Kadellis is an excellent speaker and writer but his thesis that the eastern Roman empire were "ethnic" Roman is nonsense. The precise reason the Holy Romans could claim to be the "real" Roman empire and other one Greeks was because Roman was not an ethnicity at the time. It was closer to saying one is British as opposed to ethnically Scottish. Kadellis claiming otherwise would be like Japan one day claiming they are the real Chinese empire. Its blatantly obvious the context of "Roman" was a highly contentious issue even back then but Kadellis bizarrely turned that into they were just ethnically Romans. Kadellis is a Greek version of Shlomo Sands. His narrative is in vogue for modern political reasons that have nothing to do with Eastern Roman history. i Many of the same sorts lied by claiming the former Yugoslavians are "ethnic" Macedonians against Greek objections. Now that the Slavs have turned into ancient Macedonians a boatload of patronizing bigoted evaders are trying to narrate Greeks out of their history to hide that mistake. They claim to speak for the past, and then lie in the present.

@@mydogsbutler Says the random Greek on the internet. Kaldellis, a distinguished professor of history who is well respected worldwide, having published numerous groundbreaking works, is well above your standing. I will trust his views over an internet rambo like you.

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173Pure persoanl attack. Way to avoid a countpoint. Very credible. I will believe antigreek trolls like you when you can report Greek events in your own lifetime truthfully. You know like when Greek hating frauds stop lying by claiming Slavs are "ethnic" Macedonians as they try to narrate themselves into antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period.

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 What is your ethnic background? Can you answer truthfully without lying?

Is a must read of how not to replicate

@@JerrySeriatos genius reply

Kalderllis book is a political book not a history book. He's obviously a leftist peddling his antinationalist politics under the veneer of being "scientific". (see Sokal Affair) For one, there is no universally accepted definition of "real' ethnicity in academia. So his claim that Greek-speaking Romans were "ethnically" Roman is his personal opinion, using ad-hoc analogy, as to what real "ethnic" means not some academic standard of what it means. He also has no clue whatsoever how biologically related Greek speaking Romans or modern Greeks are to ancient Greeks. As someone from the humanities he's not even qualified to have a professional opinion about it. For that one would need a population geneticist that have found, extracted and sequenced ancient Greek DNA to do a comparative analysis And there are giant holes in his "ethnic" theory of eastern Romans. The Holy Roman empire, clearly dramatically disagreed with Kalderllis modern revisionist history. They called the eastern Romans Greeks and claimed themselves the real Roman empire for centuries.. That clearly indicated the Holy Roman empire saw Roman to mean imperial authority not an ethnicity. And there were of course eastern "Romans" emperors that were from multitude of ethnic backgrounds which further illustrates Roman was closer to a citizenship than ethnicity in the east. . I would also add Kaldellis is so clueless as an academic he can't even tell Greek events in his own lifetime accuratately. The Former Yugoslavians turned into ancient Macedonians and promote irredentism right before his eyes, and he can't even notice that many of the foreign nationalist that ridiculously claimed them "ethnic" Macedonians unethically trying to whitewash their behaviour. He seems to be just trying to fit in with foreigners that called former Yugoslvians 'Macedonians" by peddling a rehash of the Fallmeyerer thesis.

@@mydogsbutler it doesn't matter what a bunch of German kings thought the eastern romans were. Ethnicity is self-determined.

@@NikeonaBike The holy Roman emipire self-determined itself the Roman empire not the German empire.

🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷

Dude, is History Byzantium the best historical podcast or what!? At first I was very interested in it because it continued where the History Of Rome ended, but man, it quickly turned into one of the most brilliant, in depth, thoughtful and well crafted narrative podcasts I ever listened to. Just outstanding.

That was awesome, thanks to both of you!

The same way most people have spouses they aren't really attracted to.

I could answer that for you. For the Medieval Romans, the term "Basileia" did not mean Kingship but Emperorship. It was a simpler way of saying "Autocratoria", and perhaps that is why it had aquired that meaning. When that happened, there was a new name designated for Kingship, as in describing the various polities ruled by Kings, built by the Germanics in Western Europe; the Kingdom was called "Rhegato" and the King was called "Rhegas", using an Ancient Greek word that cognated with "Regnum" and "Rex" respectivelly. For the Medieval Romans, they always had an Emperorship. This is how you end up with Medieval Romans saying in the 12th century AD that their system of government was identitical to that installed by Augustus, more than a millennium earlier (I do not remember the guys name who wrote this, perhaps Ioannis Kinnamos). Indeed, until the Fall of New Rome in 1453 AD, the Romans always maintained the Roman Republic and its institutions, albeit that it had been now for 16 centuries an Imperial one, where the Senate would appoint the Emperor, and would continuously approve him, and if not then he would be deposed (at least in theory). An Emperor was not a King, he was more like an elevated US President without terms, but one that had to govern in accordance to the Congress, inspiring worthyness, even if they would disagree (e.g. Senate petitioning to Maurice to send armies and funds to Italy, with him declining).

@@paulmayson3129 Thanks for your answer, but I fundamentally disagree with all of it. The first part is, while entirely valid, purely semantics about which word is used to describe autocratic systems of government that are, in practice, mostly equivalent. As for Republican institutions surviving in Rome: they definitely did during the Principate at least _de jure_ if not _de facto_ even as they faded in importance; during the Dominate they weakened further to the point of barely mattering; but by the time of Justinian they had either formally disappeared, had been transformed to ceremonial roles or, at best, become merely advisory. I fail to see how being "Like an elevated President that governs without congress" (and is also the supreme court) is anything but a King, or your favourite word for autocrat. Not absolutists - the administration didn't exist for that level of control - but autocrats all the same. My point is that Cicero's or Demosthenes' speeches would clearly be seen by anyone reading them (including the Byzantines) as being as much against a Byzantine Basileos as they were against a Macedonian King, a Dictator Julius Caesar, or a Marc Antony. That these people had different titles is immaterial, they all governed states (or attempted to) via some form of one-man rule, something that a great many classical authors very strongly condemned. So my question is: _"How did the Byzantines who read such authors react to seeing that political ideals of the ancients they admired differed so utterly from their own? Did they see them as naive? Did they view republics/democracies as an inferior mode of governance on the way to monarchy? Or did they view them as dangerous and subversive?'"_ The video talks about very similar questions in terms of changing religious ideals, but not political ones.

@@QuantumHistorian Indeed, you are right. The way I put it, as ""Like an elevated President that governs without congress" is wrong. My point was that the Roman Emperor, even in Medieval Period, was like a POTUS who had a Congress but who could overrule it at times in policy making, especially when he had the support to do that. But that was a very delicate balance, and if their policies were against the will of the whole of the Roman Senate, the Roman Emperor would be called to answer to the Roman Senate, such as Andronikos Komnenos, and even tried and executed. To be come a Roman Emperor one had to get the approval of the Roman Senate, to remain a Roman Emperor one had to maintain this approval, and if not then they were replaced. This is even more emphasised by how Demetrios Chomatenos, who crowned the Despot of Epirus Theodore Komnenos Dukas as Roman Emperor in Thessalonika in 1227 AD, and excused that appointment in spite of the appointment of Theodore and Constantine Laskaris by the Roman Senate in New Rome in 1204 AD, saying that with the Fall of New Rome in that year, the Roman Senate was scattered and then some senators went to Arta and others to Nymphaeum and Nicaea, so he backed the claim of Theodoros Komnenos Dukas as in that these Senators that went to Epirus elected him, nullifying the appointment of the Roman Emperors in Western Anatolia. I do not see why the Medieval Romans would have a problem with the ancient authors you mentioned. I mean, they did also record all the Polytheistic myths of their ancestors, since they valued their heritage, despite considering the ancient pagan gods as demons. And as for these ideas posed by these certain individuals, the Roman Empire apparently became more and more democratic with the passage of time (as a trend, at times it was more autocratic, others this situation was reverted, it depends with the dynasty and the century). We do know that they had urban assemblies, local parliaments and regional senates, which would sent representatives to the Roman Senate, which chose the Roman Emperor. The Roman Emperor was strictly connected as an office to the democratic/republican institutions of the Roman Senate, it was vastly different from the power held by the people Cicero or Demosthenes criticized; the Macedonian King was the equivalent of the "Rheges"/"Reges" of Western Europe, which for the Romans was the same thing with the institution of Roman Kingship they had abolished in 509 BC, while a Dictator Perpetuo (Dictator-for-life) was not far from that. In comparison to this, while it might be inaccurate, I would say that a Roman Emperor was more like a High Consul for as long as the Roman Senate approved him, usually for life for the sake of stability, and if they would have an approved successor with continuous approval, then that would form a dynasty (and indeed there were 15 dynasties in 'Byzantium' alone). But that is no different from dynasties within modern democratic states (not the best example, but think of how George HW Bush was the 41st POTUS and then George W Bush was the 43rd POTUS, so if the former had achieved two terms and then the latter had become president right after that with two more terms, instead of having Bill Clinton, with a daughter of the latter becoming president in 2004, that could be described as the Bush Dynasty). Here are some works in English that speak of democracy in Medieval Rome: >Krallis Dimitris "Popular Political Agency in Byzantium's villages and towns" >Christos Malatras "Social Structure and Relations in Fourteenth Century Byzantium" >Constantine N. Tsipranlis "Byzantine Parliaments and Representative Assemblies from 1081 to 1351" >Anthony Kaldellis "The Byzantine Republic"

@@Joe-po9xn As far as I remember, it's still pretty comparable in ancient times, save for wau/digamma getting lost over time and some grammatical forms antiquating. However, like you mention, pronunciation is very distinct and though it does possess some of the traits of the modern language, it would be hard for a modern Greek person to pick up on it instantly.

Ancient Koine Greek has slight changes in the pronunciation. Greek "Υυ" was like German ü, "Ββ" was more closer to the Spanish Bb and "Ηη" was like "ai" in the English word "air" or "heir" and "Χχ" like "ch" in English "character". It would have been understood by a modern Greek-speaker as Greek, but not without some hardship in doing so. The Greek around Homer's time would have sounded like a foreign language.

Kadellis book is word salad. He has no academic standards for his narratives of "real" ethnicity...What he's actually doing is peddling his leftist antinationalist politics under the veneer of scholarship by defining words in unprincipled ways to create a narrative that suits his politics. . Not only does he have no clue what ethnicity eastern Romans were he's not even scientifically qualified to have a professional opinion on the matter of their biology. I hate it when those in the humanities portray their personal opinions as "scientific" (see Alan Sokal; scathing review)

Great comment. However, do you think that Anthony's books do not circulate in Greek because the Greek public will not easily accept his theories? I see too much dismissal of Kaldellis's ideas by Greeks, mostly because the idea that their forebearers were ethnically self-identifying as Romans does not transfer over very well to their conceptualization of Greek ethnic continuation over the millennia. I have also observed that in Greece the term "Byzantion" and "Byzantinoi" is always preferred. It is very odd that the term "Romaios" is avoided by all means. I don't believe that this is coincidental.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w Most of his books do circulate in Greek with him doing all the writing, no translator getting involved which is always a plus. Romanland indeed hasn't been published, I can't say whether it's due to the author, the publishers or the audience. There's no doubt in my mind however that it's due to the unpleasantness of the topic as Roman ethnicity is indeed taboo amongst Greeks. There's a mix of ignorance of history, brainwashing and national chauvinism that stops most people from getting closer to the truth. The whole concept of ethnic continuation is debunked for all kinds of reasons but yeah, it's gonna take some time for the masses to come to grasps with it. Most Greeks have no interest in history and the few that do fall into the same fallacies whenever pressed. I routinely follow the Socratic method in this subject with a lot of success (frustrating them, not changing their minds). Their first defence is religion, I ask them isn't Christianity a Jewish branch off and wasn't the Roman empire that adopted and popularized Christianity? Their second defence is the language. Weren't half of the fighters against the Ottomans albanian speakers? Why are they then considered Greeks and not Albanians? The words used are not at all coincidental as Kaldellis explains in detail in his book. Most Greeks prolong this delusion without realising it but rest assured that there have always been people in key reasons that knew very well the truth, yet they hid it trying to perpetuate the lies. However, as the etymology of the Greek word for truth is αλήθεια=α + λήθη=not + forgotten, in this case at least, enough of the truth has been pieced together by honest intellectuals like Kaldellis so sooner or later it is bound to prevail.

Ακριβώς. Το ελληνικό κοινό, δυστυχώς, έχει εγκλωβιστεί σε μια ομφαλοσκοπική, σχεδόν αρχαιλοατρική εμμονή με την ελληνική "καθαρότητα" αποκομμένη τελείως από οτιδήποτε "ξένο", ανάλυση των Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας. Θα έλεγα οι διαλέξεις και οι εμμονές του Γιώργου Κοντογιώργη σε αυτό το θέμα έχουν παίξει κομβικό ρόλο σε αυτή την προσέγγιση...

Only "brilliant' to those that claimed former Yugoslavians "ethnic" Macedonians. They claim to speak for the Greek history than lie in the present.

@@mydogsbutler I didn't understand what you said, can you rephrase and expand a bit? I am not very knowledgeable in Yugoslavian history.

The Medieval Roman Empire was characterized by its spectacular societal movement. We have examples of people such as the House Xeros, who in one generation were mere soldiers who had elevated themselves to military offices, and two or three generations later you find them being theme-governors, provincial-governors, or even in New Rome, and some generations later as Praefectus Urbi. Such meteoric rises were not uncommon; we even know of so many examples of commoners becoming Roman Emperors (Zeno, Justin I, Basil I). In such an environment, there were no different perceptions of Romanness and Greekness among the "Roman nationals". Since the elite was not a distant and unapproachable, such as in France, it did not have its own national identity, separate from the rest of the populace.

@@paulmayson3129 Thanks for the reply. So it's safe to say there was indeed a relatively existent national character throughout most of the eastern roman period? I assume it might also partially include times when the empire was fractured, but to a lesser extent.

the Byzantine nobility neglected the Anatolian countryside and the empire's subjects there

Their education was a classical one, the ancient greeks were their ancestors, των ημετέρων προκατόχων παιδεία, the byzantine considered trains and Roman's as cruse to the point that westerners accuses them of not being really romans..

They knew about the ancient Greeks (Hellenes as they were called in Greek), and although they respected them, the byzantine Romans had striven to disassociate themselves with them since the Hellenes were pagans and thus anathema to the Christian Roman existence. Although the eastern Romans eventually all spoke Greek, they deemed themselves to be the descendants of the ancient Romans. It was not until the later 13th century that some of the Byzantine Romans began to argue that they were descendants of the Hellenes, as well as the Romans. So "Hellenism" was taboo in eastern Rome because of Christianity, and because of the Romanization that took place since 146 Before Christ.... over 1500 years, namely. The byzantine Romans read both ancient Hellenic and ancient Roman literature. They were truly the cultural offspring of the ancient world.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w "Although the eastern Romans eventually all spoke Greek, they deemed themselves to be the descendants of the ancient Romans. " You have no clue what millions of Romans in a multi-ethnic Roman empire all thought of their identity which we know varied. Eastern Roman emperor Leo the Armenian may have called himself Roman but clearly did not believe he descended from Romans or think of himself as "ethnically" Roman. . Empress Irene the Athenian may have called herself Roman but she saw ancient Greeks as her roots not "ethnically" Roman.. The attempt to frame easten Romans "Bynantines'.. or now magically "ethnically" Roman... is a patroizing, racist, attempt to decouple Greeks from ancient history. This became apparent when those that called the former Yugoslavians "macedoians" decided to lie in the present. They further effectively lied when they tried to whitewash the former Yugoslavians change into ancient macedonians. When someone lies to you in the present their natives on history become moot.

@@JerrySeriatos There is no such thing as a Byzantine empire They were Roman empire. Like the Holy Roman empire, it was a muliethnic empire. Who an eastern Roman were descended from depended which specific eastern Roman we are talking about. The Holy Roman empire for 800 years considered most of them as ethnically Greek. Today some revisonist historians try to claim they were "ethnically" Roman. The same "academics' also claimed former Yugosalvians are "ethnically" Macedonians. They are bigots full of sh-t. Their lack of following their own standards shows they are playing politics but pretending their motivations are purely academic.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w The term "Hellene" was taboo because of its association with paganism. From a cultural, linguistic and educational standpoint though. Hellenism was deep part of eastern Roman empire even though they called it "Roman".

Dude wtf did you stole Zelensky’s drug stash?

So like a mob boss

Yes

Well, at this time the population was roughly one third Turkish. The answer for the Greek-speaking population is yes, indeed, they did not yet call themselves Greek. They deemed themselves to be Christian Romans.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w What you'e left out their context of Roman did not mean "ethnic" Roman as Kaldellis falsely claims. Putting aside there are record of eastern "Romans' from different ethnic backgrounds, no original Latin Roman would have ever changed the primary language of the empire to Greek. it would be comical to see revisionist historian Kaldellis go back in time to tell the Holy Roman empire they were not the real Roman empire and that what they considered ethnic Greeks, for 800 years, were the "real' Roman empire.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w "We are Greek by genus as our language and education testifies" - 15th century eastern Roman philosopher Gemistos Plethon

The majority of the Greeks outside the newly-formed Greek state considered themselves as Roman Christians. There's this anecdote about a Greek contingent of Marines disembarking unopposed to an obscure Aegean island in 1912, and all they're encountered with is a bunch of kids who came to see...one of the Marines asked one of kids what did they come to see, what raised their curiosity and the boy said "the Greeks, we came to see the Greeks!" 'Aren't you a Greek?' Asked the Greek Marine back, "no", said the boy, "we're Romans!"

The term "Byzantine" is misleading, and it is still being used to deny that the Roman Empire was Roman after 476 AD. A quick look online will have you gain an understanding of what I mean. The public learns about the existence of the "Byzantine Empire" as if one truly existed, only later finding out that it was instead the Roman Empire's unbroken continuation. The term does have its uses, though. I like to refer to the Empire's music and philosophy as "Byzantine". In this way, it does provide a distinction between other timeframes of Roman history. Nonetheless, the term "Byzantine" is still being used as if the Empire is not Roman, and that isn't coincidental. Western European historians who have been controlling the narrative since 1600 AD intentionally want us to believe that there was a Roman Empire and a Byzantine Empire thereafter. It's only with the last few decades that some kind of unspoken movement has come about (thanks to the internet) where many folks insist on renaming this period Roman, and I can't blame them. The term Byzantine should be kept to a minimum, but it does have its usefulness in other ways.

As a Greek, i prefer easten roman empire as they called it Roman just like the Holy Roman did their own. I also think Kadellis is anti-Greek. He's a leftist trying to to fit in with foreign colleagues by offensively calling it Byzantine and former Yugoslavians "Macedonians". He's a Shlomo Sands of Greeks. And like shlomo sands appeals to antisemetes., Kadellis appeals to anti-Greek trolls that try to decouple Greeks from ancient Greek history. The same sorts lied through their teeth by claiming former yugoslavians "ethnic" macedonians. They don't even notice the aren't using the own definitions of "ethnic" consistently.

@@mydogsbutler Your biased opinion is irrelevant and you have no right to impose your modern Hellenic identity on the medieval Roman people just because it is unfavorable to you. Imagine a world where the English have a right to tell Americans that they are English because they speak English or one where the Italians can tell the ancient Romans that they were "Italians" because of Latin.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w You mean have no right to impose your pet definition on ethnic on others.. The easten romans were not "ethnic" Romans just because you assigned them the term ethnic in your modern context for your personal political objectives.. Even "Roman" Emperor Constantine was half Illyrian and half Greek not "ethnic" Roman despite calling himself Roman. Emperior Leo V, the Armenian was not "ethnic" Roman despite calling himself Roman. Irene the Athenian was not "ethnic" Roman. And so on. I would also once again point out the Holy Roman empire also did not consider the eastern Romans ethically Roman. They called them Greeks for centuries. I'm pretty sure they would have noticed they were not Greek if they didn't have a major Greek component. It's painfully obvious despite that both empires claimed to be Roman neither was "ethnically" Roman.

@@user-rq2ly4bf1w The fact remains. The Holy Roman empire insisted they were the real Roman Empire and the other one Greek. Anti-Greek polemists like you want to take the claims of one Roman empire at face value and then brush aside the claims of the other Roman empire. Not exactly consistent.

It is anti-social change or rather anti-disruption of existent hierarchies. It can accept technological development if it doesn't threaten culture. Teaching the same books is not a tenet of conservatism. New books that contain the same, similar or additional messages, which are compatible with established ideas, would too be taught.

In Kaldellis's vocabulary, conservative is a dirty word, which is funny since he's such an advocate of Byzantine history, one of the most conservative and rearward looking civilizations ever.

First question in the interview is literally about such a question being meaningless...

In this context what is modernity anyway?

Probably the other way around, the westerners became more..moderns after coming in touch with the byzantines