Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium

A history of denial -- Roman ethnicity -- Romanland -- Ethnic assimilation -- The Armenian fallacy -- Was Byzantium an empire in the tenth century? -- The apogee of empire in the eleventh century.;Was there ever such a thing as the Byzantine Empire and who were those self-professed Romans we choose to call "Byzantine" today? At the heart of these two interlinked questions is Anthony Kaldellis's assertion that empires are, by definition, multiethnic. If there was indeed such a thing as the Byzantine Empire, which rules bounded majority and minority ethnic groups? The labels for the minority groups in Byzantium are clear - Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, Muslims. What was the ethnicity of the majority group? Historical evidence tells us unequivocally that no card-carrying Byzantine ever called himself "Byzantine." He would identify as Roman. This line of identification was so strong in the eastern empire that even the conquering Ottomans saw themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire. In Western scholarship, however, there has been a long tradition of denying Romanness to Byzantium. In the Middle Ages, people of the eastern empire were made "Greeks," and by the nineteenth century they were shorn of their distorted Greekness and turned "Byzantine." In Romanland, Kaldellis argues that it is time for historians to take the Romanness of Byzantines seriously so that we can better understand the relations between Romans and non-Romans, as well as the processes of assimilation that led to the absorption of foreign groups into the Roman genos.-- Was There Ever Such A Thing As The Byzantine Empire And Who Were Those Self-professed Romans We Choose To Call Byzantine Today? At The Heart Of These Two Interlinked Questions Is Anthony Kaldellis's Assertion That Empires Are, By Definition, Multiethnic. If There Was Indeed Such A Thing As The Byzantine Empire, Which Rules Bounded Majority And Minority Ethnic Groups? The Labels For The Minority Groups In Byzantium Are Clear - Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, Muslims. What Was The Ethnicity Of The Majority Group? Historical Evidence Tells Us Unequivocally That No Card-carrying Byzantine Ever Called Himself Byzantine. He Would Identify As Roman. This Line Of Identification Was So Strong In The Eastern Empire That Even The Conquering Ottomans Saw Themselves As Inheritors Of The Roman Empire. In Western Scholarship, However, There Has Been A Long Tradition Of Denying Romanness To Byzantium. In The Middle Ages, People Of The Eastern Empire Were Made Greeks, And By The Nineteenth Century They Were Shorn Of Their Distorted Greekness And Turned Byzantine. In Romanland, Kaldellis Argues That It Is Time For Historians To Take The Romanness Of Byzantines Seriously So That We Can Better Understand The Relations Between Romans And Non-romans, As Well As The Processes Of Assimilation That Led To The Absorption Of Foreign Groups Into The Roman Genos.-- Part I. Romans: A History Of Denial -- Roman Ethnicity -- Romanland -- Part Ii. Others: Ethnic Assimilation -- The Armenian Fallacy -- Was Byzantium An Empire In The Tenth Century? -- The Apogee Of Empire In The Eleventh Century. Anthony Kaldellis. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. A leading historian argues that in the empire we know as Byzantium, the Greek-speaking population was actually Roman, and scholars have deliberately mislabeled their ethnicity for the past two centuries for political reasons. 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. "Was there ever such a thing as the Byzantine Empire and who were those self-professed Romans we choose to call "Byzantine" today? At the heart of these two interlinked questions is Anthony Kaldellis's assertion that empires are, by definition, multiethnic. If there was indeed such a thing as the Byzantine Empire, which rules bounded majority and minority ethnic groups? The labels for the minority groups in Byzantium are clear - Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, Muslims. What was the ethnicity of the majority group? Historical evidence tells us unequivocally that no card-carrying Byzantine ever called himself "Byzantine." He would identify as Roman. This line of identification was so strong in the eastern empire that even the conquering Ottomans saw themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire. In Western scholarship, however, there has been a long tradition of denying Romanness to Byzantium. In the Middle Ages, people of the eastern empire were made "Greeks," and by the nineteenth century they were shorn of their distorted Greekness and turned "Byzantine." In Romanland, Kaldellis argues that it is time for historians to take the Romanness of Byzantines seriously so that we can better understand the relations between Romans and non-Romans, as well as the processes of assimilation that led to the absorption of foreign groups into the Roman genos"--Provided by publisher Was there ever such a thing as the Byzantine Empire and who were those self-professed Romans we choose to call "Byzantine" today? At the heart of these two interlinked questions is Anthony Kaldellis's assertion that empires are, by definition, multiethnic. If there was indeed such a thing as the Byzantine Empire, which rules bounded majority and minority ethnic groups? The labels for the minority groups in Byzantium are clear - Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, Muslims. What was the ethnicity of the majority group? Historical evidence tells us unequivocally that no card-carrying Byzantine ever called himself "Byzantine." He would identify as Roman. This line of identification was so strong in the eastern empire that even the conquering Ottomans saw themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire. In Western scholarship, however, there has been a long tradition of denying Romanness to Byzantium. In the Middle Ages, people of the eastern empire were made "Greeks," and by the nineteenth century they were shorn of their distorted Greekness and turned "Byzantine." In Romanland, Kaldellis argues that it is time for historians to take the Romanness of Byzantines seriously so that we can better understand the relations between Romans and non-Romans, as well as the processes of assimilation that led to the absorption of foreign groups into the Roman genos.-- Provided by publisher 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.0Historical 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 Cover 1 Title Page 4 Copyright 5 Contents 6 Maps 8 Preface 10 Part I. Romans 20 1. A History of Denial 22 2. Roman Ethnicity 57 3. Romanland 100 Part II. Others 140 4. Ethnic Assimilation 142 5. The Armenian Fallacy 174 6. Was Byzantium an Empire in the Tenth Century? 215 7. The Apogee of Empire in the Eleventh Century 252 Conclusion 288 Abbreviations 298 Notes 300 Bibliography 344 Index 382 Was there ever such a thing as Byzantium? Certainly no emperor ever called himself Byzantine. While the identities of eastern minorities were clear, that of the ruling majority remains obscured behind a name made up by later generations. Anthony Kaldellis says it is time for the Romanness of these so-called Byzantines to be taken seriously.