| Title | : | Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0674986512 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780674986510 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 392 |
| Publication | : | First published April 1, 2019 |
Was there ever such a thing as Byzantium? Certainly no emperor ever called himself "Byzantine." And while the identities of minorities in the eastern empire are clear--contemporaries speak of Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, and Muslims--that of the ruling majority remains obscured behind a name made up by later generations.
Historical evidence tells us unequivocally that Byzantium's ethnic majority, no less than the ruler of Constantinople, would have identified as Roman. It was an identity so strong in the eastern empire that even the conquering Ottomans would eventually adopt it. But Western scholarship has a long tradition of denying the Romanness of Byzantium. In Romanland, Anthony Kaldellis investigates why and argues that it is time for the Romanness of these so-called Byzantines to be taken seriously.
In the Middle Ages, he explains, people of the eastern empire were labeled "Greeks," and by the nineteenth century they were shorn of their distorted Greekness and became "Byzantine." Only when we understand that the Greek-speaking population of Byzantium was actually Roman will we fully appreciate the nature of Roman ethnic identity. We will also better understand the processes of assimilation that led to the absorption of foreign and minority groups into the dominant ethnic group, the Romans who presided over the vast multiethnic empire of the east.
Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium Reviews
-
I really a good academic fight, and this book delivered one. Mr. Kaldellis names names and delivers a first round knock out in this academic dispute. In fairness, his job was easy because the facts are on his side, along with the current views of ethnicity in across all academic disciplines that supports his thesis.
It's to the point where I highly doubt anyone will dare to publish a substantive critique of the overall thesis, because to do so would be to admit to gross biases that border on racist and run contrary to academic consensus on treatments of ethnicity.
Instead, what we're likely to see is a bunch of articles picking nits over minute points and disputing the translation of this source or that, or disputing an interpretation of this source or that. This way the old guard of byzantine studies can firmly plant their flag in favor of 19th century academic thinking on Byzantium without having to openly admit to 19th century thinking on ethnicity. Their attacks will, they hope, discredit the overall thesis without them having to actually disagree with it and exposing themselves to criticism.
In the short run, this might work. But in the long run it's as they say: science advances one funeral at a time. -
I mean, sure, but the “Byzantine” label is applied because (1) the seat of power shifted from the city of Rome to the city of Byzantium, and (2) the monotheistic Byzantine era was distinct from the polytheistic Roman era. I really don’t know why this is such a controversial concept. Culture changes, and at some point that means it’s become something else. Saying the Byzantines wouldn’t have identified themselves as anything other than Roman is fine, but the modern-day residents of modern-day Rome, Italy also identify as Roman, and they are obviously not the same as pre-Christian Romans, so where’s the line?
-
This was a massive book for me because it cleared up incredible amounts of misunderstanding I had about Byzantium. If only all my history classes from a young age had described the Byzantine as clearly as this book. Highly recommended.
-
This book explains what I think when it comes to the survival of the Romans and their state in the East throughout the middle ages. Kaldellis is trying to change the approach when it comes to "Byzantine" studies, and I consider that he is doing justice to the Romans by doing so.
This book addresses the common Western negationism and bias against the eastern Romans that started in the middle ages, and the concept of Roman ethnicity that hasn't been previously addressed by scholarship (as far as I know). I also support Kaldellis' notions of nation-state and empire when it comes to Romanía in the tenth and eleventh centuries. I think that the part of the book regarding Armenia could have been more convincing, but I believe that the main goal of this work was achieved. I did enjoy this book (especially the first part), and it's a must for people interested in the field. -
An inclusive book that immerses everyone into a forgotten world. The world of the Eastern Roman Empire or Rhomania. This forgotten world is not so forgotten in terms of historical knowledge as it is known under a completely wrong and misleading name (Byzantium).Therefore the establishment of its real name creates a new perspective on how the history of this state is perceived.
The authors gives a lot of arguments based on a multitude of primary sources from the people whose identity has been completely changed. The reasons of this identity alteration are also mentioned in this book.
One star minus because the author is trying so hard to prove the Romanness of the people of this state trying to prove what is obvious for many readers of the book. This, however, leads to some conclusions about ethnicity which for some researchers could prove to be dogmatic. -
A spectacular effort by the author to make his case that the population of the Byzantine Empire believed themselves to be Romans and a step further, that they were ethnically Romans. A must read for anyone interested in identity in Byzantium.
-
An excellent and cogent book that, although covering a fairly niche topic, is not written in such a way that might exclude a non-academic.
This is not to say that it has been an easy read for me, for Kaldellis does not pull any punches on refuting the theses of others - many of whom I have read, or even met. Yet any uncertainty based on subconscious personal loyalties on my part could be readily put aside in light of Kaldellis' evident good-intentioned passion for the subject and his often irresistible argument.
Whilst I find myself duly convinced by much of his argument, there are aspects which have evoked some doubts and I look forward immensely to delving into further into this debate. This, of course, being a reaction that any academic book worth its salt should inspire. -
Required reading if you're interested in byzantine history
