Medieval Roman Empire history is quite simply the most fascinating story you can find in history books. For those wanting a fantastic telling of the story of Rome after the fall of the west, I can’t recommend Robin Pierson’s “History of Byzantium” podcast enough. It’s a chronological telling of the story of medieval Rome from the fall of the west to 1453. I listen to that and supplement it with Kaldellis’ excellent podcast, which isn’t a chronological narrative but rather a series of professional and scholarly interviews between Kaldellis and other experts of medieval Roman history.
Just discovered Dr Kaldellis (2023, March) and I would crawl over flaming coals to attend his classes, and my god why wasn’t there someone like this when I was in grad school??? (Late 90’s) I recall asking (once) for courses on something other than Augustian Rome, something like Celtic Europe, post Roman Europe, the Germanic ‘tribes’ and gasp … Byzantium! The professor (also the one designated to nurture the grad students) stares at me with wordless shock. Perhaps it was the Celtic aspect (“they had no culture, no literature, nothing!”) perhaps it’s was the mention of Germanic tribes being treated with wretched disregard, but I was told later the death knell was the word … (Byzantium) Everything Kaldellis says about the toxic biases of academics is absolutely accurate.
It all comes down to cultural bias in the end. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t tragic how the propaganda of Charlemagne’s (not) Holy Roman Empire and it’s power play with the Papacy still manages to keep an organic part ( literally the origin) of Europe at arm’s length even today. The appropriation of the Roman legacy by the Franks is no less awkward and phony than those endless films and series were actors with posh British accents and north European physique are portraying Romans who in reality would look more like your local Greek or Italian restaurant owner, shouting when speaking to each other and speaking simultaneously with their hands 😂
How ironic then that this professor was highly critical (one could even say a raging anti-Papist) - her sphere of interest began and ended with Augustan Rome. I found (the hard way) that grad school profs were self-limiting, regardless of tenure, or discipline - they knew their minuscule area of ‘study’ and that was it. I remember telling this one that i ignore the ‘body’ of the article’s text and go right to the footnotes and the sources therein, (IF any!) the article’s text is simplified pablum, the real guts and info is always in the footnotes, where did they get their info, what feuds are current or longstanding, where are the points of disagreement? That was I wanted to know - she was aghast.
I love the Romans (I hope I didn't start a flame war with that)! I'd love to see more video content about them if possible.) I also really related to the commentary on intergrating Byzantine studies into general studies. First, because I'm black (lol). Second, because I often see a similar issue of "necessity to legitimize by speaking on the terms of the dominant field" when I read African History-related content. I had previously just (provocativelY) called this perceived issue "eurocentrism", because I didn't (care to) think of more neutral language. I'll be sure to s̶t̶e̶a̶l̶ borrow this terminology, though :).
@@occihum9115 history is discipline led by people; the social interactions these individuals have, the beliefs they have, and so on, can greatly impact the direction of the field as a whole. None of this is "sjw"; no where have I provided a political position on any topic aside from a base acknowledgement of reality.
@@hiddenhist Your answer doesn't directly answer something... Let me repeat: your intersectionality ideology cannot be used to explain history. The fact that you needed to put yourself to the "suppressed categories" out of the blue just shows the mentality of your country USA: postmodern sjw "sensitivity".
@@occihum9115 Intersectionality can be informative as to the the study of history, something done by people - what they chose to study, how they approach it, what biases they may or may not hold as they work; I don't tend to look at things in terms of "oppressed" vs "oppressor" because I think such lenses are simplistic, but in this context my specific invocation of one of my "traits" was sensitive to the context of the idea I wanted to convey. I could have easily mentioned my membership in other groups - I'm male, I am not trans, etc, but these wouldn't have been as relevant to the point I was trying to convey at the time I wrote this comment, 1, going on 2 years ago.
I don't take Kaldelis seriously He's inventing a Roman ethnic group that didn't exist but just in a different way than using the term Byzantine. Roman was closer to a citizenship than ethnicity. Like saying british even though Brits can be of different background. .Romans emperors were from an assortment of backgrounds even though they all called themselves. Thats why the Holy Roman empire considered themselves the real Roman empire and the other Greek. If the east were "ethnic" Roman like Kaldellis argues it would be like Japan one day claiming to be the real Chinese.
@@histguy101Most groups that are sola scriptures could care cless about any church councils including Nicea. Ask the average Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. in America and they wouldn't know about the Nicean Creed at all.
constant annoying laughter of daniele on such a serious and sacred subject/ that was not even mentioned during my schooldays in 1970s/ when history was my favourite subject/ this is very disappointing and makes subject seem superficial /GOD RULING HIS EARTH/ THY KINGDOM COME ON EARTH/ the sanctity and spiritual/ intellectual welfare globally of a world ruled by perfect wisdom/in both west and east roman empire is greatly trivialised in this video/please be more serious
Medieval Roman Empire history is quite simply the most fascinating story you can find in history books. For those wanting a fantastic telling of the story of Rome after the fall of the west, I can’t recommend Robin Pierson’s “History of Byzantium” podcast enough. It’s a chronological telling of the story of medieval Rome from the fall of the west to 1453. I listen to that and supplement it with Kaldellis’ excellent podcast, which isn’t a chronological narrative but rather a series of professional and scholarly interviews between Kaldellis and other experts of medieval Roman history.
Just discovered Dr Kaldellis (2023, March) and I would crawl over flaming coals to attend his classes, and my god why wasn’t there someone like this when I was in grad school??? (Late 90’s) I recall asking (once) for courses on something other than Augustian Rome, something like Celtic Europe, post Roman Europe, the Germanic ‘tribes’ and gasp … Byzantium! The professor (also the one designated to nurture the grad students) stares at me with wordless shock. Perhaps it was the Celtic aspect (“they had no culture, no literature, nothing!”) perhaps it’s was the mention of Germanic tribes being treated with wretched disregard, but I was told later the death knell was the word … (Byzantium)
Everything Kaldellis says about the toxic biases of academics is absolutely accurate.
It all comes down to cultural bias in the end. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t tragic how the propaganda of Charlemagne’s (not) Holy Roman Empire and it’s power play with the Papacy still manages to keep an organic part ( literally the origin) of Europe at arm’s length even today. The appropriation of the Roman legacy by the Franks is no less awkward and phony than those endless films and series were actors with posh British accents and north European physique are portraying Romans who in reality would look more like your local Greek or Italian restaurant owner, shouting when speaking to each other and speaking simultaneously with their hands 😂
How ironic then that this professor was highly critical (one could even say a raging anti-Papist) - her sphere of interest began and ended with Augustan Rome. I found (the hard way) that grad school profs were self-limiting, regardless of tenure, or discipline - they knew their minuscule area of ‘study’ and that was it. I remember telling this one that i ignore the ‘body’ of the article’s text and go right to the footnotes and the sources therein, (IF any!) the article’s text is simplified pablum, the real guts and info is always in the footnotes, where did they get their info, what feuds are current or longstanding, where are the points of disagreement? That was I wanted to know - she was aghast.
The Eastern Half of the Empire became the most important half after Aurelian's reign. The "Restutitor Orbis" was from Dalmatia in the East.
I love the Romans (I hope I didn't start a flame war with that)! I'd love to see more video content about them if possible.)
I also really related to the commentary on intergrating Byzantine studies into general studies. First, because I'm black (lol). Second, because I often see a similar issue of "necessity to legitimize by speaking on the terms of the dominant field" when I read African History-related content. I had previously just (provocativelY) called this perceived issue "eurocentrism", because I didn't (care to) think of more neutral language. I'll be sure to s̶t̶e̶a̶l̶ borrow this terminology, though :).
Our definition of the Middle Ages goes back to the fourth century AD, so we could certainly include some Late Roman material.
"I'm black" 😂🤦
Please, your sjw/identity politics USA-style paranoia can't fit into history. Get out
@@occihum9115 history is discipline led by people; the social interactions these individuals have, the beliefs they have, and so on, can greatly impact the direction of the field as a whole. None of this is "sjw"; no where have I provided a political position on any topic aside from a base acknowledgement of reality.
@@hiddenhist Your answer doesn't directly answer something...
Let me repeat: your intersectionality ideology cannot be used to explain history. The fact that you needed to put yourself to the "suppressed categories" out of the blue just shows the mentality of your country USA: postmodern sjw "sensitivity".
@@occihum9115 Intersectionality can be informative as to the the study of history, something done by people - what they chose to study, how they approach it, what biases they may or may not hold as they work; I don't tend to look at things in terms of "oppressed" vs "oppressor" because I think such lenses are simplistic, but in this context my specific invocation of one of my "traits" was sensitive to the context of the idea I wanted to convey. I could have easily mentioned my membership in other groups - I'm male, I am not trans, etc, but these wouldn't have been as relevant to the point I was trying to convey at the time I wrote this comment, 1, going on 2 years ago.
Αmazing podcast!
I don't take Kaldelis seriously He's inventing a Roman ethnic group that didn't exist but just in a different way than using the term Byzantine. Roman was closer to a citizenship than ethnicity. Like saying british even though Brits can be of different background. .Romans emperors were from an assortment of backgrounds even though they all called themselves. Thats why the Holy Roman empire considered themselves the real Roman empire and the other Greek. If the east were "ethnic" Roman like Kaldellis argues it would be like Japan one day claiming to be the real Chinese.
Fucken ads you can watch anything anymore
Not all Christian groups today accept the council of Nicean creed. A very large portion of them do, but not all.
Which ones don't? Do you mean modern denominations that have since rejected it, or ancient factions that never accepted it?
@@histguy101Most groups that are sola scriptures could care cless about any church councils including Nicea. Ask the average Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. in America and they wouldn't know about the Nicean Creed at all.
9:33 this dude knows why were here
Interviewer laughing at random Is so annoying
constant annoying laughter of daniele on such a serious and sacred subject/ that was not even mentioned during my schooldays in 1970s/ when history was my favourite subject/ this is very disappointing and makes subject seem superficial /GOD RULING HIS EARTH/ THY KINGDOM COME ON EARTH/ the sanctity and spiritual/ intellectual welfare globally of a world ruled by perfect wisdom/in both west and east roman empire is greatly trivialised in this video/please be more serious
Touch grass.
Sacred?