An illuminating talk. We tend to think of "Roman emperors" rather than of "emperors of the Romans." The first (incorrect) expression would make the Byzantine emperors "Roman" because they were in a direct line of succession from Augustus. The second (correct) expression makes them "Roman" because they ruled Romans. This centres the identity of the people rather than the identity of their rulers. It is a fact that the "Byzantine" people considered themselves to be Romans, and continued to call themselves such long after the fall of the Eastern Empire. The political organisation of the Roman people was the Roman res publica, or in Greek translation politeia (changing the classical Greek meaning of the term). Again centred on the people. The corollary is that for as long as there was a people who still identified themselves as Romans there could be an empire of the Romans, but no true empire of the Romans could exist without those people.
They considered themselves Romans but not ethnically Roman as Kalderllis incorrectly argues. 180 contrary to his narrative, the eastern Romans discouraged ethnic identities in lew of assimilation into Christians under Roman imperial authority. For instance Leo V, was from Armenian ancestry. Basil the Ist claimed to be related to ALexander the Great. Irene the Athenian seems to have been from Greek heritage. And so. That's precisely why the HRE could claim to be the "real" Roman empire for 1000 years and claimed the other one mostly Greeks.. Kalderis mistake is his redefinition of "ethnic' to mean his modern woke-ish use of the term which is solely identity. It's free of any biological heritage context. It's very similar to the woke redefinition of gender to mean purely sexual identity rather than biological reality. He's sort of consistent within the framework of his redefinitions but the narrative he pushes is extremely deceptive when it comes to the actual heritage of the people in the defacto multi-ethnic eastern Roman empire. For that, one would need real scientists not the narratives of those in the humanities that unprofessionally peddle their personal politics under the veener of science. Population geneciists can answer these questions. Not Kaldrllis and his humanities colleagues who are unqualified to even offer a professional opinion on the matter. (see Alan Sokal's scathing review of some of the pseudo-science going on in the humanities)
I would love to order and read some of Anthony Kaldellis books but ouch they are very expensive on Amazon- why are they so costly? Are there other lectures on youtube by him. The price of his books are just out of my reach.
You're right--Kaldellis is my favorite Byzantine historian working now. I suggest used bookstores such as Better World Books, Abebooks and Alibris. On Alibris, his book Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 to the First Crusade is just over $20. Another good book of his that is just a little more expensive on some websites is The Byzantine Republic published by Harvard. Both of those books would be great to start of his to start with. His short new book from Oxford A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities is $12.46 on Amazon. Obviously, other books get more expensive. But I suggest buying one of the first two. If $20-$30 is too expensive, then I suggest ordering these books through Interlibrary loan. These books are too good not to read if you have interest in Byzantium!
@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων I agree. He is the first historian who criticizes the theories of Peter Charanis and Nicholas Adontz, who claimed the many Eastern Roman Emperors were Armenians.
@@argentianguis6510 Are you somehow offended by the fact that the Armenians, being a very talented people, occupied the most important position in the empire? Are you an ethnic Greek?) If yes, then I’m not surprised, because it’s not the first time I see chauvinistic statements from your compatriots towards Armenians, you seem to be bursting from the inside from the fact that it would seem that the “Greek empire” (for a minute, its Greek called only by the Greeks themselves, for all other people it is called East Roman) was ruled not only by the Greeks, but also by many other peoples, including Armenians. Doesn't it bother you that the empire at its dawn was ruled by Syrians, Illyrians, Thracians? Or was Justinian 1, in your opinion, an ethnic Greek? What about Leo 3? Oh well). You see, the extensive presence of Armenians in Byzantium is undeniable, because Western Armenia and Cilicia and Cappadocia inhabited by them were part of Byzantium, from which the Armenian population accounted for about 30% of the population of the empire. Subsequently, many of them sought the highest posts, from provincial exarchs to generals (Nerses, Kurkuas) and emperors (Heraclius 1, Basil 1, John I Tzimiskes, Artavazd, Leo 5 the Armenian, etc.). Of course, they cannot be called Armenians in the usual sense of the word, since they were all highly Hellenized, but this does not negate the fact of their Armenian ethnicity. I can be born in Ireland, for example, not know Armenian and speak only Irish or English, and also be a bearer of Irish culture, but does that make me an ethnic Irish? No, because genetics is a very complex thing that cannot be changed in any way, unlike national identity and cultural layer. You can consider yourself at least French, German or Italian, but it doesn't matter if you were born, for example, a Spaniard. Regarding the "Armenian emperors" of Byzantium, Anthony suggests very indirect denials of the fact of their Armenian belonging, in other words, his "facts" are rather far-fetched and do little to refute the theory of the Armenian origin of some emperors. Most scholars and historians accepted and continue to accept the fact that the Armenians played an important role in the history of Byzantium, and among them are not only Adonts and Peter Charanis, but also Kazhdan, Vasiliev, Kaegi, Norman Tobias, JB Bury, etc. These are the most authoritative Byzantines, whose opinion is much more difficult to argue with, especially Kaldellis, since he is still small for them). And I advise you to put aside your excessive chauvinism in relation to other peoples and try to be objective in such reasoning.
It is natural that the place where the emperor is, that is, where the power resides, should be called Rome. A Greek word Ρώμη = Rome ,meaning power ,strength.
There is no decisive proof though that the word "Roma" comes from Greek. That is one of the hypotheses, but there are also others which may explain much better the origin of the name "Rome".
@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων In ancient Greek texts the word is written with ω ,Ρώμη = Rome ,and not Ρόμη as it would be written if the word was not Greek. In Greek which means power , follows the displacement of power. Constantinople = New Rome, Moscow = the third Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the Sultanate of Rum, etc. The Greek meaning of the word Rome is also the reason why citizenship was invented for the first time in history calling the citizens Romans, Romoioi , Rum, giving them the "power" =the Roman citizenship. Also don't underestimate the fact that Demaratus (Greek: Δημάρατος), frequently called Demaratus of Corinth, was the father of Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth King of Rome, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last Roman king, and an ancestor of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls of the Roman Republic. Any other etymology of Rome is not serious.
An illuminating talk. We tend to think of "Roman emperors" rather than of "emperors of the Romans." The first (incorrect) expression would make the Byzantine emperors "Roman" because they were in a direct line of succession from Augustus. The second (correct) expression makes them "Roman" because they ruled Romans. This centres the identity of the people rather than the identity of their rulers. It is a fact that the "Byzantine" people considered themselves to be Romans, and continued to call themselves such long after the fall of the Eastern Empire. The political organisation of the Roman people was the Roman res publica, or in Greek translation politeia (changing the classical Greek meaning of the term). Again centred on the people.
The corollary is that for as long as there was a people who still identified themselves as Romans there could be an empire of the Romans, but no true empire of the Romans could exist without those people.
They considered themselves Romans but not ethnically Roman as Kalderllis incorrectly argues. 180 contrary to his narrative, the eastern Romans discouraged ethnic identities in lew of assimilation into Christians under Roman imperial authority. For instance Leo V, was from Armenian ancestry. Basil the Ist claimed to be related to ALexander the Great. Irene the Athenian seems to have been from Greek heritage. And so. That's precisely why the HRE could claim to be the "real" Roman empire for 1000 years and claimed the other one mostly Greeks..
Kalderis mistake is his redefinition of "ethnic' to mean his modern woke-ish use of the term which is solely identity. It's free of any biological heritage context. It's very similar to the woke redefinition of gender to mean purely sexual identity rather than biological reality. He's sort of consistent within the framework of his redefinitions but the narrative he pushes is extremely deceptive when it comes to the actual heritage of the people in the defacto multi-ethnic eastern Roman empire. For that, one would need real scientists not the narratives of those in the humanities that unprofessionally peddle their personal politics under the veener of science. Population geneciists can answer these questions. Not Kaldrllis and his humanities colleagues who are unqualified to even offer a professional opinion on the matter. (see Alan Sokal's scathing review of some of the pseudo-science going on in the humanities)
I would love to order and read some of Anthony Kaldellis books but ouch they are very expensive on Amazon- why are they so costly? Are there other lectures on youtube by him. The price of his books are just out of my reach.
Because, the good stuff are costly ;)
You're right--Kaldellis is my favorite Byzantine historian working now. I suggest used bookstores such as Better World Books, Abebooks and Alibris. On Alibris, his book Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 to the First Crusade is just over $20. Another good book of his that is just a little more expensive on some websites is The Byzantine Republic published by Harvard. Both of those books would be great to start of his to start with. His short new book from Oxford A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities is $12.46 on Amazon. Obviously, other books get more expensive. But I suggest buying one of the first two. If $20-$30 is too expensive, then I suggest ordering these books through Interlibrary loan. These books are too good not to read if you have interest in Byzantium!
Kaldellis furnishes us with a new, refreshing look. Great historian who does not fear going against the grain.
@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων I agree. He is the first historian who criticizes the theories of Peter Charanis and Nicholas Adontz, who claimed the many Eastern Roman Emperors were Armenians.
@@argentianguis6510 Are you somehow offended by the fact that the Armenians, being a very talented people, occupied the most important position in the empire? Are you an ethnic Greek?) If yes, then I’m not surprised, because it’s not the first time I see chauvinistic statements from your compatriots towards Armenians, you seem to be bursting from the inside from the fact that it would seem that the “Greek empire” (for a minute, its Greek called only by the Greeks themselves, for all other people it is called East Roman) was ruled not only by the Greeks, but also by many other peoples, including Armenians. Doesn't it bother you that the empire at its dawn was ruled by Syrians, Illyrians, Thracians? Or was Justinian 1, in your opinion, an ethnic Greek? What about Leo 3? Oh well). You see, the extensive presence of Armenians in Byzantium is undeniable, because Western Armenia and Cilicia and Cappadocia inhabited by them were part of Byzantium, from which the Armenian population accounted for about 30% of the population of the empire. Subsequently, many of them sought the highest posts, from provincial exarchs to generals (Nerses, Kurkuas) and emperors (Heraclius 1, Basil 1, John I Tzimiskes, Artavazd, Leo 5 the Armenian, etc.). Of course, they cannot be called Armenians in the usual sense of the word, since they were all highly Hellenized, but this does not negate the fact of their Armenian ethnicity. I can be born in Ireland, for example, not know Armenian and speak only Irish or English, and also be a bearer of Irish culture, but does that make me an ethnic Irish? No, because genetics is a very complex thing that cannot be changed in any way, unlike national identity and cultural layer. You can consider yourself at least French, German or Italian, but it doesn't matter if you were born, for example, a Spaniard. Regarding the "Armenian emperors" of Byzantium, Anthony suggests very indirect denials of the fact of their Armenian belonging, in other words, his "facts" are rather far-fetched and do little to refute the theory of the Armenian origin of some emperors. Most scholars and historians accepted and continue to accept the fact that the Armenians played an important role in the history of Byzantium, and among them are not only Adonts and Peter Charanis, but also Kazhdan, Vasiliev, Kaegi, Norman Tobias, JB Bury, etc. These are the most authoritative Byzantines, whose opinion is much more difficult to argue with, especially Kaldellis, since he is still small for them). And I advise you to put aside your excessive chauvinism in relation to other peoples and try to be objective in such reasoning.
It is natural that the place where the emperor is, that is, where the power resides, should be called Rome.
A Greek word Ρώμη = Rome ,meaning power ,strength.
There is no decisive proof though that the word "Roma" comes from Greek. That is one of the hypotheses, but there are also others which may explain much better the origin of the name "Rome".
@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων
In ancient Greek texts the word is written with ω ,Ρώμη = Rome ,and not Ρόμη as it would be written if the word was not Greek.
In Greek which means power , follows the displacement of power. Constantinople = New Rome, Moscow = the third Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the Sultanate of Rum, etc.
The Greek meaning of the word Rome is also the reason why citizenship was invented for the first time in history calling the citizens Romans, Romoioi , Rum, giving them the "power" =the Roman citizenship.
Also don't underestimate the fact that
Demaratus (Greek: Δημάρατος), frequently called Demaratus of Corinth, was the father of Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth King of Rome, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last Roman king, and an ancestor of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls of the Roman Republic.
Any other etymology of Rome is not serious.
New RHCP goes hard
Each one has a perspective, his is just another one
Με ελληνικούς υπότιτλους το θέλουμε.