the biggest reason, or maybe a few reasons, that their empire fell? Was the 4th Crusade really what killed any chance of them fighting off the Turks, or was it inevitable?

>>1380045

Well it's commonly assumed that they called themselves "Romans".

The term Byzantine is a Western appellation from the enlightenment or thereabouts and means "Complicated" or "Complex" or something, and is a more fitting title, but not one they'd use themselves.

>>1380025

We think of these things in opposition because of Papal/Latin views that saw the "West" as the true successor of Rome and because we traditionally underestimate the degree to which Greek culture /was/ an integral part of Roman culture, especially by the 2nd century. Gibbon is also obviously to blame here, as well, but it is more likely that a Byzantine would think being Greek (as we mean it, the word "Hellene" often was code for "pagan" in Byzantine literature) was part of "Romanity".

>I think one of the most fascinating things about Byzantium was that it's last emperor's name was "Constantine".

Seriously? Because the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire was Romulus Augustulus, which has always seemed to people like the sad far-off echo of the grandeur of Rome at its height (and recollecting its official founding under the mythical Romulus, and the imperial re-founding under the rule of Augustus---replacing the traditional 2-man consular form of republican government). Having the first and last names of the Byzantine emperors be "Constantine" has an equivalently nice symmetry about it. I hope there were still neoplatonists around at that point to appreciate the Yeatsian fearful symmetry in that.

>>1380069

I know. Shit's freaky
It's also one of the reasons history keeps me hooked :D

>>1380010
Thanks. That's a really kind thing to say about a history book.

Next: Greek Fire. I understand the usual view is that it was refined naphtha.Is that right? Do you agree? Also, what was Plato's status in Byzantium? And have you read "The Dragon Waiting"? (If not, it's Richard III vs. Byzantium-backed Henry Tudor, with vampires.

>>1380071

Well the other way to look at it is to say: Politics is always, to some extent, a species of Performance Art. It's precisely at the moment when having an Emperor has become purely symbolic that it attempts to lure you in by means of symbolism get particularly heavy-handed.

>>1379925
the more you know!

>>1380052

Poor leadership and bad luck. The first of those is really apparent in the period around the Crusades, and the second throughout their history. The Paleologoi were generally decent emperors, though more vision—especially during the period of Ottoman strife in the early 1400s—could have saved the Empire, at least for a time. However, the 4th Crusade was pretty decisive, for sure.

We tend to think of the Ottomans as one of the great historical inevitabilities of the Early Modern period, but they really didn't get that force until /after/ the fall of Constantinople.

>>1380069

There were still Neoplatonists around, see the mention of Plethon above. But in another sense, Neoplatonism is part of the Byzantine culture, through its role both in theology and in philosophical instruction in its academies (try to understand Maximus or Palamas without understanding Plotinus or Iamblichus). Plethon was just particularly Neoplatonic in exclusion to Christianity.

Also fantastic is the legend that Constantine XI secretly survived and will come again to defend the Roman people.

>>1380061

Byzantine was derived from the original name of the settlement where Constantine founded New Rome: Byzantium (Βυζάντιον). But yes, it has taken on the meaning of baroque, complicated, treacherous or dark.

>>1380080

I should add something about Norwich: It's obvious he really loves Byzantium, even if that love was born out of his love for Venice. It adds a color to the work which also helps it overcome its shortcomings.

As for Greek fire: I don't have a clue. To me, what's even cooler than the composition is the fact that they deployed it through pressure hoses, more like an antique flamethrower than the flung pots most people imagine.

>>1380080

Image for added effect.

I have never heard of that, but it sound like something my wife would read, heh.

>>1379744
> important developments in Byzantine theology/philosophy (there really isn't much of a distinction for most of the period, at least how we think of it) that bear on problems–epistemological and theological—modernity inherits from the Latin tradition.

(1) By 'modernity', do you mean modern philosophers or something more general? Presumably philosophers don't necessarily inherit theological problems.

(2) But it's conceivable that modern philosophers are thinking about epistemological problems rooted in the Latin tradition. Care to give an example of some Byzantine epistemology that a contemporary philosopher would care about?

(3) Fuck your shit for being done so early, I won't be done until January.

>theology/philosophy

How connected are they? Are they so connected that an atheist would find nothing of value in Byzantine philosophy? More specifically, is God's existence or properties or behavior frequently used as an uncontroversial premise in an argument?

why didn't they produce great artists. (or who were the great artists they had)

really enjoyed this thread, thanks

I've got some questions:

1. Did Belisarius' campaigns in North Africa do more to 'destroy' it than 'save' it and eventually make it easier for Arabs to conquer it? I was reading a bit from a book in the 1800's in which the author argued that a Vandal state would have been a stronger defense against the Arabs.

2. How was the Sassanid empire so easily able to conquer Eastern Roman lands and why was it even easier for Heraclius to curb stomp them? How did large chunks of lands be gained and lost so quickly?

3. Why didn't the Eastern Roman simply conquer the Persians during Heraclius' wars? Did they simply see them as too differently culturally? Were they single-minded in wanting only former Roman land?

4. How did the Venetians gain such power over trade in Constantinople? This was the circumstance which led to the Latin Massacre, and later to the Fourth Crusade.

5. How did the Ottoman Turks gain control of Gunpowder before the city centered on the crossroads between Europe and Asia? Was it possible for there have been a point in history where the Eastern Romans could have learned to use Gunpowder?

So how does if feel to be the REAL holy Empires clearly inferior bitch? pic realated its FREAKING CHARLEMAGNE..... now grow up and be a real Catholic

>>1380222
When Charlemagne was learning his first words, children in Constantinople were debating Plato. Your words are moot.

>>1380222
When Charlemagne was learning to wire his first words, children in Constantinople were debating Plato. Your words are moot.

>>1380161

(A) I mean something more broad, but philosophers certainly inherit theological problems. Even in the empiricist tradition, there are theological problems which ultimately underly it. It's more obvious in continental philosophy, where theological problems remain part of the conversation, even among atheists.

(B) Byzantines didn't talk about epistemic problems in the same fashion, because it wasn't seen as necessary. However, I think Byzantine discussion of the type of faith is really important in a Western tradition which assumes (like Aquinas) that it is an epistemic category–cum–virtue, rather than an experiential category.

I'll also answer your last question: They just weren't seen as separate in the same way we think of them, or when they were it was because theology was a category of experience from prayer, or about the interior life of the godhead, as opposed to philosophy which retained an independence in the academies it didn't have in the West. There is no concept of philosophy as "handmaid" like the Latin tradition had it, so the foundational modern efforts to free philosophy from theology would have been seen as redundant if the remnants of Byzantium weren't busy being occupied by the Turks.

A good modern effort to bring Byzantine insights into play on metaphysical questions is David Bradshaw's "Aristotle East & West", especially his section on Maximus the Confessor.

>>1380222
When Charlemagne was learning to write his first words, children in Constantinople were debating Plato. Your words are moot.

>>1380010

Not the guy who asked the question, but assuming you're talking about 'Byzantium' vols 1/2/3 then thanks!

If theology is what Norwich leaves out, do you know what book would be best as a kind of supplement to cover that ground? I can do 'scholarly', but would be limited by not knowing too much about the time and place (or perhaps this limitation would be neutered after reading Norwich).

This is us true Catholics taking your city back from pagans.... YOUR WELCOME! pic related

My brother does byzantine studies (in Mainz) and has an awesome job in one of the western culture charities. what are your prospects and expectations, op?
also, where are you? ru perchance my brother?

I wrote extensively on Hispania under the Roman Empire, predominantly during the times of the Princeps, but also including the Visigothic Kingdom and Justinian's reconquest of Southern Hipsania in Baetica and Terraconensis.

What I'm curious about is this: do you have any insights into the longterm ramifications of Justinian's attempt at reconquering the Western Roman Empire on the Byzantines?

I've often seen and studied what he accomplished with his reconquering, but not what effects this had on the Byzantine's themselves. Did it help or hurt their Empire in the short/long term and why?

>>1380189

1. One thing about history: Hindsight /isn't/ 20/20. I think it's perfectly possible, because decentralized states defend themselves better in many cases, but I think the destruction of the Persians had more to do with it.

2. The importance of fortifications waxes and wanes a number of times in history. Probably students a thousand years from now will be confused as to why the Germans were stalemated in Northern France for years in World War One, but then came and conquered the country in a few months less than twenty–five years later.

In any case: There weren't troops enough to defend the territory and the Persians came hard. Heraclius was a tactical and operational genius, which helped in his counter–attack, along with dividing the Persian generals against themselves. Significant armies were kept out of the field.

3. They had a hard time defending what they had at that point. Taking on more territory wouldn't have made them richer or more secure, so destroying the Persians made more sense than trying to conquer them.

4. Like so much in medieval and early modern history it was all about raising funds. They didn't have the fund–raising powers of modern states, so privileges were granted to Venice in exchange for loans or cheap fleet "rentals", etc.

5. Huh? Gunpowder was in common use by pretty much everyone in the west by the 15th century. The Turks themselves relied on Western European expertise to build their canon, some of which had also been employed by the Byzantine rump.

>>1380239

John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology" is a standard introductory text to the themes and terms. It doesn't go as much into the historical impact, and stops short of the hesychast controversy, but is still probably the best short introduction.

Theology isn't Norwich's only problem, he's essentially an old–school historian— a lot of names and faces and dates and battles accompanied by colorful judgment and assumption. But, like I said: Fun.

>>1380262

I hopefully have a job teaching once I'm done with my doctorate, as long as the dean at a certain school lives. I would not recommend navigating the academic job market without connections. I'm in the US, currently. Thinking of going abroad for a couple of years or so soon, though.

>>1380274

The obvious impact is what control of the papacy meant in the context of the theological situation and the ability of the Pope to provide an ideological check on the Franks until the Byzantines lost the city. But, really, that's just something more obvious (to me), and I think your question is really fascinating and I would love to see something done on it.

>>1380275
Thanks for the answers and the clarification regarding the gunpowder question. I'm just confused as to the weapons used during the late years of the Eastern Romans. I was under the impression the Ottomans had early use of the Arquebus Rifle, and that the West didn't get them until later. I know the Eastern Romans used Cannons, and Orban even offered his services to them.

>>1380230

Philosophy question person here. Sorry, didn't notice your reply. Thanks for it.

Your second and third points seem fine and interesting to me. I think there's definitely a connection to medieval Latin philosophy.

Your first point- that philosophers have theological problems- is going to run you into a lot of trouble if you say it in a talk for modern analytic philosophers, but maybe you'll never have to do that, so you're fine. I really think it's just flatly wrong, but if you can think of some *particular* theological problems that an atheist contemporary philosopher has to deal with, I will think about them.

>>1380275

I've really enjoyed some great literature from the Roman empire (Ovid, Cicero etc). Which Byzantine authors' work would you recommend?

This is why 4chan needs a history board

>>1380315

My undergrad training was in a analytic philosophy department. I'm perfectly conversant in that area. But it doesn't mean there aren't theological questions that helped lead to the rise of empiricism, and thus the analytic tradition.

You're right that your average analytic undergrad will get angry, but I have good (atheist) friends in analytic doctoral programs who don't disagree with me on this, they just disagree on the fact that there could be better answers that avoid the incoherencies that arose in the Latin view of the deity.

>>1380318

The Alexiad of Anna Commena will probably be the thing you'll find the most enjoyable.

>>1380318

Procopius, especially the Secret History

>>1380320

I don't disagree. The boards I frequent here are /sci/, /g/ and this one, and /lit/ was the obvious place for this. And a history board would be better than a /ph/ for philosophy, because that would have even more of the Ayn Rand crap and "philosophy tier" trolls that clog up this place.

In the fifth century would enter one of the first well recorded diplomatic relationships. Amorkesos was a prominent Ghassānid Arab chief who, after once being allied with the Persian Empire severed his relations with them and came west. Once there, on the coast of the Mediterranean, he began to bring the other Arabic tribes of the area under his control. After a short period of establishing supremacy, he became bold enough to attack the Byzantine island of Iotabe and ejected the tax collectors to reap the wealth for himself. Having won many military battles in the unstable region, he sues for peace with Emperor Leo, illuminating that his true purpose had most likely been to negotiate a client treaty with the Byzantines. The status of supreme phylarch over the foederati was a role held in high esteem by the Arab leaders of the time, a position that garnered a higher amount of legitimacy than military successes against other Arab groups. The account is recorded by Malchus of Philadelphia, a historian and contemporary of the period, of which this is a small portion translated into English to introduce the situation:
"Amorkesos wished to become an ally of the Romans and phylarch of the Saracens [a term used generally for Arabs] under Roman rule on the borders of Arabia Petraca. He, therefore, sent Peter, the bishop of his tribe, to Leo, the Roman Emperor, to see if he could persuade Leo and arrange these things. When Peter arrived and spoke to the Emperor, Leo accepted his proposals and immediately sent for Amorkesos to come to him."

So the pope is ok with you guys pretending to be Catholic so long as you dont cuase any problems right? be good pic related

>>1380329

Thanks very much. I like the sound of both of them.

>>1380165

I overlooked this one!

It's a good "bad" question.

Simply put: The cult of the artist which really begins in the Italian renaissance was never part of Byzantine culture. There was certainly great Byzantine art, as recent exhibitions here in the US can show you. But the individual persona of the artist behind it was not what was important, and they tended to be forgotten. It does not help that for Byzantium's greatest artistic achievement, iconography, anonymity was protected as a norm.

>>1380456

I should add that naturalism and even perspective shows up in iconography early enough to where some scholars wonder if the Byzantines granted it to the Italians rather than vice–versa.

>>1380302
Thanks for the nice response :>

Great thread, homie. Love a good history discussion.

what music did they make

Do you think it's possible that the recipe for Greek Fire will ever be recovered, or could the knowledge have really completely disappeared in one of the coups?

Or, is it possible that "Greek Fire" never was what so many historians think it was, and the reason it's never been replicated is because unreliable history has confused the issue?

>>1380501

A lot of church music survives! I'm really fond of St John Koukouzelis's compositions. That said, I don't know as much about what we know or don't know about their secular music.

>>1381319

That was me.

>>1380527

See: >>1380123

I think we're generally on about our assumptions about what it was and how it was used, there is just too much information.

Do you know a lot about Byzantine archaeology or do you try to stick to written history?

>>1381324

I pretty much stick to written history as my primary interests are in philosophy and theology.

I would love to do a field season, though, just because. I have a degree in geology in addition to my philosophy degree and took some anthropology field classes as an undergrad. Who knows. I'm open for what works and what's fun. (My wife has actually done archeological work professionally and is also a fan of this idea.)

Oh, you're still here lol.

Do you think there was a succesor state for the roman empire? Like they felt when the western empire fell

>>1381335

Yeah, I'll stick around until the thread 404s, I get bored or Christmas overwhelms me.

The Muscovites saw themselves as the successor to the Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople. In a different way, so did the Turks.

>>1381362
And the holy roman empire, but i was asking your opinion about that.

In my senior thesis paper on literature in Medieval Europe I absolutely fell in love with the Alexiad. However, considering Anna's circumstances (especially at the time she wrote it) how much of it was complete bullshit?

Also, do you believe (as I do, after reading the aforementioned) that the Byzantines at that point in time identified more closely with their Turkish enemies than they did their European "allies"?

>>1381744
That last question is an interesting one. Bumpan

>>1381744

Good questions.

1. I think, as she mostly writes about what she is in a good position to know about, we can consider her a good source. It isn't ‘high’ history, but it isn't Procopius, either.

2. No matter how disgusted the Byzantines were by the Franks, they were still Christians, if maybe heretics. The Turks were strange, stranger than the Arabs, and immediately dangerous. Things definitely changed later, with people preferring the Sultan to submission to Rome, but that happened under very different contexts than the First Crusade.

>>1381384

This is pretty broad. What about it?

So, I think I grasp the pronunciation of Byzantine, but what about Byzantinist?

I always liked hearing about Byzantines influence on early Russian development. You can almost see how the ground work of Byzantine style of doing business still postulates through Russian political theory and practice to this day. From Czars, through soviet period and even to corporate mafia state under Putin.

Byzantines were no joke. Most underrated Empire by far. I'd probably rank them slightly behind Mongols for reasons I won't get into except to say that it's easy for us to revise history with our own morales or beliefs. Genghis Khan is direct descendant to over 8%~ of the entire Asian land mass. Never in history has one man had such a large effect on shaping the world, and that's nothing to scoff at.